Social Security Update: Here's How Much Payments Could Rise in 2026
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.
Social Security payments are likely to rise in 2026, according to a new cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) estimate based on today's inflation.
The latest projection for the 2026 COLA is 2.5 percent, which would enable Social Security beneficiaries to experience a modest increase in their monthly benefits.
Why It Matters
Inflation has led to increases in Social Security payments to reflect the cost-of-living changes seniors face in their everyday lives.
In 2022, the COLA was set at 5.9 percent, and in 2023, seniors experienced an 8.7 percent increase from the COLA due to widespread inflation.
Nearly 70 million Americans receive Social Security payments each month, with a significant portion of those recipients being retirees who rely on the funds for basic living expenses.
Newsweek reached out to the Social Security Administration for comment via email.
A Social Security Administration office in Washington, D.C., as seen on March 26, 2025.
A Social Security Administration office in Washington, D.C., as seen on March 26, 2025.
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
What To Know
Retirees can likely expect a COLA of 2.5 percent in 2026, according to a new estimate from Mary Johnson, a Social Security and Medicare policy analyst.
That would match the COLA for 2025, which was also set at 2.5 percent.
This prediction is based on the consumer price index, which rose 2.4 percent year over year in May. The CPI-Q, also known as the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, grew by just 2.2 percent, marking the lowest increase since 2020.
President Donald Trump's recently enforced tariffs have not yet made a major impact on inflation, but if the tariffs have a significant effect on prices, the COLA could surge higher.
"It's almost pointless to try to predict it, as it's just going to match up with the CPI-W," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek.
"Most advisers agree that the bigger issue is the CPI-W may not be the best COLA measure for seniors, and often results in a lower COLA increase than the CPI-E, or Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, would have delivered. That small shortfall, compounded over a number of years, results in a dire situation for our oldest citizens."
What People Are Saying
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "It's still difficult to say where the COLA adjustment will land. Right now, we're seeing more modest increases in-line with last year's, but this trajectory could change if there is a pricing impact from the tariff policy being implemented. So far, though, that impact hasn't been seen on most items, and you're seeing that reflected in not a sizable uptick in this adjustment."
The Senior Citizens League previously said in a recent report: "If the government fails to act and the CPI's data quality begins to erode, it increases the likelihood of the government providing a COLA that doesn't match inflation. While there's a chance that any miss could be higher than actual inflation, it's just as likely that a miss would be low. A COLA that comes in under inflation would set seniors back for the rest of their retirement, as Social Security checks compound over time with each additional COLA."
What Happens Next
The Social Security Administration will officially announce the 2026 COLA in October. This will be based on the most recent inflation data for the third quarter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans now want to boost minimum wage? The GOP is turning fiscally liberal
Republicans now want to boost minimum wage? The GOP is turning fiscally liberal | Opinion Republican Sen. Josh Hawley is teaming up with Sen. Bernie Sanders to push a liberal policy on minimum wage. Why? Show Caption Hide Caption What does the GDP mean for the future of the U.S. economy? How will the latest GDP numbers impact the U.S. economy moving forward? Republicans, for a long time, had the right idea on economics with their embrace of the free market. The phrase "Free markets, free people" has been often quoted as a description of the GOP's economic view for decades. Now that is rapidly changing. President Donald Trump has already made his economic illiteracy clear, and Republicans in Congress have proved their fiscal policy to be entirely irresponsible, but now a Republican senator is endorsing a higher federal minimum wage, among other ill-fated left-wing policies. The correct minimum wage is $0, and Republicans would be wise to revisit the free market principles that guided the GOP of the past. Republican Party abandoning conservative free market principles The Republican Party is completely abandoning the market-based approach to economics that it had become synonymous with for decades. The first apparent example of this is Trump's protectionist tariff policies, which hike taxes in the interest of protecting certain industries from foreign competition. These taxes are passed on to the consumer and limit growth. The newest example is Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who is in cahoots with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, in proposing legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, up from $7.25 an hour. Hawley has a history of opposing free market principles, including legislation capping credit card