benefits

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.

McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”

“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.

“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.

He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.

If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.

“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”

He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”

McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.

The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.

He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.

“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.

“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”

McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.

New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.

“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.

“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Nov. 1 (UPI) — The nation’s 42 million recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will have to wait for them to be restored after losing them on Saturday, which might take weeks.

The ongoing federal government shutdown has shut off funding for the SNAP program that enables recipients to buy food, but two federal judges on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue it.

President Donald Trump on Friday night announced he is seeking ways to access funds to keep the program going as the federal government shutdown continues at least through Monday.

“I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and reopen the government,” Trump said Friday in a Truth Social post.

Trump said the two federal judges issued conflicting rulingsand he does not think the federal government legally can access available funds to cover SNAP costs.

“I have instructed our lawyers to ask the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” he said.

“Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out.”

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge John McConnell Jr.was one of the two judges who ordered the SNAP benefits to continue despite the shutdown.

On Saturday, he responded to the president’s post by ordering the Trump administration to access $6 billion in contingency funds for SNAP benefits.

“There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown,” McConnell wrote Saturday in a seven-page order.

The contingency fund is too little to cover the full $9 billion monthly cost of providing SNAP benefits, but SNAP is an entitlement that the federal government must provide to all eligible households, he said.

“To ensure the quick, orderly and efficient implementation of the court’s order … and to alleviate the irreparable harm that the court found exists without timely payment of SNAP benefits, the government should … find the additional funds necessary to fully fund the November SNAP payments,” McConnell ruled.

He ordered the Trump administration to make at least a partial payment of SNAP benefits by Wednesday and to report how it intends to do so by noon EST on Monday.

The Trump administration said it will take several days and possibly longer to get funds to the respective states and cover the benefits for those who don’t receive them this month.

If the government shutdown continues into December, the problem starts over again with no contingency funds available.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shoudl continue to do so in November and possibly beyond after two federal court rulings ordered program funding.

Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue providing SNAP benefits amid the ongoing federal government shutdown.

U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue providing SNAP benefits while the federal government shutdown continues on its 31st day, according to CNN.

Talwani cited a contingency fund containing $5.2 billion that Congress had appropriated to help fund SNAP benefits when needed, but acknowledged the program’s monthly cost is $9 billion.

“This court has now clarified that defendants are required to use those contingency funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” Talwani said in her 15-page ruling.

“While these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, defendants also may supplement the contingency funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds,” she said.

Talwani on Thursday heard oral arguments from the Justice Department and attorneys representing 25 states that sued the Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits.

Shortly after Talwani submitted her ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island issued an oral ruling blocking the Trump administration from not funding SNAP benefits that provide food support for 42 million recipients across the United States, CNBC reported.

The benefits lack funding as Senate Democrats, during 13 votes, overwhelmingly have voted against a funding resolution that would keep the federal government funded and open, including the SNAP benefits, through Nov. 21.

Because there is no funding available for the SNAP program, Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker said the program does not exist.

“There is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker argued.

McConnell rejected the argument and, like Talwani, said the Trump administration must use congressionally appropriated contingency funds to continue providing at least some of the benefits that are due starting on Saturday.

While the Trump administration has been ordered to fund SNAP benefits via the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many will experience delays in getting them due as the USDA and respective states need time to access and distribute the benefits.

President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters the government could fund SNAP benefits past Saturday.

He said it would be easier if Senate Democrats voted in favor of the continuing resolution to fund the government while negotiating policy differences in the eventual 2026 fiscal year budget.

The fiscal year started Oct. 1, but so did the shutdown after the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to approve it and keep the government open.

The shutdown will last at least through Monday after the Senate adjourned for the weekend Thursday.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued a stark warning Monday that food assistance benefits for millions of low-income Californians could be delayed starting Nov. 1 if the ongoing federal shutdown does not end by Thursday.

The benefits, issued under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and formerly called food stamps, include federally funded benefits loaded onto CalFresh cards. They support some 5.5 million Californians.

