Josh Riley opens first two district offices
(WIVT/WBGH) – Congressman Josh Riley has announced the opening of his first two offices in New York's 19th Congressional District.
Riley announced on Wednesday that the Binghamton and Leeds district offices are now open to the public. The offices will have staff available to help constituents navigate federal government services.
The Binghamton office is located at 49 Court Street, Suite 210. It is open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and is available by phone at (607)242-0200.
The Leeds office is located at 49 Gilfeather Park Road, Unit 1 and is open by appointment only. To schedule an appointment, call (518)625-2100.
Josh Riley takes oath of office in Washington
Constituents are encouraged to call ahead to schedule appointments for casework assistance or meetings with the Congressman and his staff.
'Providing exceptional constituent services is one of my office's top priorities,' said Riley. 'Whether you're a veteran navigating VA benefits, a senior with questions about Social Security, or a family resolving a passport issue, my dedicated team is here to help. From the Catskills and the Hudson Valley to the Southern Tier and Finger Lakes, and every small town in between, we are committed to delivering results for the people of New York's 19th District.'
Josh Riley opens first two district offices
Snow showers and gusty winds bring more isolated snow squalls today
Binghamton-inspired film making international debut
VINES gives a Winter update to Binghamton Rotary
World record holder performs feats of strength at Seton
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A record number of people are claiming Social Security — but what's really the best age to start?
Elon Musk may have made a recent dramatic exit from DOGE, but the impact of his cost-cutting crusade in the federal government is still being felt widely — including among Social Security recipients. DOGE cuts to Social Security staff, closures of field offices and restrictions on filing by phone caused confusion and fear among recipients and applicants. The uproar was so great that the agency walked back many of the changes. But rising concerns about the future of the program may be driving many people to apply for their Social Security benefits earlier than they otherwise would have — and that can have permanent, long-term consequences for their financial well-being, according to experts. More Americans than ever filed for Social Security benefits in the first half of the fiscal year. According to Social Security data, the Urban Institute found 267,000 more claims filed from October to April than in that time period in the previous year, and found more seniors were claiming it early — before the full retirement age of 67. That amounts to a 13% year-over-year increase in claims. Over the decade before that, claims typically only grew by 3% a year. While the institute said an increase in eligible recipients from the baby boomer population and new notification requirements were likely factors, those did not fully explain the recent surge in early filing. The acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration said fear and confusion over DOGE cuts were at play, with calls to the SSA and visits to field offices also on the rise. Laura Quinby, who studies Social Security and other topics as the associate director of research for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said if people think the program isn't going to exist or is going to be cut in the near future, it makes them want to pull money out of it while they still can. In 2021, she co-authored a report showing that anxiety about the future of Social Security as perceived through headlines drove people to say they'd claim their benefits earlier than they would have otherwise. A reader named Marie wrote to me to say the election had influenced her decision to go ahead and apply for her benefits. Though she'd initially planned to wait until she turned 70 in 2026 to claim Social Security, 'with Trump being elected it seemed like the difference between collecting this year versus next year wasn't worth it.' She said she started taking it in February. But claiming early — even by one year — comes with a downside: Though you're eligible to claim Social Security benefits as early as 62, you get an 8% increase in benefits for every year you wait, up to age 70, when the maximum benefit kicks in. The maximum monthly benefit if you start claiming at age 62 in 2025 is $2,831. If you waited until age 70 to start claiming this year, your monthly benefit could be as high as $5,108. 'Fear has really started to set in among seniors who are jumping on to Social Security at the age of 62 in record numbers because they feel like, 'I've got to get on this thing because it might be gone,' and people weren't thinking that way until this year,' said Chris Orestis, the president and founder of Retirement Genius. 