Latest news with #CBPP
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Security: Where seniors could face longest drive times to offices
(NewsNation) — A study published on May 27 found that 25% of the nation's population has over an hour-long drive to the nearest Social Security field office. A Center for Budget and Policy Priorities study showed that 13.5 million seniors are affected by the lack of closer field offices, with some being further away when factoring in traffic. The previously proposed phone cuts were stopped. However, if you don't pass the anti-fraud check, you will have to go to an office. It is estimated that these changes will require over 1.93 million additional trips to Social Security offices each year. The CBPP said that, without traffic, half of seniors are at least 33 minutes from a Social Security office. Family earning under $200K can only afford to live comfortably in 7 states: Report According to the CBPP study, in 31 states, more than 25% of seniors will face travel times of over one hour to get to a local Social Security office. In some less-populated states, this number jumps to over 40% of seniors who would need to drive more than an hour. Growing number of Americans say tipping culture is 'out of control' The states in that over 40% category include: Arkansas Iowa Maine Mississippi Montana Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Vermont Wyoming There are other states where 25% to 39% of seniors would have to travel over an hour. Some of those states include Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Virginia. The driving times listed in this study don't factor in how long it can take to get an appointment or the time spent waiting for that appointment to start, according to CBPP. Back in February, it was reported that there would be major cuts in Social Security. However, the Trump administration did limit what Elon Musk could accomplish in terms of firing federal employees in March. Social Security did say that it planned on cutting 7,000 employees at one point. Trump tax bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade: CBO It had been reported previously that the Department of Government Efficiency planned on closing some Social Security offices across the nation. However, at this point, that hasn't happened. The Social Security Administration also denied plans to close local field offices. The agency is already dealing with slower wait times. Online data from the SSA shows that only 43% of individuals are able to get a benefits appointment within 28 days. There have also been reports that the agency plans to add artificial intelligence to its phone systems. It is unclear how that could affect wait times. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Security: Study shows where seniors could face longest drive times to offices
(NewsNation) — A study published on May 27 found that 25% of the nation's population has over an hour-long drive to the nearest Social Security field office. A Center for Budget and Policy Priorities study showed that 13.5 million seniors are affected by the lack of closer field offices, with some being further away when factoring in traffic. The previously proposed phone cuts were stopped. However, if you don't pass the anti-fraud check, you will have to go to an office. It is estimated that these changes will require over 1.93 million additional trips to Social Security offices each year. The CBPP said that, without traffic, half of seniors are at least 33 minutes from a Social Security office. Family earning under $200K can only afford to live comfortably in 7 states: Report According to the CBPP study, in 31 states, more than 25% of seniors will face travel times of over one hour to get to a local Social Security office. In some less-populated states, this number jumps to over 40% of seniors who would need to drive more than an hour. Growing number of Americans say tipping culture is 'out of control' The states in that over 40% category include: Arkansas Iowa Maine Mississippi Montana Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Vermont Wyoming There are other states where 25% to 39% of seniors would have to travel over an hour. Some of those states include Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Virginia. The driving times listed in this study don't factor in how long it can take to get an appointment or the time spent waiting for that appointment to start, according to CBPP. Back in February, it was reported that there would be major cuts in Social Security. However, the Trump administration did limit what Elon Musk could accomplish in terms of firing federal employees in March. Social Security did say that it planned on cutting 7,000 employees at one point. Trump tax bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade: CBO It had been reported previously that the Department of Government Efficiency planned on closing some Social Security offices across the nation. However, at this point, that hasn't happened. The Social Security Administration also denied plans to close local field offices. The agency is already dealing with slower wait times. Online data from the SSA shows that only 43% of individuals are able to get a benefits appointment within 28 days. There have also been reports that the agency plans to add artificial intelligence to its phone systems. It is unclear how that could affect wait times. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows How Many Could Lose SNAP Benefits in Each State