Newsom blamed the potential SNAP disruption — and the shutdown more broadly — on President Trump and slammed the timing of the potential cutoff just as the Thanksgiving holiday approaches.

“Trump’s failure to open the federal government is now endangering people’s lives and making basic needs like food more expensive — just as the holidays arrive,” Newsom said. “It is long past time for Republicans in Congress to grow a spine, stand up to Trump, and deliver for the American people.”

The White House responded by blaming the shutdown on Democrats, as it has done before.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the “Democrats’ decision to shut down the government is hurting Americans across the country,” and that Democrats “can choose to reopen the government at any point” by voting for a continuing resolution to fund the government as budget negotiations continue, which she said they repeatedly did during the Biden administration.

“Newscum should urge his Democrat pals to stop hurting the American people,” Jackson said, using a favorite Trump insult for Newsom. “The Trump Administration is working day and night to mitigate the pain Democrats are causing, and even that is upsetting the Left, with many Democrats criticizing the President’s effort to pay the troops and fund food assistance for women and children.”

Congressional Republicans also have blamed the shutdown and resulting interruptions to federal programs on Democrats, who are refusing to vote for a Republican-backed funding measure based in large part on Republican decisions to eliminate subsidies for healthcare plans relied on by millions of Americans.

Newsom’s warning about SNAP benefits followed similar alerts from other states on both sides of the political aisle, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned state agencies in an Oct. 10 letter that the shutdown may interrupt funding for the benefits.

States have to take action to issue November benefits before the month ends, so the shutdown would have to end sooner than Nov. 1 for the benefits to be available in time.

Newsom’s office said Californians could see their benefits interrupted or delayed if the shutdown is not ended by Thursday. The Texas Health and Human Services Department warned that SNAP benefits for November “won’t be issued if the federal government shutdown continues past Oct. 27.”

Newsom’s office said a cutoff of funds would affect federally funded CalFresh benefits, but also some other state-funded benefits. More than 63% of SNAP recipients in California are children or elderly people, Newsom’s office said.

In her own statement, First Partner of California Jennifer Siebel Newsom said, “Government should be measured by how we protect people’s lives, their health, and their well-being. Parents and caregivers should not be forced to choose between buying groceries or paying bills.”

States were already gearing up for other changes to SNAP eligibility based on the Republican-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which set new limits on SNAP benefits, including for nonworking adults. Republicans have argued that such restrictions will encourage more able-bodied adults to get back into the workforce to support their families themselves.

Many Democrats and advocacy organizations that work to protect low-income families and children have argued that restricting SNAP benefits has a disproportionately large effect on some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including poor children.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served by SNAP benefits per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. The USDA has some contingency funding it can utilize to continue benefits in the short term, but does not have enough to cover all monthly benefits, advocates said.

Andrew Cheyne, managing director of public policy at the advocacy group End Child Poverty California, urged the USDA to utilize its contingency funding and any other funding stream possible to prevent a disruption to SNAP benefits, which he said would be “disastrous.”

“CalFresh is a lifeline for 5.5 million Californians who rely on the program to eat. That includes 2 million children. It is unconscionable that we are only days away from children and families not knowing where their next meal is going to come from,” Cheyne said.

He said the science is clear that “even a brief period of food insecurity has long-term consequences for children’s growth and development.”

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said a disruption would be “horrific.”

“We speak out for the needs of kids and families, and kids need food — basic support to live and function and go to school,” he said. “So this could be really devastating.”

Times staff writer Jenny Gold contributed to this report.

Standing behind a lectern emblazoned with the words “Cutting Utility Bills,” Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law last month a package of energy bills that he said “reduces the burden on ratepayers.”

Tucked into one of those bills: a paragraph that could allow Southern California Edison to shift billions of dollars of Eaton fire damage costs to its customers.

Among other things, the bill allows Edison to start charging customers for any Eaton fire costs exceeding the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“I was shocked to see that,” said April Maurath Sommer, executive director of the Wild Tree Foundation, which tracks state government actions on utility-sparked fires. “It’s effectively a bailout.”