'You had skepticism, but you didn't have fear.' Fear is rarely a good reason to make a decision as life-altering as when you claim Social Security. So how should seniors be thinking about this choice? Here's what experts say. Should people be worried about the future of Social Security? People are concerned about the future of the program, one of the bedrocks of retirement in America since it began in 1935. Quinby was specifically studying how people responded to headlines about the potential future insolvency of the program as it is structured now. The most recent report from the Social Security Trustees, issued in May, indicated that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund 'will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033.' But that doesn't mean Social Security is doomed to disappear in eight years. If the program kept running as it does now with no changes, the report said Social Security would still be able to pay out 79% of current benefits starting in 2033. And there are many tools at the government's disposal to tweak Social Security and bolster that trust fund or otherwise augment the program, said Christine Benz, director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar and author of the book 'How to Retire: 20 Lessons for a Happy, Successful and Wealthy Retirement.' Those could include lifting the current cap on income that's taxed for Social Security, adding means testing for recipients, increasing the payroll tax, upping the age you can claim, or a variety of other instruments. Benz said she sometimes hears from young people who tell her they just assume they'll never get a dime from Social Security. She said she doesn't think that's true. The program will have to be changed to maintain the current level of benefits, but it's highly improbable that it will go away in any of our lifetimes. She said for people who are currently age 55 or older, she wouldn't anticipate any changes to benefit amounts. 'The idea that there would be meaningful changes to their promised benefits seems to me incredibly unlikely,' she said. 'I think Congress would open every cupboard and turn over every drawer before upending people's promised benefits.' It makes sense that the recent headlines have made people nervous, Orestis said. Currently, $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are on the table in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Trump's spending and tax package working its way through Congress. But unlike those programs, he said, Social Security and Medicare are supported by armies of lobbyists, activists, advocacy organizations and a committed voting base of senior citizens. Simply put: These programs are popular, and most politicians — who, unlike Musk, all need to be reelected at some point — won't want to risk the backlash to any serious cuts. While we should take Musk and his DOGE cohort at their word that they're looking to root out waste and fraud, Orestis said he thinks they're unlikely to find much in Social Security. The changes made by DOGE so far have faced immense pushback, and some, like cuts to phone service, have already been undone. And though the Trump administration and DOGE seem to be running the show now, Orestis said that insolvency date eight years from now is 'an eternity' in the world of politics. What's the best age to claim Social Security? When you choose to take Social Security, you're locking yourself in at that amount of monthly benefits. Apart from the yearly cost of living adjustment, there's no way to go back or 'pause' receiving benefits to take advantage of a later retirement age. For 40% of retirees, Social Security makes up more than half their income; for about a third, it makes up all of it. Therefore, it is generally to your benefit to delay taking it as long as possible, so that you maximize your monthly fixed income. Of course, what's broadly right for a lot of people isn't necessarily right for you. If you are unable to work and have no other means of income, then you need to claim Social Security. And if you have a family history of shorter lifespans, it could make more financial sense to claim earlier. Social Security distributes benefits with the assumption that the average person will have an average lifespan, currently 84 for men and 87 for women; up until that age, the total lifetime amount you collect from Social Security would be about the same whether you claimed at 62 or 70. If people in your family generally don't live that long, collecting on the earlier side could mean you bring in more income from Social Security overall than you would have if you'd waited longer, though you'd have less monthly income at your disposal in your later years. It's also OK to take your anxiety about the news into account as you make your decision, said Hal Hershfield, a professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management who studies behavioral decision-making. 'If you feel like you're someone that will get value out of dialing down the uncertainty by taking the money now, but knowing full well that if you had waited, you might have actually worked out to have more money later, then maybe in that case it makes sense to claim earlier,' he said. So the 'best' age, according to financial experts, is likely still 'as late as you possibly can.' But personal finance is always personal. For people looking to delay taking Social Security but off-ramp from full-time work, there are options. Quinby said the Center for Retirement Research has looked at the so-called 'bridge option,' where people spend down their 401(k) or other savings in their 60s to facilitate delaying guaranteed inflation-protected Social Security income. Hershfield of UCLA said his parents opted to work part time. (If you continue working while claiming benefits, especially if you haven't reached full retirement age, your benefits will be reduced if you earn above a certain income level.) Orestis of Retirement Genius said even if you go on Social Security at 62, you aren't eligible for Medicare until 65. He tells people to do whatever they can to at least stretch their working years with employer-sponsored health insurance until they can access those government-provided medical benefits. He also recommended something everyone can do right now to protect their benefits: Log on to and create your account. From there, you can see your lifetime earnings from your very first paycheck. You can (and should) download those records so you have a hard copy in case anything ever happens to the federal government's database.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Denmark Raises Retirement Age to 70 - Could The US Do The Same?