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. More than 7 million Americans are at risk of losing some of their SNAP benefits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Why It Matters The bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives in May and is now being considered in the Senate, proposes a slew of major changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides food assistance to more than 40 million Americans—12 percent of the overall population. The proposed reforms could impact millions by tightening eligibility, shifting program costs to states, and limiting future benefit increases. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, said the passage of the bill would constitute "by far the largest cut to SNAP in history"—and millions could see a reduction or total loss of their benefits. What To Know Across all 50 states, 7.4 million are at risk of losing some of their benefits, the CBPP reports. Texas is the state where the most people stand to lose, with some 683,000 expected to face cuts. In 2024, some 3,193,000 people claimed food assistance in Texas, with around 21 percent of beneficiaries are likely to be impacted. In California, which has the highest number of SNAP claimants in the country, the CBPP predicts 645,000 will have their benefits reduced or lost—11 percent of the 5,380,000 recipients in the Golden State. The state with the least amount of people expected to have their benefits impacted by the GOP bill is Wyoming, where 7,000 are at risk. However, given that 29,000 people in the Equality State claim SNAP, this translates to nearly a quarter of all beneficiaries—24.1 percent. In New Mexico, the state with the highest proportion of SNAP recipients to its general population, 120,000 could lose some or all of their food assistance. Here, 26.5 percent (120,000) of 451,200 beneficiaries may be impacted. What People Are Saying The CBPP said in its May 28 report: "As a result of these cuts and other policies in the legislation—which are being used to pay partly for trillions in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy—millions of people would lose some or all of the food assistance they need to afford groceries, when many low-income households are struggling to afford the high cost of food and other basic needs." Jennifer Greenfield, associate professor at University of Denver who specializes in the intersection of health and wealth disparities, told Newsweek: "The proposed changes to the SNAP program would be a disaster for hungry families and for states. States across the country are already facing significant budget shortfalls, and off-loading the costs of running SNAP programs from the federal budget to state budgets will force states to choose between cutting spending on health care and education or reducing food access for their most vulnerable families." President Donald Trump, in a post on Truth Social, said the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will "make sure SNAP is focused on Americans ONLY!" What Happens Next The fate of the legislation moves to the GOP-controlled Senate this week, where potential changes to the House-approved bill will be considered.
Axios
23-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Child tax benefit increase leaves out millions of kids, analysis says
The poorest kids in the country miss out on the full benefits of the expanded child tax credit in the " big beautiful bill." Why it matters: The bill now making its way to the Senate provides more tax breaks to higher earners than those at the bottom. By the numbers: The Republican bill raises the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child from $2,000 for three years. 20 million children would not fully benefit from the increase, according to an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), since their parents don't earn enough income to get the maximum amount. "A majority of those children get nothing from the proposed expansion," says Kris Cox, director of federal tax policy at the CBPP. 17 million children as of now do not receive the full benefit from this tax credit, per the CBPP. None of them will get anything from the expansion. How it works: Under current law, families need upward of $30,000 a year to receive the full tax credit amount, explains Joe Hughes, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Parents who are poor and don't owe income taxes can only claim up to $1,700 per child, known as the "refundability cap." It's a number which adjusts annually for inflation. The new bill didn't raise the refundability cap. Instead, it only increases the maximum that parents, earning less $400,000 a year, can claim. A married couple filing jointly would need to earn $48,550 to receive the full tax credit under the new bill, per CBPP estimates. Under current law, a married couple has to earn $36,800. Zoom out: The new bill widens the gap between what's available to kids in higher income families and those who need help most. For example: A married couple with two children earning $400,000 a year, the max income allowed to claim the credit, would get an additional $1,000 tax credit. A single parent with two children, earning $24,000 a year, would get nothing, Cox explains in a recent Bluesky post. The parents who miss out on the full benefit are those working in low-paying jobs like cashiers, home health aids and housekeepers. Presumably a few of these parents are tipped employees who could benefit from the no-tax-on-tips provision of the bill. However, just as with this the child tax credit, many earn too small an income to benefit. The other side: The standard defense here is that low-income Americans don't pay very much in taxes. Their tax burden is low, so they shouldn't get the full credit because they don't need the tax relief. White House spokesman Kush Desai says wealth inequality decreased after the 2017 tax bill, and the new bill would lock that success in place. He adds that it builds on that success "by eliminating taxes on tips and overtime in addition to rewarding American manufacturing with full equipment and factory expensing to turbocharge America's economic resurgence." Between the lines: This big bill faces big hurdles ahead in the Senate — and the bond market — and it's not clear what will eventually make it through. The intrigue: The legislation also blocks another 4.5 million children from benefiting from the child tax credit because now to claim it, both parents, if they are filing jointly, must have their own Social Security numbers. Under current law, parents who don't have Social Security numbers can claim the credit if their child has one. So, for instance, a parent who is a non-citizen immigrant and files taxes with an ITIN number can claim it. Before 2017, any parent filing taxes could claim the credit. But when Congress changed the law in the first Trump tax bill, 1 million citizen children lost out, Cox says. State of play: The child tax credit provisions are a stark 180 for the House.