Other amendments in the 231-page bill known as SB 254 helped not just Edison, but all three of the state’s biggest for-profit utilities, further limiting the costs that they and their shareholders would face if the companies’ equipment ignited a catastrophic wildfire.

Previous legislation championed by Newsom, a 2019 bill known as AB 1054, already had sharply limited the utilities’ liabilities for wildfires they cause.

Staff in the governor’s office declined a request for an interview. In a statement, Daniel Villasenor, a spokesman for Newsom, called SB 254 “smart public policy, not a giveaway.”

Newsom’s staff noted that the state Public Utilities Commission would later review Eaton fire costs, determining if they were “just and reasonable.” If some costs billed to customers were rejected in that review, Edison shareholders would have to reimburse them for those amounts, the governor’s office said.

According to the legislation, that review of costs isn’t required until all Eaton claims are settled, leaving the possibility that customers would have to cover even costs found to be unreasonable for years.

“That will be expensive news to a lot of people,” said Michael Boccadoro, executive director of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Assn. “It is unfortunately what happens when major policies are done in the final hours of the Legislature with little transparency.”

Damages for the Eaton fire have been estimated to be as high as $45 billion — which could greatly exceed the $21-billion fund.

Homes in Altadena lay in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Sheri Scott, an actuary at Milliman, told state officials in July that insured losses alone range from $13.7 billion to $22.8 billion. That estimate doesn’t include payments to families who were uninsured or underinsured, or compensation for pain and suffering.

The bill allows Edison to issue bonds secured by new payments from its electric customers for Eaton fire costs that can’t be covered by the $21-billion fund.

Kathleen Dunleavy, an Edison spokeswoman, said the company supported the bill’s language because the bonds secured by customer payments provide a lower cost of borrowing than if the company used traditional financing. “Every dollar counts for our customers,” Dunleavy said.

“There are a lot of variables here,” Dunleavy added. “The investigation is ongoing and there is not an estimate of the total cost of the Eaton fire.”

Newsom’s office noted that under the amendments the utilities won’t get to earn a profit on $6 billion of wildfire prevention expenditures. Customers will still have to pay for the costs, but they won’t be charged extra for shareholders’ profit.

Since early this year, Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric had been lobbying Newsom and state legislative leaders, urging them to bolster the $21-billion fund because of concerns it could be exhausted by the Eaton fire’s extraordinary cost.

Videos captured the Jan. 7 inferno igniting under a century-old transmission line that Edison had not used for 50 years. The wildfire swept through Altadena, destroying 9,400 homes and other structures and killing at least 19 people.

Edison now faces hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims. The suits accuse Edison of negligence, claiming it failed to safely maintain its equipment and left in place the unused transmission line, which lawyers say Edison knew posed a fire risk.

“We’ll respond to the allegations in the litigation,” Dunleavy said, adding that the company inspects and maintains idle lines in the same way as its energized lines.

Even though the government’s investigation into the cause has not been released, Edison announced in July that it was starting a program to directly pay victims for damages.

The company has also begun settling with insurance companies that paid out claims for properties they insured in Altadena that were destroyed or damaged.

Limiting Edison’s liability for Eaton fire

The utility is expecting to be reimbursed for most or all of the settlements and the costs of the fire by the $21-billion wildfire fund that Newsom and lawmakers created through the 2019 legislation, according to a July update Edison gave to its investors.

The first $1 billion of damages is covered by an insurance policy paid by its customers.

After state officials warned that the Eaton fire could deplete the state fund, Newsom said in July he was working on a plan to create an additional fund of $18 billion.

Two days before the Legislature was scheduled to recess for the year, three lawmakers added complex language to SB 254 to create what Newsom called the new $18-billion wildfire “continuation account.” Before the bill was amended, consumer groups had been supporting it because it aimed to save electric customers money.

The late amendments required the Legislature to extend its session by a day to meet a state constitutional rule that says proposed legislation must be public for 72 hours before a final vote.

“It’s impossible to believe that legislators could have understood all of this in 72 hours,” Maurath Sommer said. She noted that Newsom’s 2019 law, AB 1054, was introduced and quickly passed in a similar manner. “And it is clear now how poorly that effort fared in achieving the claimed objective of protecting public safety.”

