When do you get your SSI check for July? See full 2025 schedule
Those who get Supplemental Security Income checks will be getting them on a normal schedule in July.
SSI recipients got two checks in May – their May SSI payment issued on May 1 and their June payment on May 30 – because of quirks in the Social Security Administration's calendar. Typically, the payments are issued on the first day of the month, and the May 1 payment went out as expected. But because June 1 fell on a weekend, the payment was sent on May 30, the last business day of May.
Payments in July and August will arrive on a more normal schedule, with the July payment issued on Tuesday, July 1, and the August payment on Friday, Aug. 1, according to the SSA calendar.
Social Security: 3 reasons I'll be taking benefits long before age 70
SSI beneficiaries will also get two checks in August, October and December. That's because the first date of the following month lands on a weekend or holiday.
Here are the dates for SSI payments for the rest of 2025, according to the SSA calendar:
There are about 7.4 million Americans who may be disabled or have limited resources getting monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit payments.
SSI provides benefits for those with limited income or resources, those aged 65 or older, and those who are blind or have a qualifying disability. Children with a qualifying disability can also get SSI, according to the Social Security Administration's website.
Adults who earn more than $2,019 from work monthly, typically do not qualify for SSI. About one-third of those SSI recipients also get a benefit from Social Security.
Those who may be eligible for SSI can begin the application process online, in person at your local Social Security office, or by calling 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778) from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. local time during the work week.
Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @mikegsnider.bsky.social & @mikesnider & msnider@usatoday.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Dave Ramsey warns Americans on buying a car
Buying a new car involves multiple major decisions for most Americans, beginning with the process of determining whether one's existing vehicle is due for a replacement. After that, budget constraints and financial priorities come into play, adding pressure to make a smart selection. Financial expert and radio personality Dave Ramsey provides guidance - and offers a warning - with a goal of helping car buyers navigate this process wisely and confidently. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Ramsey encourages car buyers to let go of the idea that there's a flawless, dream vehicle out there waiting to be discovered. Instead, he stresses the importance of choosing a car that suits one's real-world needs and financial situation. That starts with asking yourself practical questions - such as whether a car or a truck makes more sense for your lifestyle, how many passengers you typically transport, what kind of fuel efficiency you want, and how much space you need for cargo. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words on spending money to keep a dog alive Ramsey points out the fact that no single vehicle will fulfill every desire. The key is to be honest about what's truly necessary versus what's simply a nice-to-have, and to think ahead about how the car will serve you over time. He also advises taking your time with the search - exploring both traditional dealerships and online listings to get a full view of your options. Most importantly, don't rush into the first deal that looks good, Ramsey advises. There may be better choices just around the corner. But there is one unfortunate car-buying fact about which Ramsey has a warning - and a suggestion to make it work in your favor. Image source: Getty Images Dave Ramsey urges car buyers to start with a dose of realism: Vehicles lose value rapidly - up to 60% within the first five years. Because of this steep depreciation, he cautions against viewing a car purchase as any sort of investment. In his view, buying a brand-new car is something only those with significant disposable income should even consider. He advises buyers to begin by finding a quality used car they can genuinely afford. That involves a big early commitment, Ramsey says, that focuses on the amount of cash one is able to pay up front rather than relying on loans or leases, which he considers poor financial decisions. More on personal finance: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s "Remember, leasing or financing a car will not help you build wealth," Ramsey wrote. "It's much easier to save around $500 a month (the average car payment) for 10 months and buy a used car with no strings attached." In general, when it comes to the common debate over leasing or financing, Ramsey is clear: Neither route supports long-term financial health. He argues it makes far more sense to put aside the equivalent of an average car payment for several months and purchase a quality used vehicle outright - free of debt, interest, and multi-year obligations. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on buying vs. leasing a car Ramsey advises prospective car buyers to conduct a hands-on inspection - even without mechanical expertise - before making a purchase. He suggests paying attention to simple but telling details such as fluid levels, including oil, coolant, transmission, and brake fluid. On the vehicle's exterior, he recommends examining the paint, tire wear, lights, and doors for signs of damage or neglect. Inside, Ramsey recommends checking for wear on the seats, steering wheel, and pedals, along with making sure all doors lock properly. Functional heating and air conditioning are also important to test, and the temperature gauge should be observed while the car idles to catch any overheating issues. He embraces the step of taking the vehicle for a test drive to assess how it handles both smooth and uneven roads. Pay attention to how the engine sounds during acceleration and listen for any unusual noises when braking, he urges. Before finalizing any deal, Ramsey advises bringing in a trusted mechanic for a thorough inspection - either at a garage or with a mobile service. Lastly, Ramsey underscores the importance of negotiating the price with confidence. Paying in cash, he notes, offers the leverage needed to secure a better deal with less pressure. Related: Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Seniors on Social Security Just Got Some Really Tough News
Social Security's trust funds will be depleted by 2034. This is a year earlier than expected. It's likely the government will reform the program so significant benefit cuts aren't necessary. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › You probably know by now that retirement isn't all about carefree fun. Living off a fixed income can be tough, especially if you weren't able to save as much as you wanted to when you were younger. So every dollar you have, including your Social Security checks, matters. Unfortunately, the latest Social Security Trustees Report has raised concerns about the program's solvency. This is a serious issue for seniors who rely heavily on their Social Security benefits to carry them through the next few decades. But that doesn't mean you'll soon be covering your expenses all on your own either. Social Security has been spending more money than it's taken in every year since 2021, and that problem continues to worsen. Baby boomers retiring en masse and fewer workers in younger generations to replace them has meant that Social Security tax revenue isn't enough to pay out everyone's benefits. So far, the program has stayed afloat by making up the difference with money in the program's trust funds. But this won't work forever. Eventually, those trust funds will run out, and Social Security could face a shortfall when it does. When Social Security will run out of money has always been a bit of a moving target. Last year, the Trustees Report predicted depletion in 2035. But this year's report now estimates that the trust funds will be depleted a year earlier. This may be due to the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act earlier this year, which increased benefits for certain retirees, and which was projected to accelerate trust fund depletion by six months. This wouldn't be the end of Social Security, though. It would continue to receive revenue from workers paying Social Security payroll taxes and seniors who owe income taxes on a portion of their benefits. Together, this would be enough to cover the majority of Social Security benefits payable today. The 2024 Trustees Report estimated that after trust fund depletion, the program could pay out about 83% of scheduled benefits. The 2025 report puts this a little lower -- around 81%. In either case, you'd definitely continue to get something from the program in 2035 and beyond. That said, a nearly 20% benefit cut is a serious concern, particularly for those who have little to no personal savings. But it probably won't happen. Though the deadline has moved up a little, the government has been aware of Social Security's looming insolvency for years, and this isn't the first time this has happened either. Last time, Congress made changes, like adding Social Security benefit taxes, to bring in more money so it wouldn't have to slash benefits. It's likely this happens again, though we don't know when Washington will make the changes or what they'll look like. Benefit cuts remain a possibility, but it's unlikely they would be 20%. And they may not happen at all. The government might decide to increase the Social Security payroll tax rate that workers pay or increase the ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax (currently $176,100 in 2025). This would force wealthier Americans to pay more into the program. For now, all we can do is wait to see what happens. But once there's a plan in place, it'll be time to revisit your budget and figure out how you'll cover your expenses moving forward. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known 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. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Seniors on Social Security Just Got Some Really Tough News was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