interest rates, opposing right-to-work laws, and now his endorsement of a higher minimum wage. Opinion: Trump's dysfunctional government can learn from these Republican governors Hawley's growing left-wing economics are a part of a troubling trend within the GOP, in which Republican elected officials are becoming more sympathetic to state involvement in the economy far beyond simply encouraging competition. For a long time, we had the prudence not to embrace policies that gave the state more say in the economy, but now Republicans are increasingly willing to do so. Nothing about these types of policies is conservative, and they are damaging to the country and the Republican Party. The result is that both major parties have prominent voices advocating for more government involvement in the economy and, in turn, our daily lives. Americans don't need a federal minimum wage Employment is an agreement between individuals. The true value of labor is somewhere between the minimum wage someone is willing to work for and the highest wage that someone is willing to pay. Republicans have long resisted minimum wage raises because minimum wage laws are seen as an intervention into the market approach to wage setting. Republicans rightly criticized California's $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers at the time of its signing in September 2023, and that bill led to at least 9,600 job losses a year later. Private sector fast-food employment in California decreased by 1.1% despite 1.6% growth nationally over the same period. Opinion: Newsom comes with too much baggage. Democrats need a new voice for 2028. Minimum wage laws surely increase the standard of living for those employees who are able to keep their jobs, but at the expense of those who are priced out of the labor market entirely. When President Joe Biden and Democrats made their push to raise the federal minimum wage in 2021, estimates foretold that while wages would rise for 17 million Americans, 1.4 million would lose their jobs. That push was unsuccessful at the time, and average hourly pay has risen since then, which both lowers the number who would be priced out of the market and the number who would see financial benefit from a minimum wage hike, but such a policy remains ill-advised. In addition to all of that, federal minimum wage laws impact regions very differently. If there are to be minimum wage laws, they should be enacted at the most local form of government possible. There is no reason why New York City residents should be under the same minimum wage as rural Montana. A higher federal minimum wage implies that the federal government is better equipped to make judgments about local economies than local governments themselves. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Many blue cities have already enacted their own minimum wage laws, thereby making it so that a higher federal wage would even further disproportionately impact more rural Americans, who have fewer job prospects than those in large cities. Republicans are ditching the free market principles that made America wealthy in exchange for the Democrats' love for big government. All of this is happening because Republicans in the Trump era crave power rather than prosperity. It's far easier to promise the government will fix your problems than to give people the freedom to fix them themselves. Democrats have known this for years, and Republicans like Hawley are taking a page out of their playbook. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Senate Tax Bill Differs From House Bill: What to Know
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. Senate lawmakers have released proposed tax changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, making a number of changes to the budget plan approved by the House of Representatives in May. Why It Matters The bill is the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's economic agenda for his second term in office. The Senate Committee on Finance argues its proposal of changes to the bill "prevents the largest tax hike in history" and provides tax relief for families and businesses. But its critics have said it will hand wealthy Americans unfair tax breaks. Stock image: United States Capitol is seen, taken October 27, 2024 in Washington D.C. Stock image: United States Capitol is seen, taken October 27, 2024 in Washington D.C. GETTY State and Local Tax (SALT) The Senate's proposed text released on Monday includes no change from the current $10,000 SALT (state and local tax) deduction cap, down from the $40,000 limit approved by House Republicans in May. Since 2018, single and joint filers can only deduct up $10,000 in SALT payments, as part of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). It is particularly pertinent for high-tax states such as New York, California, and New Jersey, where residents often pay significantly more in property, income, and sales taxes. The unchanged cap has caused some concern among Republican lawmakers, and the Senate will likely continue to negotiate the cap point up until the self-imposed July 4 deadline. "We understand that it's a negotiation," Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Monday. "Obviously, there had to be some marker. We are prepared to have discussions with our colleagues here in the Senate and figure out a landing spot." Republicans on the other side of Congress have said that, despite the Senate committee's