Boccadoro said he believed the amendments were added to a bill favored by consumer groups to give it “some political cover.”

Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), one of bill’s authors, said she believed utilities needed protection from wildfire liabilities because of a legal doctrine in California known as inverse condemnation, which makes them responsible for damages even if they weren’t negligent in starting it.

“This is the best possible deal for ratepayers as we navigate the truly devastating impacts of the climate crisis,” Petrie-Norris said of the legislation. The other two authors — state Sens. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) and Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) — did not respond to requests for interviews.

After the bill passed, both Edison and PG&E praised its provisions in presentations for investors.

Edison called the bill “a key action” that demonstrated lawmakers’ support of its “financial stability.”

The amendments added to the protections that utilities gained in 2019 through Newsom’s AB 1054. At that time, PG&E was in bankruptcy proceedings. It had filed for protection after its transmission line was found to have ignited the 2018 Camp fire, which killed 85 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E explained in a September presentation that before Newsom and lawmakers changed the law in 2019, utilities that wanted to pass fire damage costs to customers “bore the burden of proving” that their conduct related to the blaze was reasonable and prudent.

Newsom’s 2019 law changed that standard, PG&E said, so that the utility’s conduct was automatically deemed reasonable if state regulators had granted the company what the law called a safety certificate.

Since 2019, the state has regularly issued the companies these certificates — even when regulators find maintenance and safety problems.

Edison received a safety certificate less than a month before the Eaton fire, even though it had thousands of open work orders, including some on the transmission lines in the canyon where the fire started.

To get a certificate, the utilities must submit a plan to state regulators for preventing their equipment from sparking fires. They also must tie executive pay to the company’s safety performance, with bonuses expected to take a hit when more fires are sparked or people are killed.

Even though Edison failed at key safety measures last year, The Times found that cash bonuses for four of its top five executives rose. The company said that was because of their performance on responsibilities beyond safety.

With a safety certificate in hand, Edison told investors in July that the maximum it would pay for the Eaton fire under the law’s limit was $3.9 billion, a fraction of the expected costs. The utility said the wildfire fund would reimburse it for all the costs, unless an outside party can raise “serious doubt” that it had not acted reasonably before the fire.

The SB 254 amendments also clarified key language in the 2019 law — clarifications that Edison told investors in September were “constructive for potential Eaton fire losses.”

That language allows utilities that cause repeated major wildfires within a period of three years to reduce what they must pay back to the fund for a second fire if they are found to have acted imprudently.

“This certainly does not seem to encourage utilities to stop causing fires,” Maurath Sommer said of the provision.

Edison’s Dunleavy dismissed concern about the provision. “Safety remains our top priority,” she said.

Campaign contributions to Newsom

The three utilities have long been generous political donors to both Democrats and Republicans in California, including to Newsom and current legislative leaders in Sacramento.

Edison, for example, gave $100,000 to Newsom’s campaign last year to pass the mental health initiative known as Proposition 1.

This summer Edison gave $190,000 to the state Democratic Party, which is helping Newsom campaign for Proposition 50, which would redraw congressional districts.

Newsom’s staff didn’t respond to questions about the contributions.

Dunleavy said that the company’s political donations are not charged to customers. She said Edison gives contributions to politicians who share its commitment to “safely serve our customers.”

Newsom said in 2019 that the bill capping utilities’ fire liabilities would “move our state toward a safer, affordable and reliable energy future.”

He and lawmakers said the law would make the public safer by requiring the utilities to do more to prevent fires, including aggressive tree trimming and the installation of more insulated wires.

Even though the utilities have raised electric rates to charge customers for billions of dollars of fire prevention work, their electrical equipment continues to spark blazes.

According to Cal Fire statistics, if the Eaton fire is confirmed to have been ignited by Edison’s transmission line, at least seven of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires would have been caused by the three utilities’ power lines. Two of those utility-sparked fires happened after the 2019 law passed.

Edison’s lines ignited 178 fires last year — 45% more compared with 2019. The company attributed last year’s increase to weather conditions that created more dry vegetation.

