Latest news with #RobertPowell
Forbes
6 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
The Looming Retirement Crisis Is Real And So Are The Solutions
Guessing and intellectual games, cheating games There's no shortage of turmoil around Social Security and retirement security these days. If you listen to Americans—Republicans, Democrats, the rich, the poor, the very online and the very offline—you'll hear one consistent refrain: financial security in old age ranks at the top of people's concerns. And they're right to worry. That's why I was especially glad to sit down with Robert 'Bob' Powell, Yahoo Finance podcast host, for an episode of his podcast Decoding Retirement. LINK NEEDED HERE Bob is one of the nation's most trusted voices on retirement. You've probably read him in MarketWatch, TheStreet, or USA Today. He's been writing about the complexities of retirement for decades and knows the issues inside and out. Our conversation was wide-ranging and candid—so much so that I wanted to share a written version of some of our key questions and answers here, expanded just a bit to cover ground we couldn't get to in the audio. Why The "Working Longer" Consensus Doesn't Work To Solve The Retirement Crisis Bob kicked off the conversation with a familiar question: Can't people just work longer? Isn't that the solution? Here's the problem: the idea that most older Americans can or should work longer is not only flawed, it's harmful. We often hear that longevity is increasing—but that's mostly true for the well-off. The people who are living longer and healthier lives are typically those in the top income tiers. They've had stable jobs, good healthcare, and the kind of careers where they can choose to keep working for meaning and enjoyment. That's wonderful—for the 11% of people aged 62 to 70 who benefit from it. But for the majority, especially those without college degrees or stable career paths, life expectancy hasn't improved. In fact, in many cases it's declined, especially since the COVID pandemic. Yet we still push the idea that people should just 'work longer' as if everyone has a flexible, fulfilling job with great health benefits. Most don't. Most are navigating erratic schedules, physically demanding work, sleep disruption, and emotional strain. For them, working longer isn't good for their health. It's often a fast track to illness, disability, and premature death. Social Security Boosts Can Help Stave Off The Retirement Crisis Bob and I also talked about Social Security and the looming threat of a 21% across-the-board cut if Congress doesn't act by 2033. That's not a distant risk—it's just around the corner. We're already in a crisis. One-third of older Americans live in poverty or near-poverty. Another third are barely scraping by and could be plunged into crisis by a single financial shock. Only the top third enjoy any sense of true financial security in retirement. A 21% cut to benefits would devastate the middle group and push many into the first category. For millions, especially those living alone or reliant on Social Security as their primary income, a missed check isn't an inconvenience—it's a full-blown emergency. The Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis has published frequently on these issues. See the recent policy note, Retirement Then, Now, and Next and the journal article No Rest for the Weary (Ghilarducci, Siavash Radpour and Jessica Forden, 2024), published in Review of Political Economy, 36(2). The 401(k) Era Has Failed Most People And Contributes To The Retirement Crisis Bob and I got into the nitty-gritty of retirement plans next. I argued—and I've written this many times—that the do-it-yourself 401(k) system has fundamentally failed. Here's why: a strong retirement system needs to do three things. It must accumulate savings, invest them efficiently, and make those savings last a lifetime. The 401(k) fails on all three counts for most people. First, access. About half of all workers don't have access to a 401(k) at work. That's strike one. Second, investment. Defined-benefit (DB) pensions are pooled and professionally managed, so they generate better, safer returns. Most 401(k) plans underperform, and individual investors bear all the risk. That's strike two. Third, distribution. Figuring out how to make a lump sum last 30 years is one of the hardest problems in personal finance—and it gets harder just as aging makes complex decision-making more difficult. DB pensions solve this with guaranteed monthly income for life. Strike three. And, for good measure, here's a fourth: security. With a pension, a scam or bad decision might cost you one check. With a 401(k), it could cost you everything. The American Way Of Funding Retirement Is Broken For Most Workers When people ask me why we still have this system, I always say: it works just fine for financial services companies and for employers who don't want to contribute to retirement. It just doesn't work for workers. And that is who we should be designing retirement policy for. Social Security Eroding In Plain Sight; Leading Up To The Retirement Crisis We're also seeing quiet administrative sabotage of Social Security. Since 2010, we've lost around 