changes, they remain committed to the raised cap. "We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill," California's Young Kim and New York's Andrew Garbarino said in a joint statement. "Instead of undermining the deal already in place and putting the entire bill at risk, the Senate should work with us to keep our promise of historic tax relief and deliver on our Republican agenda." No Tax on Tips The Senate Finance Committee's proposal would limit tax breaks on tipped income and overtime pay—one of Trump's major pledges during the 2024 election campaign. The House version allowed deductions on income up to $160,000 annually. The Senate plan offers a $25,000 deduction, which begins to phase out for single filers earning over $150,000 and couples earning over $300,000. For overtime pay, Senate Republicans also propose a $25,000 deduction for joint filers. Child Tax Credit Under the Senate proposal, the Child Tax Credit would increase to just $2,200—$300 less than the $2,500 proposed by the House. The CTC is currently $2,000, but faces a drop to the pre-TJCA amount, which is $1,000, at the end of this year if not extended. Earned Income Tax Credit The Senate proposal adds a new "certification program" to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which helps low-income workers, especially those with children. It reduces the amount of tax owed and may result in a refund. Eligibility and credit amount depend on income, filing status, and number of qualifying children. The new certification program for the credit will require taxpayers to provide information and documentation to "establish a child's status as a qualifying child of the taxpayer for a tax year." Critics have said the idea has already been tested and failed, and could lead some to lose the credit, which is worth up to $7,830 for families with three children. "The Bush administration tried and abandoned this idea 20 years ago, and the current, depleted IRS is not equipped to administer such an expansive new requirement," said the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left-leaning think tank. Greg Leiserson, senior fellow at the New York University Tax Law Center, said it would "lead to an unprecedented number of audits, overwhelmingly focused on low- and moderate-income workers." What Happens Next The modified bill will be debated by the Senate and return to the House for a final vote before Trump can sign it into law.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Third of businesses planning further job cuts after national insurance hikes
A third of business owners have said they plan to cut more jobs after being hit by higher national insurance contributions (NICs) in April, according to new research. Many companies have also suggested they will cut back hours, freeze pay and hike prices in order to help cover increased tax payments. S&W's business owners sentiment survey revealed around 20% of those quizzed said they have already reduced their staff numbers as a 'direct result' of the NICs changes which came into effect in April. Last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in her autumn budget that employers' NICs would rise from 13.8% to 15%, while the threshold at which firms would start paying also increased. The increase came in at the same time as the jump in the national living wage and reduced business rates relief for some firms. The survey found 33% of business owners said they were still planning further cuts to staff numbers after feeling the impact of the tax increase. Firms said they were also looking to a series of other measures in order to offset the jump in their operating costs. The survey of 500 UK business owners with turnovers of £5 million upwards also showed 46% of those surveyed said they were planning further price increases as a result. Meanwhile, 35% of business owners said they planned to reduce staff hours and 29% said they were looking at freezing pay. It comes as firms highlighted higher commodity and energy costs, as well as disruption from wider macroeconomic uncertainty. Claire Burden, partner in consulting at S&W, said: 'Businesses face considerable challenges in the current economic climate and many owners are having to make difficult decisions to stay afloat. 'Given that salaries represent a considerable proportion of the overall cost base for most businesses, it is to be expected that many are looking closely at headcounts in response to the increased national insurance costs.' Alex Simpson, partner in employer solutions at S&W, said: 'For most businesses, the extent of the employers' NIC change was a surprise. 'We anticipated an increase in the employers' rate, but the additional reduction to the earnings threshold was not expected and is expected to have a dramatic impact over time.' A Government spokesman said: 'We are a pro-business government. We are protecting the smallest businesses from the employer national insurance rise, shielding 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure business properties from paying full business rates and have capped corporation tax. 'We delivered a once-in-a-Parliament budget last year that took necessary decisions on tax to stabilise the public finances, including the NHS which has now seen waiting lists fall five months in a row. 'We are now focused on creating opportunities for businesses to compete and access the finance they need to scale, export and break into new markets.'