The governor’s staff said they disagreed with claims that the legislation reduced utilities’ accountability. They pointed to a measure in the 2019 law that requires a utility to reimburse the wildfire fund for all damages from a fire if its actions are found to constitute “conscious or willful disregard of the rights and safety of others.”

Advocates for utility customers have repeatedly said they believe that standard is too high to keep California utilities from causing more fires.

“Instances of utility mismanagement could easily fall short of the ‘conscious or willful disregard’ standard yet nonetheless cause a series of catastrophic wildfire events,” wrote the commission’s Public Advocates Office in a filing soon after the 2019 law passed.

In just a few days, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will be making a huge announcement about changes to the program in 2026. A new earnings-test limit will be shared, as well as the maximum monthly benefit.

Perhaps the most anticipated update the SSA will share, however, is an official cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for 2026.

Image source: Getty Images.

Each year, Social Security benefits are eligible for a raise, based on inflation. Without COLAs, beneficiaries would be pretty much guaranteed to lose buying power over time.

Initial projections are calling for a 2.7% COLA for 2026, but that number doesn’t take inflation data from September into account. If inflation rose substantially last month, seniors could be looking at an even larger boost to their Social Security checks in 2026.

While a 2.7% or higher COLA might seem like something to celebrate, you may want to temper your excitement if you count on Social Security for income. That’s because that COLA may not be yours to keep in full.

Will a Medicare increase eat into your COLA?

Seniors who are enrolled in Medicare and Social Security at the same time pay their premiums for Part B, which covers outpatient care, directly out of their monthly benefits. This means that if the cost of Medicare increases in 2026, it will eat into whatever COLA retirees receive.

In 2025, the standard monthly Part B premium rose from $174.70 to $185. But based on projections from the Medicare Trustees released earlier this year, the standard Part B premium for 2026 could be a whopping $206.50 — an increase of $21.50. It also could cause many seniors to lose out on a good chunk of their Social Security raises.

As of August, the average monthly Social Security benefit for retired workers was about $2,008. A 2.7% COLA would result in a boost of about $54 per month. However, if Medicare Part B goes up by $21.50 per month, the typical Social Security benefit might only rise by around $32.50, in practice.

It’s best to have income outside of Social Security

Until the SSA makes an official COLA announcement on Oct. 15, we won’t know for sure what next year’s COLA will amount to. However, even if it’s fairly generous, a large uptick in Part B costs could wipe out much of it.

That’s why it’s important not to be too reliant on Social Security COLAs to keep up with inflation. A better bet? Save well for retirement, and set yourself up with a portfolio of assets that continues to generate income for you.

Those assets could include a mix of stocks and bonds. The stocks should ideally provide growth and income in the form of dividend payments. The bond portion, meanwhile, may be more stable, providing you with steady income you can use to supplement your monthly Social Security checks.

There are other options for generating retirement income, too, like working part-time. And that part-time work doesn’t have to come in the form of a boring job with a strict, preset schedule.

Thanks to the gig economy, you can explore different options for earning some money. You may find that, on top of the extra income being helpful, it’s nice to have a reason to get out of the house on a regular basis and socialize with other people.

No matter what strategy you choose, the key is to have some income outside of Social Security — because while the program’s COLAs do help seniors keep up with inflation to some degree, they also have their fair share of shortcomings.

People spend years paying into the Social Security system via payroll taxes. It’s a way of helping to secure somewhat of a financial safety net in your retirement years when you begin receiving benefits. Even if you’re fortunate enough not to need it, it’s a well-earned plus after decades of work and contributions.

Unfortunately, like most other income sources in America, when you receive your Social Security payments, you could potentially owe taxes on them. The good news is that most states don’t tax Social Security benefits. The bad news is that this still leaves others that do. As of October 2025, 41 states do not tax Social Security.

Image source: Getty Images.

Which states don’t tax Social Security benefits?

