How Social Security Benefit Payments Changed Over the Last Year
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Americans relying on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) have seen a modest but steady increase in their monthly payments, over the past 12 months.
The change represents a 2.3 percent increase in monthly average payments over the year, closely mirroring the 2.5 percent Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) announced by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for 2025.
Why It Matters
The changes in Social Security payments impact millions of Americans who depend on the benefits to meet their basic living expenses.
Even slight monthly increases can make a meaningful difference for those on fixed incomes, especially during periods of rising costs. The most recent COLA, announced by the SSA, aims to preserve the purchasing power of beneficiaries amid inflationary pressures.
For 2025, the COLA was set at 2.5 percent, affecting Social Security and SSI benefits. These annual adjustments are designed to ensure that benefits keep pace with inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
What To Know
From March 2024 to March 2025, the average SSI payment has increased by $16.36 per month, translating to a modest year-over-year percentage gain. The average benefit amount rose from $699.22 in March 2024 to $715.58 in March 2025. The increase is in line with inflation and $699.22 in March 2024 has the same buying power as $715.94 in March 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The increase was most notable in January 2025, when the average monthly payment jumped from $696.70 in December to $714.37. The surge aligns with the start of the new COLA adjustment cycle.
While average payments rose, the number of recipients saw only minor fluctuations. In March 2024, there were 7,403,919 recipients; by March 2025, that number had slightly increased to 7,414,184. This stability in recipient numbers suggests that while benefit levels are rising, there has not been a major shift in the demographic relying on the payments.
The SSA has also highlighted efforts to expedite retroactive payments and implement enhancements tied to broader legislative changes, such as the Social Security Fairness Act.
In a February 2025 update, the agency noted it was increasing monthly benefits and beginning backdated disbursements under the new law.
A woman stands outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California.
A woman stands outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California.
VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images
What People Are Saying
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "After the dramatic fluctuations in some benefits programs over the pandemic era, the SSI numbers over the last year demonstrate a stabilization both of recipients and the amount they're receiving. It can be viewed as a good sign, in some ways, because it equates to fewer inflationary pressures, even if pricing remains high for many everyday items."
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek: "The average monthly change since March has been pretty stable after that initial January increase. What's interesting is that the COLA for 2025 is actually dropping to 2.5%, which tells us inflation is cooling down a bit."
Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "In real terms, seniors are a little worse off in 2025 because their SSI payments are not keeping up with the inflation they experience. Over time, these small differences add up and compound into a serious shortfall for the elderly.
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "If you look closely, you'll notice a steady rise in recipients after September 2024. That lines up with the policy change where food was no longer counted as in-kind support, which helped boost eligibility and benefit amounts."
What Happens Next
Recipients can expect continued COLA adjustments each year based on inflation metrics, with the next update to be announced later in 2025 for January 2026.
The SSA is expected to maintain close monitoring of economic conditions and update payment structures accordingly.
Meanwhile, legislative attention remains focused on the long-term solvency of the Social Security trust fund.
Without reform, current projections suggest that funding shortfalls could begin in the mid-2030s, potentially reducing benefits unless corrective action is taken by Congress.
Until then, beneficiaries can anticipate incremental changes tied to the cost of living, with annual COLAs serving as the primary mechanism for keeping payments aligned with economic realities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
30 minutes ago
- Axios
Starbucks taps into health trends with protein coffee test
LAS VEGAS — Starbucks is tapping into the growing demand for protein-packed drinks as consumers seek to boost their intake for health and wellness. Why it matters: The world's largest coffee chain unveiled Tuesday that it is testing protein in its cold foam as part of its "Back to Starbucks" plan. CEO Brian Niccol is trying to reverse a decline in foot traffic and sales by returning to its roots. The big picture: Protein is hot and having a moment beyond social media influencers sharing order hacks. Restaurant brands like Dutch Bros Coffee and Smoothie King have added more protein to their products to cater to changing consumer appetites. Eating a high-protein diet is important to maintain muscle for people taking appetite-suppressing injectable treatments like Ozempic and Wegovy, research shows. Nearly 18 million Americans are expected to be taking versions of GLP-1 drugs by 2029, according to investment bank UBS. Zoom in: Niccol told Axios in an interview Tuesday that the protein cold foam being tested is for a number of different consumer groups including 20-year-old males, 50-year-old females and people taking GLP-1s. "I was watching people coming to our stores, they would get three shots of espresso over ice," Niccol said. "And in some cases, they pull their own protein powder out of their bag, or in other cases, they have a protein drink, like a Fair Life and they'd pour that into their drink." "I'm like, well, wait a second, we can make this experience better for them," he said. "The good news is now I think we're right on trend, and we can do it I think arguably better than anybody else." Flashback: Starbucks had protein smoothies in the past and launched its Vivanno shakes in 2008. They were discontinued in 2018. The company also launched a protein drink in the U.K. last year. The intrigue: Starbucks said the protein powder should be able to be added to any of its cold foam flavors. What's next: Starbucks is testing protein cold foam in five locations in the U.S. under its Starting Five model.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams' ‘emergency' spending is out of control — now NYC must hit the brakes