7,000 staff at the Social Security Administration. That means longer wait times, more errors, and less help for people who need it. Planned office closures will hit rural and older populations especially hard. Meanwhile, fraud crackdowns tend to focus on minor overpayments and honest mistakes, while wage theft and employer misclassification go unchecked. The result is a system that seems deliberately made to frustrate and discourage people. Public trust erodes—and that's part of the danger. Yes, We Can Fix The Retirement Crisis With More Revenue The good news? The solution to Social Security's long-term solvency is simple: more revenue. Right now, only wages up to $176,100 are taxed for Social Security. That means a millionaire pays a lower effective tax rate than a schoolteacher. Lifting the payroll cap and taxing investment income a little bit would fix the problem. Legislation like the Social Security 2100 Act proposes just that. It's wildly popular with voters. The barrier isn't public opinion—it's political will. A Gray New Deal: Preventing The Retirement Crisis I've proposed what I call a "Gray New Deal"—a comprehensive set of reforms that make work and retirement better for everyone, especially older Americans. If people must work longer, let's make sure they can do it in dignity. That means encouraging unionization, expanding public sector employment, and establishing an Older Workers' Bureau at the Department of Labor. It also means creating training programs for older learners and lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 50 or 60, with Medicare as the primary payer. Let's stop acting like it's a personal failure when someone needs support—and start creating systems that reflect people's realities. Finally, I shared my vision for Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, or GRAs. It's simple. If you don't have a retirement plan at work, you'd be automatically enrolled in a professionally managed, low-fee retirement account—just like federal workers have with the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Unlike the current system, GRAs would include matching contributions or refundable credits for lower- and middle-income workers. Right now, high earners get thousands in tax breaks for saving. Most workers get nothing. GRAs would fix that and close the coverage gap without adding big new costs to the Treasury. I have written extensively on Guaranteed Retirement Accounts with my co-author Tony James in Rescuing retirement: A plan to guarantee retirement security for all Americans (Ghilarducci & James, 2020). What Can You Do Now To Stave Off Your Retirement Crisis Don't put your head in the sand. Start by being honest about your budget. Most people underestimate expenses and overestimate retirement income. Adjust both by 20%. Identify your retirement gap without shame—the system wasn't built for you. Then take action. Talk to a fee-only financial advisor. Use AARP tools to explore home equity, job options, and overlooked benefits. And most importantly: vote. Politicians listen to older Americans. Demand real solutions. We all deserve a retirement with dignity. That's not too much to ask. It's the least a just society should provide.
Telegraph
20-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Joan Collins is right, e-bikes are wrecking our cities
I am to the e-biker what the black taxi driver is to the cyclist. Full of contempt, that is. As I bomb around the capital on my bicycle, I occasionally catch the eye of a cabbie. Invariably it's a look of 'Right, you and me outside. Now.' I scarper off down an alley before the situation develops. Except that now, surely, their objects of ire should be the same as mine and we should come together in union against the wretched e-bikes. Because they are now everywhere and they travel like the clappers. And this week has to be a turning point for their fate because they've annoyed Joan Collins. 'I've recently been almost run over twice by Lime bikes,' she records in The Spectator. She also writes of 'the proliferation of rental bikes and powered scooters that litter our pavements'. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Joan Collins (@joancollinsdbe) She has London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan firmly in her sights, saying that the capital is being 'destroyed by [his] insidious antics' and he'd better be afraid. Collins, a national treasure, born in 1933 and carved into our national conscience as the title of her 1979 film The Bitch, won't let this lie. Neither will I, and neither will her fellow actor Robert Powell, who famously played Christ in a 1970s TV mini-series. So incensed is he at rental e-bikes cluttering his doorstep that he has, so far, sent 570 images to Camden Council. He once counted 100 bikes scattered around and obstructing access to his front door. This is by no means just a London problem. E-bike rentals are a disease spreading to towns and cities across the country. From Belfast to Liverpool, Cardiff to Stirling, Cheltenham to Leicester. And they are spread with the similarly deluded green and zealous mantra of wind turbines. The promise is of freedom, of earnest fuel-free travel and of convenience. Needless