The following 41 states, along with Washington, D.C., currently do not tax Social Security benefits:

1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Arizona
4. Arkansas
5. California
6. Delaware
7. Florida
8. Georgia
9. Hawaii
10. Idaho
11. Illinois
12. Indiana
13. Iowa
14. Kansas
15. Kentucky
16. Louisiana
17. Maine
18. Maryland
19. Massachusetts
20. Michigan
21. Mississippi
22. Missouri
23. Nebraska
24. Nevada
25. New Hampshire
26. New Jersey
27. New York
28. North Carolina
29. North Dakota
30. Ohio
31. Oklahoma
32. Oregon
33. Pennsylvania
34. South Carolina
35. South Dakota
36. Tennessee
37. Texas
38. Virginia
39. Washington
40. Wisconsin
41. Wyoming

Which states tax Social Security benefits?

The following nine states do have Social Security taxes in some form:

1. Colorado
2. Connecticut
3. Minnesota
4. Montana
5. New Mexico
6. Rhode Island
7. Utah
8. Vermont
9. West Virginia

In the past five years, four states have eliminated their Social Security tax, so there’s still hope for people who live in a state with the tax. For example, West Virginians won’t have to pay taxes on benefits beginning in 2026.

You could still owe federal taxes on your Social Security check

Unfortunately, your state’s tax-free status doesn’t exempt you from federal taxes on your Social Security check. Luckily, most people won’t pay anything; however, there are still millions who will. To determine if you’ll be subjected to federal taxes on your Social Security benefits, the IRS considers your combined income, which includes the following:

For example, if your AGI is $15,000, you receive $20,000 annually from Social Security, and you have $200 in nontaxable interest, your combined income would be $25,200 ($15,000 + $10,000 + $200). After calculating your combined income, the following ranges are used to determine how much of your benefits are eligible to be taxed:

Source: IRS.

To see it in action, let’s assume you receive $20,000 annually in benefits, and 50% is eligible to be taxed. In this situation, up to $10,000 would be added to any other income you have and then taxed at your normal income tax rate. It’s helpful to know how the federal tax works, so you don’t mistakenly assume that the IRS is going to take 50% or 85% of your benefits.

Some retirees could see a larger tax deduction

The Trump administration’s “big, beautiful bill” included a provision that provides a temporary tax deduction for eligible people age 65 and older. Single filers are eligible for up to $6,000, while couples filing jointly are eligible for up to $12,000.

To qualify for the full $6,000 deduction, single filers must have a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) below $75,000. If your MAGI is between $75,000 and $175,000, you’re eligible for a reduced deduction, with the amount depending on where your income falls in the range.

Couples filing jointly must have a MAGI below $150,000 to qualify for the full $12,000. Any couple with a MAGI between $150,000 and $250,000 is eligible for the reduced deduction.

This deduction will remain in place until 2028 and is available even if you take the standard deduction (which would otherwise prohibit you from itemizing your deductions).

MILLIONS of pensioners will be hit with £300 tax bills from HMRC this winter.

From November, around nine million pensioners will begin to see up to £300 land in their bank accounts.

1

The cash boost comes as part of the Winter Fuel Payment, which is a benefit issued by the DWP to help elderly people with fuel costs over the colder months.

It comes after a previous £300 payment was axed for millions of pensioners last winter and only those on certain benefits qualified.

The move triggered a massive backlash for Labour as some 10million pensioners lost their winter fuel allowance in the benefit cut.

It saved the Treasury just £1.4billion but caused a massive public outcry.

The government later cracked under pressure and was forced to perform a half baked U-turn.

Most pensioners are now eligible for the support, which is worth between £100 and £300.

However, if your income is more than £35,000, HMRC will take the money back.

Your income can come from a range of factors including your private pension and state benefits.

If you fall into this earnings category, you can opt out of payments.

But the deadline to do so ended on September 15.

What happens now?

If you did not opt out, HMRC will change your tax code and you will receive a tax code notice letter.

Changing your tax code means that your Winter Fuel Payment will be deducted from your income and paid to HMRC in monthly instalments.

So for example, if you received a £100 Winter Fuel Payment but had an income of £35,000, you will pay back around £9 every month.

You will be charged from April 2026, which is the start of the new tax year.

