Connect with us

Business

Social Security sends incorrect email saying ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ ends taxes on benefits—here’s what is actually changing

Published

on



The Social Security Administration sent a misleading email to benefit recipients and other Americans last week about the Republican budget bill that was recently signed into law by President Donald Trump. Advocates are now trying to correct the record to ensure beneficiaries know how the legislation could affect their tax bill.

On July 3, Social Security sent an email and posted a press release saying that “the new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” It also says “nearly 90%” of beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on the benefit. While eliminating taxes on Social Security had been proposed by Republican politicians, that provision was ultimately taken out of the version of the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” that became law because it violated Senate rules.

Instead, the law allows Americans aged 65 or older to take an additional $6,000 income tax deduction. Notably, this does not include beneficiaries who are aged 62 to 64. The agency updated the press release Monday to note the deduction after outcry and media coverage.

The difference could confuse beneficiaries, according to National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a non-profit advocating to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The group also notes that the political messaging behind the email—it heralds the “landmark” legislation—is “unprecedented” for the SSA, which is supposed to be a neutral agency managing the benefits of some 73 million Americans. SSA did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment.

Trump made a point of promising to end taxation on Social Security benefits on the campaign trail. As Republican politicians worked to put their budget bill together, many promised to include the provision.

But in order to pass the legislation using a process called reconciliation, it was determined that the GOP could not include a provision on Social Security taxes. Instead, they substituted in the higher deduction for older Americans.

The senior ‘bonus’ deduction

The legislation signed into law last week does, however, include a provision that allows Americans aged 65 and older to deduct an additional $6,000 on their federal income taxes, in addition to the standard deduction, which is already bigger for seniors than it is for younger Americans. Those who itemize also qualify for it. For married couples, both spouses can take the deduction if they are both over 65, for a total of $12,000 extra.

Like other provisions in the bill, it is time limited: It is in effect only for the 2025 to 2028 tax seasons. It also applies to those earning a modified adjusted gross income up to $75,000, or double that for married couples. It then begins to phase out for incomes above that threshold, and is not available to individuals earning $175,000, or couples earning $250,000.

According to the White House, this provision will increase the share of seniors receiving Social Security who will not pay income tax on their benefits from 64% to 88%.

The poorest seniors won’t benefit from the break, because they already do not pay Social Security taxes (the White House’s own analysis notes 64% already do not)—nor the richest, given the income phaseout. Instead, it is upper-middle class seniors who stand to benefit for the next few years. Those with incomes below $63,300 pay about 1% or less of their benefits, on average, in taxes, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Additionally, this portion of the bill actually hastens the program’s insolvency, a concern for many Americans, because the taxes seniors pay on the benefits go back into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for future generations. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates the provision would bring the trust fund to insolvency one year sooner than current calculations. Once that happens, Social Security beneficiaries would face an across-the-board benefit cut of around 24%, CRFB says.

Other provisions in the bill are also expected to disproportionately affect older Americans. For example, it changes eligibility for and cuts federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) starting in 2027, which 11 million adults aged 50 and older rely on, according to AARP. New work requirements on Medicaid could also prevent some older Americans from receiving benefits.

Social Security has become a lightening rod for controversy since Trump’s inauguration in January. The agency was an early target of the administration’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk, which has worried advocates who say it is becoming overly-politicized.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

U.S. consumers are so strained they put more than $1B on BNPL during Black Friday and Cyber Monday

Published

on



Financially strained and cautious customers leaned heavily on buy now, pay later (BNPL) services over the holiday weekend.

Cyber Monday alone generated $1.03 billion (a 4.2% increase YoY) in online BNPL sales with most transactions happening on mobile devices, per Adobe Analytics. Overall, consumers spent $14.25 billion online on Cyber Monday. To put that into perspective, BNPL made up for more than 7.2% of total online sales on that day.

As for Black Friday, eMarketer reported $747.5 million in online sales using BNPL services with platforms like PayPal finding a 23% uptick in BNPL transactions.

Likewise, digital financial services company Zip reported 1.6 million transactions throughout 280,000 of its locations over the Black Friday and Cyber Monday weekend. Millennials (51%) accounted for a chunk of the sizable BNPL purchases, followed by Gen Z, Gen X, and baby boomers, per Zip.

The Adobe data showed that people using BNPL were most likely to spend on categories such as electronics, apparel, toys, and furniture, which is consistent with previous years. This trend also tracks with Zip’s findings that shoppers were primarily investing in tech, electronics, and fashion when using its services.

And while some may be surprised that shoppers are taking on more debt via BNPL (in this economy?!), analysts had already projected a strong shopping weekend. A Deloitte survey forecast that consumers would spend about $650 million over the Black Friday–Cyber Monday stretch—a 15% jump from 2023.

“US retailers leaned heavily on discounts this holiday season to drive online demand,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement. “Competitive and persistent deals throughout Cyber Week pushed consumers to shop earlier, creating an environment where Black Friday now challenges the dominance of Cyber Monday.”

This report was originally published by Retail Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI labs like Meta, Deepseek, and Xai earned worst grades possible on an existential safety index

Published

on



A recent report card from an AI safety watchdog isn’t one that tech companies will want to stick on the fridge.

The Future of Life Institute’s latest AI safety index found that major AI labs fell short on most measures of AI responsibility, with few letter grades rising above a C. The org graded eight companies across categories like safety frameworks, risk assessment, and current harms.

Perhaps most glaring was the “existential safety” line, where companies scored Ds and Fs across the board. While many of these companies are explicitly chasing superintelligence, they lack a plan for safely managing it, according to Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute.