to say, most of them are made in China and such is their mass production that they have a short life-span, of some two years. They are often cheaper to repurchase than repair, have toxic lithium batteries and pollute the landscape. It astonished me when I first came across them in Paris a few years ago. It was bad enough seeing them lined up at their official stations, hogging pavements and destroying the line of the French capital's handsome boulevards and buildings. As technology improved, they were then – deliberately – left scattered across the city. But rather than learn from this horrific pioneering catastrophe, London willed them in. And the joy of the Lime bike being that you find the closest-dumped one on your app and then discard it where it pleases you, our capital has similarly begun to fester with these ugly, hideously coloured eyesores. Morning in our towns and cities is the worst time for these beasts. Before vans can arrive to pick them up from centralised locations to take them off to be recharged, a fleet of wretched souls gather them. They are then deposited en masse, for example outside Robert Powell's house, or clustering around traditional bicycle racks that I use. And when they're not polluting the view, left on their sides like garbage, their users, often seemingly enslaved delivery folk forced to speed to meet the demands of their greedy gangmasters, clog up and pelt along cycle lanes. Those are my lanes, my safe routes for my manual, old-school, fitness-inducing bike. E-bikes are motorbikes and should stay on the main roads with the rest of the motorised traffic. Every time one passes me, I swear under my breath at the rider, who's wearing no helmet and whizzing along looking at their phone. Well, e-bikers had best be afraid, because there's a gruesome threesome on their case now. Me, The Bitch and Jesus.
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Automotive
- Telegraph
Robert Powell is right: we must resist the scourge of e-bikes
Poor Robert Powell. You'd think after playing Jesus of Nazareth so brilliantly all those years ago he'd be entitled to a little slice of paradise in his eighties. Instead he's having to endure a hellish existence, thanks to Camden Council and the e-bike parking bay that's been outside his North London home for the past four years. Sometimes, he says, 100 bikes have been stashed near his front door and, despite hundreds of messages to the council, nothing changes. Lifting the heavy machines out of the way might kill him off with a heart attack, he fears. Londoners like me now share Powell's frustrations over the rental e-bike menace. Not all of them end up in parking bays; many are flung across the pavement, regardless of who else – the blind, the disabled – need to pass by. Plenty speed along as fast as a motorbike, yet many users think it's fine to ride them along the pavement at full pelt. And if you're thinking of a quiet stroll along the Thames, or a canal path or in your local park, forget it. Yesterday, strolling past the riverbank in my local bit of green, I had to jump out of the way as two e-bikes and a scooter rider enjoyed a race. Ordinary cyclists can be no better: on Sunday, walking to catch a Thames ferry, a rider screamed at me: 'Get outta the way!' as he whizzed along the towpath. Bells are apparently so passé. These scooter and e-riders and cyclists are encouraged as being in the vanguard of progress by both so-called green businesses and local authorities keen to rid cities of cars in the name of combatting climate change. A blind man tripping over a bike dumped in the street? An elderly woman knocked over and bones broken? Do they really matter when we're encouraged to head off by bike into a greener future? Not, I suspect, to the London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan and his green activist chums running the boroughs. Their focus is on the car and its banishment. The motorists they probably have in mind for extinction are boy racers and the wealthy owners of gas-guzzlers. But people who would be hit by the clean air ULEZ scheme – or local traffic neighbourhoods or their latest wheeze, School Streets, which rid roads containing schools of cars during pupil drop-off and pick-up time – are very different. Expanding the ULEZ scheme, which means owners of cars that don't meet emission standards have to pay a charge, has been terrible the local plumbers, electricians and decorators depending on older vans. Now, with the School Street scheme – already in use in 700 neighbourhoods – residents can get a permit, but those same small businesses we rely on can't reach our door at their usual work start time. And forget needing an early taxi – they won't get through either. As for local traffic neighbourhoods, supposedly designed to stop local rat runs by blocking roads, the people they hurt include women who use their car to keep the family going – taking children to their sports events and dance classes, collecting elderly parents from their shopping trips – and help the neighbourhood by taking a disabled neighbour to their hospital appointment. As to those boy racers: they have found a great solution to more bans on cars. It's the e-bike.