New Yorkers, like all Americans, tend to stock up when any crisis is about to hit: We fill up our gas tanks, empty the bread and egg shelves at grocery stores and buy enough toilet paper to last for months. It's human nature — and for far too long, New York City's government has been behaving the very same way. But City Hall's panic reaction is far worse, and does far more damage. Advertisement In recent emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the asylum-seeker influx, city government kept on 'crisis buying' for more than a year, without ever comparing prices or rooting out contractor abuse, fraud and waste. It's time for drastic change: We must reform the city's out-of-control emergency procurement practices and add vital checks and balances. Currently, when the mayor declares a state of emergency, the city's comptroller and corporation counsel suspend their ordinary oversight regarding contracts and procurement. Advertisement In theory, this allows City Hall to respond quickly and obtain necessary goods and services to alleviate the crisis. In practice, it means the city can award no-bid contracts for up to one year — contracts that, having bypassed the competitive bidding that's normally required, can be rife with waste and abuse. Imagine purchasing a car or searching for your next apartment without competitively price-shopping for those big-ticket items. That's what City Hall does whenever the mayor declares an emergency. City agencies aren't even required to send 'emergency' contracts to the comptroller for auditing before laying out taxpayer cash. In fact, 84% of such contracts filed between January 2022 and September 2023 were submitted more than 31 days after the contract start date. Advertisement Both Mayor Eric Adams and former Mayor Bill de Blasio spent billions of dollars on the asylum-seeker and COVID crises, respectively, drawing multiple allegations of corruption and pay-to-play politics. This uncontrolled spending was especially acute during the pandemic, as de Blasio extended 'emergency' contracts a whopping 100-plus times and spent nearly $7 billion on emergency supplies with no oversight or limiting guardrails. In the private sector, affordability is a prime factor when choosing bids on contracts. The city's emergency procurement process throws such considerations to the wind, leading to reckless overspending. During COVID, City Hall paid top dollar for ventilators and N95 masks it never received — and in one case, paid an absurd $7.50 apiece for cloth masks. Advertisement Its fire sale of nearly $224 million worth of COVID-era surplus items, from ventilators to face shields, only recouped $500,000, a downright outrage. The current administration is no better, awarding a $432 million emergency contract for asylum-seeker services to an untested company called DocGo. Its dreadful performance — with problems like chronic food waste, moldy hotel rooms, unlicensed security guards and an uncredentialed CEO who was forced to resign — resulted in an investigation by the state attorney general. Even in non-emergency circumstances, the city has never reined in city contractors who utilize loopholes to enrich themselves. Take the company owned by David Levitan, listed as one of New York City's worst landlords. For over a quarter century, the city has repeatedly used Levitan's properties as homeless shelters — buildings with rotted floors, broken elevators, rat infestations and peeling lead paint. Levitan has even required some of the nonprofits operating shelters within his buildings to subcontract with his own maintenance or extermination companies to service the properties — reaping even more revenue from our tax dollars. It's time for reform, top to bottom. Advertisement Emergencies, by their very definition, are short in duration. Accordingly, they should necessitate a strictly time-limited use of no-bid contracts, for instances when competitive bidding will truly hinder the city's response. That's why I am introducing two bills in the New York City Council this week to update our lackadaisical, irresponsible procurement processes. These bills will limit all emergency contracts to 30 days, unless both the comptroller and corporation counsel approve of an extension. If passed, the laws will require all contracts be sent to the comptroller for auditing within 15 days of signing, and will increase subcontractor transparency with fines of up to $100,000 for not disclosing to the city any conflicts of interest or competing contractual obligations. Advertisement New York's broken contracting system has price-gouged our taxpayers for far too long — and recent mayoral administrations have shown no appetite to follow good-government procurement practices. It's up to the City Council to advance this vital legislation, saving precious fiscal resources, restoring responsibility and rooting out corruption. City Council Member Julie Menin (D) represents the East Side of Manhattan and chairs the Consumer and Worker Protection Committee.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump bill pledges $1,000 contribution for babies. How much would that be in Tennessee?
Another addition to the President Donald Trump's tax bill is a program to provide financial support for children born in the United States. The program would create the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement program, or MAGA accounts. Through the program, there would be a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government to the child, and parents, churches, or private foundations are also eligible to contribute financially to the account. House Republicans changed the name of the program from "MAGA accounts" to "Trump accounts" before the bill's passage last month, offering the president a tangible benefit for working-class Americans that he can put his stamp on. Here is what current and future parents can expect from the program. The program for American children born during Trump's current term would involve a one-time contribution of $1,000 per toddler from the federal government into a mutual fund or index fund tied to the performance of the stock market. The legislation touts the program as "a new kind of savings account designed to incentivize education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership while promoting financial security." The accounts are eligible to all future children born and all children under the age of eight by the time Jan. 1, 2026, rolls around. The bill also allows parents, churches, and private foundations to make contributions of up to $5,000 annually during childhood, which the child can access upon turning 18 to pay for education, training, or a first-time home purchase. Contributions to these accounts from tax-exempt entities, like private foundations, are not subject to the annual $5,000 limit but must be provided to all children within a qualified group, such as all children in a state, a school district, or an educational institution. The full balance would be available at age 30. CEOs of several large corporations said they would make billions of dollars in additional investments into accounts for the children of their employees. Dell Technologies, Salesforce, Uber, and Goldman Sachs were among the companies the White House said would participate. According to the University of Tennessee's data center, there were 83,742 live births in Tennessee in 2024. This was the highest number of children born since 2008, when 85,560 babies were born. The program pertains to children under eight years old as of Jan. 1, 2026. There were 489,884 live births in Tennessee between 2019 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. Taking into account the rising birth rates, a low estimate for 2025's live births would be 83,000, which would increase the total children eligible to 572,884. This would amount to $572,884,000 for Tennessee alone, assuming every child eligible is signed up for the program. In 2023, Tennessee had a fertility rate of 58.9 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is the 14th highest fertility rate in the country. This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Trump bill sets up cash accounts for kids. How much would TN get?