“Reviewers found this kind of jarring,” Tegmark told us.

The reviewers in question were a panel of AI academics and governance experts who examined publicly available material as well as survey responses submitted by five of the eight companies.

Anthropic, OpenAI, and GoogleDeepMind took the top three spots with an overall grade of C+ or C. Then came, in order, Elon Musk’s Xai, Z.ai, Meta, DeepSeek, and Alibaba, all of which got Ds or a D-.

Tegmark blames a lack of regulation that has meant the cutthroat competition of the AI race trumps safety precautions. California recently passed the first law that requires frontier AI companies to disclose safety information around catastrophic risks, and New York is currently within spitting distance as well. Hopes for federal legislation are dim, however.

“Companies have an incentive, even if they have the best intentions, to always rush out new products before the competitor does, as opposed to necessarily putting in a lot of time to make it safe,” Tegmark said.

In lieu of government-mandated standards, Tegmark said the industry has begun to take the group’s regularly released safety indexes more seriously; four of the five American companies now respond to its survey (Meta is the only holdout.) And companies have made some improvements over time, Tegmark said, mentioning Google’s transparency around its whistleblower policy as an example.

But real-life harms reported around issues like teen suicides that chatbots allegedly encouraged, inappropriate interactions with minors, and major cyberattacks have also raised the stakes of the discussion, he said.

“[They] have really made a lot of people realize that this isn’t the future we’re talking about—it’s now,” Tegmark said.

The Future of Life Institute recently enlisted public figures as diverse as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and rapper Will.i.am to sign a statement opposing work that could lead to superintelligence.

Tegmark said he would like to see something like “an FDA for AI where companies first have to convince experts that their models are safe before they can sell them.

“The AI industry is quite unique in that it’s the only industry in the US making powerful technology that’s less regulated than sandwiches—basically not regulated at all,” Tegmark said. “If someone says, ‘I want to open a new sandwich shop near Times Square,’ before you can sell the first sandwich, you need a health inspector to check your kitchen and make sure it’s not full of rats…If you instead say, ‘Oh no, I’m not going to sell any sandwiches. I’m just going to release superintelligence.’ OK! No need for any inspectors, no need to get any approvals for anything.”

“So the solution to this is very obvious,” Tegmark added. “You just stop this corporate welfare of giving AI companies exemptions that no other companies get.”

This report was originally published by Tech Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Hollywood writers say Warner takeover ‘must be blocked’

Published

on



Hollywood writers, producers, directors and theater owners voiced skepticism over Netflix Inc.’s proposed $82.7 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s studio and streaming businesses, saying it threatens to undermine their interests.

The Writers Guild of America, which announced in October it would oppose any sale of Warner Bros., reiterated that view on Friday, saying the purchase by Netflix “must be blocked.”

“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the guild said in an emailed statement. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

The worries raised by the movie and TV industry’s biggest trade groups come against the backdrop of falling movie and TV production, slack ticket sales and steep job cuts in Hollywood. Another legacy studio, Paramount, was sold earlier this year.

Warner Bros. accounts for about a fourth of North American ticket sales — roughly $2 billion — and is being acquired by a company that has long shunned theatrical releases for its feature films. As part of the deal, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has promised Warner Bros. will continue to release moves in theaters.

“The proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business,” Michael O’Leary, chief executive officer of the theatrical trade group Cinema United, said in en emailed statement Friday. “The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theaters from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents.”

The buyout of Warner Bros. by Netflix “would be a disaster,” James Cameron, the director of some of Hollywood’s highest-grossing films in history including Titanic and Avatar, said in late November on The Town, an industry-focused podcast. “Sorry Ted, but jeez. Sarandos has gone on record saying theatrical films are dead.”

On a conference call with investors Friday, Sarandos said that his company’s resistance to releasing films in cinemas was mostly tied to “the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer friendly.”

The company said Friday it would “maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.”

On the call, Sarandos reiterated that view, saying that, “right now, you should count on everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros.” 

Competition from online outfits like YouTube and Netflix has forced a reckoning in Hollywood, opening the door for takeovers like the Warner Bros. deal announced Friday. Media giants including Comcast Corp., parent of NBCUniversal, are unloading cable-TV networks like MS Now and USA, and steering resources into streaming. 

In an emailed note to Warner Bros. employees on Friday, Chief Executive Officer David Zaslav said the board’s decision to sell the company “reflects the realities of an industry undergoing generational change in how stories are financed, produced, distributed, and discovered.”

The Producers Guild of America said Friday its members are “rightfully concerned about Netflix’s intended acquisition of one of our industry’s most storied and meaningful studios,” while a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America raised concerns about future pay at Warner Bros.

“We will be meeting with Netflix to outline our concerns and better understand their vision for the future of the company,” the Directors Guild said.

In September, the DGA appointed director Christopher Nolan as its president. Nolan has previously criticized Netflix’s model of releasing films exclusively online, or simultaneously in a small number of cinemas, and has said he won’t make movies for the company.

The Screen Actors Guild said Friday that the transaction “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.”

Oscar winner Jane Fonda spoke out on Thursday before the deal was announced. 

“Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world,” the star of the Netflix series Grace and Frankie wrote on the Ankler industry news website.

Netflix and Warner Bros. obviously don’t see it that way. In his statement to employees, Zaslav said “the proposed combination of Warner Bros. and Netflix reflects complementary strengths, more choice and value for consumers, a stronger entertainment industry, increased opportunity for creative talent, and long-term value creation for shareholders.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.