Daily Mail
16-07-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Actor's fury as 100 Lime Bikes are dumped outside his home amid calls for Sadiq Khan to get a grip on the scourge of abandoned bicycles plaguing London's streets
The star of Jesus of Nazareth has spoken out about his four-year battle with the council over e-bikes piling up outside his front door. Robert Powell, 81, revealed he 'sent 570 photographs' to Camden Council showing the bikes taking over his doorstep. The Bafta-nominated actor urged the council to take action, saying that he and his wife, Barbara Lord, once counted at least 100 bikes in a parking bay in front of their Highgate home. 'You've got two octogenarians here who are in danger of being killed,' Powell said. 'The entire pavement has been blocked by bikes. Camden say they prioritise safety and safer travel, so do they know that allowing bikes on pavements is not safe for anyone? 'Last year we called the police about the bikes, they just laughed.' The actor added that he was 'terrified' of having a heart attack due to having to move 10 to 12 heavy bikes from the area each day. He said his GP has even written a letter to the council explaining how stressful the situation is for him and his wife. The spot is particularly busy as it is close to Hampstead Heath, the actor told the Camden New Journal. Camden Council responded by saying it is working to relocate the bay and has marked out a new bay further up the road. A council spokesman said: 'We've been in touch with Mr Powell and Mrs Lord and assured them that we're using our powers to relocate this bay while we work to secure a new permanent location. 'While we're committed to promoting active travel options like cycling, we also understand how inappropriate parking of electric bikes can block access for residents. 'As part of our new approach, our team have been busy enforcing the removal of obstructive bikes – without notice – as part of their regular inspections.' Lime was unable to offer a comment, but MailOnline understands the company believes the bay could be better placed and recommends it be moved due to overcrowding issues. A Forest spokesperson said: 'We are aware that a small number of parking bays can become incredibly busy particularly during periods of good weather and regularly be well over capacity. 'Our Operations team visit the bay several times every day to tidy and clear excess bikes. This bay has been marked for an upcoming relocation to help resolve the issues.' Riders can rent e-bikes on the street in London by picking them up with a mobile phone app, but they are often not required to put them in a designated area after use. This has led to them blocking pavements across the capital - with councils receiving thousands of complaints and some even threatening to ban hire firms altogether. Last December, new powers to crack down on the scourge of e-bikes and e-scooters being dumped on pavements were hailed as the 'beginning of the end for the Wild West model'. Enforcement has however, become increasingly complex, although the new powers mean Mayor Sadiq Khan will able to fine users and operators who dump their devices in dangerous locations. It comes after Transport for London (TfL) warned rental e-bike operators could be fined as part of measures to tackle 'significant safety issues' around poor parking. In September, Brent Council threatened that Lime would have to remove its e-bikes from the borough by October 31 for allegedly ignoring its safety concerns amid 'havoc' caused by the cycles. But the council agreed to allow Lime to continue operating after the company addressed these concerns. In Hammersmith and Fulham, more than 100 e-bikes were seized by the council in August last year after complaints from residents that they were blocking roads and pavements. TfL revealed last November that rental e-bike operators could be fined as part of measures to fight back against poor parking in London. It published a new 'enforcement policy' in response to widespread concerns about e-bikes blocking pavements and said it will take action over dockless e-bikes being left on its red route road network outside designated places, and on its land such as station forecourts and bus garages. This brings e-bike regulations closer into line with those for rental e-scooters, which are already required to be parked in bays. It added that responses may include warning letters, fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to operators, prosecutions and removal of vehicles. FPNs would be £100 each, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will Social Security run out of money sooner than you think?