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. Workers in Denmark have been rocked by the news that the government has approved raising the retirement age to 70 - the highest in Europe. For now, the Danish can retire with their public pension at 67, but that threshold will gradually climb to 70 by 2040. Reports indicate that some Danes are unhappy with the decision, with protests taking place in the capital, Copenhagen, in the lead-up to the vote in May. Across the world, retirement ages increase because people live longer, placing strain on pension systems. Fewer workers support more retirees, prompting reforms to ensure financial sustainability. Longer work lives boost productivity and tax revenue. However, this shift can disadvantage those in physically demanding jobs or with health issues who can't delay retirement, experts have explained to Newsweek. Retirement in the U.S. The news from Denmark comes as the U.S. full retirement age (FRA) also changes, albeit to 67, for those born in 1960 and after. The FRA has been steadily rising since legislation was passed by Congress in 1983, a move made to help shore up the Social Security trust funds that pay benefits to more than 70 million Americans in 2025. This means that anyone claiming benefits before reaching this age will face a permanent financial penalty, reducing their Social Security payments for the rest of their life. If retiring at 67, older Americans can get their full insurance amount, and if they retire later, they can get even more. Even as the U.S. retirement age has already crept up, some lawmakers have indicated they want it raised even further. The Republican Study Committee, comprising 170 GOP lawmakers, published a budget proposal in 2024 that advocated for "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees, to account for increases in life expectancy"—raising the retirement age to 69. In December, Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Social Security Fairness Act to raise the full retirement age all the way to 70, proposing three-month annual increases until reaching that threshold, but it was not adopted. These have been touted as solutions to the looming Social Security funding issue. As it stands, in 2035, the funds that help pay for benefits along with payroll taxes will run dry, forcing a 17 percent across-the-board cut in benefit payments unless Congress acts to shore up the system by increasing its revenue, reducing benefits or a combination of both. Other options include raising payroll taxes, cutting benefits for future recipients, or a combination of all three. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the FRA to 70 would address roughly half of the system's 75-year shortfall. "Raising the retirement age is part of the solution, but not a standalone fix," Jeremy Clerc, co-founder and CEO of Assists and a contributing writer at Assisted Living Magazine, told Newsweek, given the huge impact it could have on future retirees. Steep, Dangerous and Complex Regardless of whether raising the retirement age is chosen as the path to helping Social Security toward longstanding solvency, a later FRA could see different types of workers face potentially unfair disparities. "Not everyone reaches their late 60s in the same shape — physically, financially, or emotionally," Clerc said. "In senior living, we see the disparities up close. For some, two extra years of work is manageable; for others, it's a steep, even dangerous, climb. Reform needs to reflect that complexity." For Clerc, the answer is clear. "Absolutely—and significantly so," Clerc said when asked whether lower-income and blue-collar workers would suffer disproportionately. "They live shorter lives, reducing their years to collect benefits. They're also more likely to perform physically demanding, manual labor, which limits the ability to work longer." Jonathan Price, senior vice president and retirement practice leader at benefits consultancy Segal, agrees. "Delaying Social Security's retirement age will put additional stress on those in physically demanding roles," he explained to Newsweek. "They will likely need to drop out of the labor force and claim Social Security prior to the new retirement age. "Delaying Social Security normal retirement age would likely have an oversized impact," particularly on those who are forced to retire and claim benefits earlier than 67 - or in a raised FRA scenario, 69. IMAGE TO BE REPLACED. IMAGE TO BE REPLACED. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Clerc said that raising the FRA could slash average lifetime benefits by nearly 20 percent, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It's hard to justify asking a warehouse worker or home health aide to stay on the job into their late 60s or 70s," he said. "These are the same people who burn out early, face chronic pain, and often die younger—yet they'd be the ones asked to wait longer for benefits they've paid into their whole lives." Price warns that policy changes could also ripple through the workforce in unexpected ways. "If SSA's retirement ages were to be delayed, then Americans may need to work longer," he said. "What impact will that have on their employers, opportunities for colleagues moving up through the ranks, and overall labor participation? People and organizations will need time to prepare for those types of changes. It's going to be a big adjustment." How Do Americans Feel? Despite repeated calls from some policymakers to raise the retirement age, most Americans aren't buying it. Polls conducted in recent years indicate strong opposition to a higher FRA. A Data For Progress survey from 2023 found that only 8 percent of voters supported the idea of raising the FRA over 67. Clerc said that if it were to happen, it requires being done with care and that raising the retirement age "must be implemented gradually, equitably, and as part of a holistic reform package." "If we push people to work longer, we need to think about what that means—for them, for their families, and for the economy," Price said.