CNBC
21-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Food stamps face 'biggest cut in the program's history' under GOP tax bill
As Republicans push forward with the "big, beautiful" tax bill, federal food assistance may see big cuts. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, may be cut about 30% under the terms of the bill, which would be the "biggest cut in the program's history," according to Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, currently provides food assistance to more than 40 million individuals including children, seniors and adults with disabilities. Yet cuts to the program proposed by the House — which would shrink the program's funding by about $300 billion through 2034 — would put those benefits at risk. "The House Republican plan would take away food assistance for millions who struggle to afford the high cost of groceries, including families with children and other vulnerable people with low incomes," Cox said during a Tuesday webinar hosted by the CBPP, a progressive think tank. The SNAP reform efforts come amid a broader effort to reduce waste and fraud in government programs. SNAP, like other government benefits, can be susceptible to improper or fraudulent payments. The "one big, beautiful bill restores integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., said in a May 14 statement, through "long-overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach." More from Personal Finance:What the Senate's 'no tax on tips' bill means for workers Who would benefit from bigger child tax credit in House GOP billMedicaid work requirements kick hardworking people off health coverage: Senator Many Americans cite high food costs as a top economic concern, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. If new tariff policies are put into effect, that could prompt food prices to go higher. Moreover, the proposed SNAP cuts come as some experts say the U.S. is facing higher recession risks. In previous downturns, every additional dollar spent on SNAP generates about $1.54 in returns to the economy, according to Elaine Waxman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute's tax and income support division. "People spend SNAP dollars right away, and they spend them locally," Waxman said. The proposed SNAP cuts would largely happen by expanding work requirements to qualify for benefits and by cutting federal funding for food benefits and administration and leaving it up to states to make up the difference. The largest cut to SNAP would come from federal funding cuts to basic SNAP benefits ranging from 5% to 25% starting in 2028, according to CBPP. It would then be up to states to find ways to make up for that benefit shortfall, which could include making it more difficult to enroll in the program or finding other localized cuts to the program, according to CBPP. "The change in the bill that is most dramatic is asking states to share part of the benefit cost," Waxman said. "That's new; since SNAP was originated, the federal government has always paid the full cost of the benefits." Notably, it would also mark the first time in the history of SNAP that the federal government would no longer ensure children in every state have access to food benefits, according to CBPP. In addition, the proposal also seeks to make it so states pay a larger portion of the program's administrative costs. How states may react to the changes may vary. In worst-case scenarios, some states could even opt out of the program altogether, according to CBPP. However, Waxman said most states will likely try to protect benefits because they're "so critical," even though they are not legally obligated to offer the program. "The vast majority, if not all, will try to do something," Waxman said. In addition to the benefits SNAP provides to individuals and families, it also provides an "integral" part of economies, Waxman said. In lower-income rural areas, for example, rural grocery stores that rely on SNAP customers would see food spending go down. "It has all these ripples that will hurt a lot of people other than just the people who are on the program," Waxman said. Work requirements for SNAP already make it so certain individuals must work at least 80 hours per month to qualify for the program's benefits. That includes individuals ages 18 to 54 who are able to work and who have no dependents. Current policy also limits SNAP benefits for certain individuals to three months within a 36-month period unless work requirements are met. The proposed legislation would expand that those work requirements, according to the Urban Institute, by: Expanded work requirements would affect 2.7 million families and 5.4 million individuals, according to a new report from the Urban Institute. That includes 1.5 million families who would lose benefits entirely and 1.2 million families who would receive lower benefits. It also includes 1.8 million people, including 48,000 children, who would lose benefits entirely; and 3.6 million people, including 1.5 million children, who would receive lower benefits, according to the Urban Institute. Families that lose some or all their benefits would lose $254 per month on average, according to the research. Meanwhile, families with children would lose $229 per month on average, the Urban Institute found.