Prospective retirees hoping to cash in their Social Security after 2033 may be in for a rude awakening. The 2025 Trustees Report confirmed that the program will only be able to pay 77% of the expected disbursements after 2033, and with the expected tax cuts from the new Republican budget bill, that number could shrink even faster. On this episode of Decoding Retirement, host Robert "Bob" Powell speaks with certified retirement management advisor Marcia Mantell about these findings and more, delving into the serious implications for your retirement. Marcia discusses what you can do to make up for the shortfall, how US birth rates may be affecting financial projections, and the potential effects of up to 8 million people losing their healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Yahoo Finance's Decoding Retirement is hosted by Robert Powell. Find more episodes of Decoding Retirement at Between the Medicaid cuts at about 8 million people coming off of Medicaid and the 8 million dropped by the ACA, uh, it is just catastrophic in my book. Social Security's retirement fund could run out of money in just 8 years, and if that happens, the program would have to cut benefits by about 23%.This is not so good for you and me. So what did the trustee's report say and what should you do to make sure you are prepared for the worst case scenario? Well, that's what we're going to discuss in this episode of Decoding Retirement. We're going to talk to my good friend Marsha Mantel, she's the president of Mantel Retirement Consulting. Marsha, welcome. Thank you so much, Bob. I'm thrilled to be here to decode retirement with you. It's a pleasure to have you here. Um, let's start with the trustee's report and maybe give us an overview of what it said, and maybe what it didn't say. Oh, I think that's a great way to phrase that, Bob. So what I want to first say is, I actually was really impressed that the report came out in mid June. I was thinking it was gonna be pushed off with all of the cuts in staff and all of, you know, really the angst in the administration. I was not expecting this report to even come out yet, so kudos to the team who got that what I would say is my initial impression reading through, OK, truthfully I did not read all 286 pages, but I did read the big summary. Um, it wasn't terrible, and the results were I mean, the expected depletion date of the old age and survivors fund stayed at 2033, so that was the same as last year. Um, so, I mean, there was nothing in the economy that would have suggested it would improve. So, I was not surprised at that. I was surprised though on the Medicare the Part A, this is the HI or the hospitalization Insurance Trust fund, that one is projected to be depleted, the reserve account to be depleted three years earlier, also in 2033. So that was a little, well, both expected and unexpected, unexpected because it was a big departure from last year's if we think about how fast and how high hospitalization costs rise, we know, you know, largely with health insurance and health care and everything in the healthcare sector, it usually it's about twice the rate of inflation is what we use as projections. So, I mean, things are really moving quickly in the cost side of healthcare, so it was bound to catch up at some point. So those are the big, you know, important changes, I think. So not terrible, but8 years is seems like it's a lot shorter than almost 10years. Right, so I mean, my read of the summary, I didn't read the whole thing either, but my read of the summary too is that a couple of things. One is, at least on the uh OA side that it does move forward by about 6 months or so, and that's partly due to the Social Security Fairness Act, which um now provides benefits to folks who were previously subject to uh the windfall elimination provision or the government pension offset. There was also notes about why the change had to do something with uh lower fertility rates and also the worker to retiree ratio as affecting these, um, this now shorter than shorter than last year's, uh, thoughts, it' I always find it interesting and when you listen to the actuaries talk, I think they're just brilliant, by the way, um, they're looking for very long term, meaning like 75 year future projections. Well, I mean, we don't know what's gonna happen at 4 o'clock this afternoon, let alone 75 years from now, it's amazing how they think through these projections. So in this year's report, they did take a new look at, you know, our our our fertility rates in the United States. We're not producing enough well, maybe you and your wife did, but Dan and I were, we fell short on that front. Um, you know, we're just not as a nation producing enough new new workers to keep the payroll taxes rolling in at the same rates. And what they're saying and what they're thinking is women largely areMoving out by as much as maybe 10 years when they'll have children. So instead of having kids, you know, at the 25 or to 30 year marker and in the 30, 35, they're pushing closer to 40. So that moves, you know, future workers out further. So, yeah, they stretch the fertility then that impacts the ratio of workers to retirees. I think we're in about 2.5 workers for every retiree, um, and they also, they put things in terms of GDP, you know, how much, you know, payroll to GDP and and that sort of thing. So it gets pretty technical in their thinking, but the net result, you're right, the Fairness Act, moved the depletion date for the OASI by 6 months and these other two factors by about another 3. So I'm looking at it really simply. Instead of the end of 2033 depleting the reserve account, it's now the beginning of 2033. So it's, it's a problem. Yeah. So, so, um, I'm fond of planning for the worst case scenario. The Center for Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the impact of a cut for a couple retiring in the year of insolvency would face a $16,500 reduction in their annual benefits. And assuming for sake of argument, the average benefit is now $2000 whatever it will be in eight years, that's a big cut. It's a big cut. I'm glad you brought this topic up because separately I've been running some scenarios also for, well, an article to write for you, Bob, um, and I looked at, you know, a single person, but what at the higher end rather than the averages, I'm looking at if you had a um a benefit amount at your full retirement age, so it's called the PIA primary insurance amount. If you're at $3500 as a single claim it 70, that's your best, biggest number you can get at age 70, that would deliver $52,000 a 2030, in my example, then you get a cut, starting in, well, 2033, 2034, it drops down to $40,000. That's, you know, $12,000 for an individual. And the couples, again, I've put scenarios together where one spouse is at $3500 the other's at $2500. Well, they each waited till 70 to claim, that's $89,000 a then it would be cut. So and you're starting with your maximum amount, right? This is a good thing, but then they take a 23%, it's not even a haircut, you know, a haircut is a little trim. This is a sledgehammer, right? I think that's what Jason Victor would say, um, $68,000 you drop $20,000. So it's bad enough that your guaranteed benefit from Social Security would be cut. But my bigger issue is where you get it from?Even if you have a fairly healthy retirement account, do you want to spend an extra $20,000 a year when you're, these are pretty young people. We're not talking about 95 year olds, well, them too, but my scenarios, they're younger people, you know, you're gonna be way exceeding the sustainable withdrawal rate from your assets. And so I'm really concerned about this dual effect of less Social Security at such a big then much higher withdrawal rates. Yeah, so I, I ran similar projections, but for a 20 year old that was now earning $100,000 and projected what the effect would be, and I came up with a NPV loss of, uh, I think it was $800,000 if they retired at age 70, you know, 40 years from now. But here's the important thing, right? What's the actual advice? What's, how did someone plan for this worst case scenario? Do they save more now? Do they cut expenses, a mix of both, something else? Well, yes, um, it's a mix of both, uh save or I, I believe you can never save enough. So, but that's my, I've been like that since I was like 9 years old. Um, so saving more is super important. It gives you lots of flexibility, but not everyone can do that. So then how do you plan?And I think it's doing planning much earlier, you know, starting retirement income planning by age 50, you know, getting those 20 year olds, your scenario with your 20-year-old. Like that's your best decade to save for saving kids, I mean, you really got to own this, but I also feel that we are not being nearly creative enough when we only offer like two choices or things like, well, we're gonna have to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. Well, no, we don't. So let's be way more it's all kinds of proposals have been out proposed by both Congress and then others who support Social Security, these um bipartisan policy um groups and think tanks, and there's all kinds of things like, yes, increase the payroll taxes gradually, but maybe we standardize cola. I don't know, let's let's run some numbers on that. Um, do we change the PIA formula?You know, we don't have to have only one. Do we have one for either those in physical work who are gonna have to retire early and one with white collar jobs, or do we have one PIA formula for the or high income people and a different one for lower income do everything the same. So I looked this very small window of maybe 8 years, I think it's not that long, really rethink everything and be more creative and do bits of everything so that nobody is, I'll use the phrase overly taxed, but I don't mean it like an IRS tax. Like no one is shouldering the burden in an unequal or unbearable way. So let's put on a freaking creative hats, Bob. It's not one or the other. Right, so it, it isn't one or the other, and uh it's interesting if you go to the um to the uh the Center for Responsible Federal Budget, they have on their website, um a tool where you can actually input different things like increasing revenue or decreasing expenses or a mix of both and doing this and that and coming your own solution to figure out how to solve the crises. There was, um, uh, we're recording a day after there was a webinar where some the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration talked and said that the two straightforward solutions that are needed would be the raise schedule benefits schedule revenue by about 1/3 by do schedule benefits by about 14th by 2034 or a combination of both. Both of those seem draconian to me, that that's uh raising revenue taxes by 1/3 seems like quite a bit. You'd go from what, 6 and some odd change to like almost 10%. Absolutely, and I literally wrote down because you'd sent me, you know, we maybe we're gonna talk about these two options. I just wrote draconian disaster, working in the same camp. These are not tenable for us regular normal people. Um, we're contributing to this fund. We deserve a secure retirement. We just don't deserve a super rich retirement unless we've done it on our own. So we kind of need to get back to the basics and need to be much more creative in our thinking. All right, Marshall, we have to take a short break. Don't go back to Decoding Retirement. I'm talking to Marsha Mantel. She's the president of Mantel Retirement Consulting, and, uh, right before we took a break, I promised that we were going to talk about a recent headline that I came across that read that some Social Security beneficiaries are now going to collect upwards of $5000 per month, and maybe that was clickbait, Marsha, maybe? Well, you know, it came from a really reputable news source, Bob, so I clicked and, you know, I just put my head on my desk. It's like, oh please, the59 people in America who are gonna get that kind of money were born in 1955, and they've been working, and they just turned 70 at some point this year. So they and they've been earning at the taxable wage base for their entire so those 59 people get $5000 a month. And it's just, it's so deceiving because this topic is so important. You know, if you read that and you're an average wage worker, so you're more on track to get $2000 or $2500 a month, and even if you wait until 70, you will never get $5000 a month. You know you can't feel like you're getting screwed, right?So it seems like it's unfair and it feeds this frenzy about and especially in this particular era with, you know, the various people in Social around with it. Um, it's just not a reasonable headline in my opinion. Um, I'm not the editor, so, you know, I, I'll note that. But we also have to understand like this year's max this year, 2025's maximum calculated benefit for the person who reaches FRA this year full retirement age, and they also were a high income earner for their whole careers, like $4000 a month. So if you claim this you're at full retirement age, you're getting $11,000. Like, am I a $1000 less? Am I being cheated?you know, so it just sets up aFeel good about this benefit, this entitled earned benefit. So anyway, I was mad when I saw that headline. Yeah, I, I do want to make mention though of, of the notion that for people who do want to maybe increase their benefit and people who might have zeros in their earning history, that maybe they consider continuing working to eliminate some of the zeros so that maybe their PI getsUh, adjusted upwards perhaps. Fair to say. I love,yes, I, I'm in total agreement with you, but you have to understand how your calculated benefit will work before you can make that leap from, oh, I'm gonna have $5000. 0, what do you mean I'm getting $2500. So it justYou know, it, oh, we clicked, right? I mean, I guess we got the desired click rate up. All right, let's go, uh, you mentioned earlier Medicare. I want to talk for the remaining time about Medicare and some of the changes that people can expect as we approach 2026, my goodness. Yeah. Well, where to begin? Well, let's start with this. So we met I mentioned earlier that the HI trust fund, the hospitalization insurance trust fund, you know, is on a projected path to have the reserve account, the, the savings account, uh, run dry by and so one would conclude that maybe we have to pay more for our hospital stays and skilled nursing stays in hospice. But I also want to say that for most people in Medicare, in Part A, so the, the government pays the lion's share of the expenses when you're in the hospital or in skilled nursing, we pay a deductible if we don't already have a medi gap policy. So,Prices will, will rise, but there's also this really cool thing at CMS, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, called the Innovation Center, and they continually look for innovative ways to help with both quality of care and I would like to think they're gonna be really busy for the next 5 to 8 years, you know, trying to look at new ways to sort of skin this cat, you know, how can we give seniors and retirees really good quality care when they need it, but not break the bank. So that's one path. Then there's Part B, that's the um they call it SMI trust fund, the supplementary medical insurance, we call it Medicare Part B and Part trust fund is fine, because the whole trust fund, the checking account side and the savings account side, because we all fund it along with general revenue from our premiums will continue to go up, and this year it's $185 per person per month for Part B when you are enrolled in Part B, or higher, all the way up to a grand total of about $600 per month, a little more than $600 if you make $750,000 or more married filing it can get quite pricey, but we're sharing some of us get a higher subsidy, lower income people, higher income people, lower subsidies. Part B, we can expect those premiums will continue to rise, the cost of care for doctors and will continue to rise. I use a 6% increase year over year for Part B premiums to project out. So you're at 6%, sometimes it's less, sometimes it could be more, but for a general, where do you go? I use 6%.Part D is a different animal. Part D helps all of us cover our prescription some really crazy things going on with Part D. Part D plans are offered by private insurance most of the Medicare sales happen for for people getting into Medicare A and B happens through the federal government, but your Part D is through often independent agents or brokers who sell some of the biggest players in the marketplace are no longer paying the broker's commissions. They've already announced that we're not gonna pay you guys to sell these particular Part D plans. The net effect here, we saw it last year coming into 2025 also, um, what had been in Washington state, a woman sent me her two bills in 2024, she paid $3.30 a Part D plan, right? $3. You got $3. Exact same plan. Her exact same drugs, nothing from her perspective changed. Her monthly charge jumped to $35.90 a she's paying $430 for this year versus $39 last year.I expect that same thing to happen because what happens, the brokers no longer have on their platforms the ability to see that the cheapest drug plan option was only 50 cents a month and it covered all her drugs. So we are really beingNot squeeze as consumers. We are the prices are being jacked up and we're doing nothing that for me is the biggest problem, going out with the Part D plans as a result of, you know, many factors and that these companies are all, you know, on the stock exchange. we didn't, and it, it would take too long for this segment to talk about how in the case of Medicare Advantage plans, brokers are getting compensated at what, 2 to 3 times more than what they would get compensated to sell a Mediga plan and thus part of the reason why 50% plus of, uh, Medicare beneficiaries are now on Medicare Advantage plans when they might be better off in a different plan like uh original Medicare with Medigap, but we're gonna say that for another day because I want to talk about, uh, there's in the one big beautiful the possibility that that potentially 4 million people who are on ACA plans and maybe another 4 million, so call it 8 million people, will get dropped from, uh, from Obamacare or the AC Affordable Care Act, uh, if the one big bill goes through. What, uh, how should people plan for that? Oh, this one is between the Medicaid cuts at about 8 million people coming off of Medicaid and the 8 million dropped by the ACA. Uh, it is just catastrophic in my book because what is happening is, in the simplest terms I can come up of the burden is being shoved on to the regular hardworking consumer to figure this stuff out. We have, you know, a Congress that can't figure it out, an industry that can't figure it out, but all these rules put around normal regular people. So you go figure it out if you can cover yourself and your children on any of these plants. And so what's the big thing I just call it lots of hoops, have to prove your insurance that you're in a lower uh prove your income rather, that you're in a lower income or whatever your income is going to be for the forward looking year. Well, how are you supposed to do that? Um, there's no auto re-enrollment, that's one of the proposals. You know, like when you work for a company, if you oops, forget to do something during your open enrollment window, you're just rolled the next year into the same plan that you had elected this how the ACA had been working as well, so that people don't fall off insurance inadvertently. The proposal from the House is that, yeah, we don't want you to be enrolled. You gotta actually jump through more hoops to make sure you're enrolled. Uh, and they're shortening the window to get enrolled. So there's a lot of these, I think it flaming hoops that these bills, these provisions in this uh in this proposal areRequiring people to jump through, and the net effect is gonna be people aren't gonna know. There is no way for normal people to know thisstuff, Bob. In the meanwhile, I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us. Thank you so much for inviting me on, Bob. It's been a delight. So that wraps up this episode of Decoding Retirement. We hope we provided you with some actionable advice to help you plan for or live better in retirement. If you've got questions about retirement, email me at YF podcast@yahoo and we'll do our best to answer your question in a future episode. And don't forget you can listen to Decoding Retirement on all your favorite podcast platforms. This content was not intended to be financial advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional financial services. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