Households can check if they are over the income thresholds by visiting www.tax.service.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-hmrc-will-take-back-your-winter-payment/start/country.

How to opt out of future charges

The deadline for opting out of the Winter Fuel Payment for 2025 to 2026 has passed. 

But you can opt out of getting the benefit for 2026 to 2027 from April 2026.

When it reopens, you will need to complete either an online form or phone the helpline on 0800 731 0160.

If you opt to complete the form online, you will need details such as your National Insurance number.

Who is not eligible for the payment?

You can get a Winter Fuel Payment if you were born before September 22 1959 and live in England or Wales.

But a small group of individuals will not be eligible, including:

• live outside England and Wales
• were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025 and the year before that
• need permission to enter the UK and your granted leave says that you cannot claim public funds
• were in prison for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025

Most people are paid the benefit automatically but if you think you are risk of missing out you can apply.

THOUSANDS of pensioners will be able to apply for a winter cash boost worth up to £300 in just days.

More than nine million people are set to get the Winter Fuel Payment to help with their energy bills over the colder months.

1

Most people who are eligible will get the payment automatically, and will receive letters in the post from the DWP in October and November telling them how much cash they will receive.

However, certain pensioners will need to apply to get the benefit.

You can apply either by post or over the phone, and the DWP phone lines to make a claim open on October 13.

Postal applications opened earlier on September 15.

Pensioners have until March 31 2026 to make a claim.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has said that anyone claiming the following benefits does not need to make a claim:

• State Pension
• Pension Credit
• Universal Credit
• Attendance Allowance
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• Carer’s Allowance
• Disability Living Allowance (DLA)
• Income Support
• income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
• income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
• awards from the War Pensions Scheme
• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
• Incapacity Benefit
• Industrial Death Benefit

If you don’t receive any of these benefits, you’ll need to claim manually if you’ve not got the Winter Fuel Payment before, or if you’ve deferred your State Pension since your last Winter Fuel Payment.

While the highest amount of free support is £300, the total will depend on when you were born and your circumstances on the qualifying week, which is between September 15 and 21 of this year.

Pensioners born before September 22, 1959, with an income of £35,000 or below will be eligible for between £100 and £300 to help towards heating bills.

Those hoping to receive the cash must be 66 by the end of the qualifying week.

You won’t be eligible for the payment if you earn more than £35,000 a year, and HMRC will claw back the automatic payment made to you through your tax code or tax return.

Your income can come from a range of factors including, your private pension and state benefits.

Other people who won’t be eligible include those who:

• live outside England and Wales
• were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025 and the year before that
• need permission to enter the UK and your granted leave says that you cannot claim public funds
• were in prison for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025

The Winter Fuel Payment was axed for 10million pensioners last year, with only those on certain benefits qualifying.

But the government was forced to perform a U-turn after a huge public outcry, with the funding now being reinstated for millions.

The gov.uk website provides further guidance on the scheme and how to make a claim.

Pensioners are also being warned to be wary of text messages from scammers posing as the DWP, who try to get you to click on a fake link to make a claim.

These are not official DWP messages and should be deleted, the government has said.

The Winter Fuel Payment is separate from the Warm Home Discount, which offers struggling households £150 off their electricity bill.

The money is not paid to you, and households that are eligible will have the discount applied to their bill by their energy provider.

What energy bill help is available?

There’s a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you’re struggling to get by.

If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter.

This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period.

If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don’t think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal.

Several energy firms have schemes available to customers struggling to cover their bills.

But eligibility criteria vary depending on the supplier and the amount you can get depends on your financial circumstances.

For example, British Gas or Scottish Gas customers struggling to pay their energy bills can get grants worth up to £2,000.

British Gas also offers help via its British Gas Energy Trust and Individuals Family Fund.

You don’t need to be a British Gas customer to apply for the second fund.

EDF, E.ON, Octopus Energy and Scottish Power all offer grants to struggling customers too.

Thousands of vulnerable households are missing out on extra help and protections by not signing up to the Priority Services Register (PSR).

The service helps support vulnerable households, such as those who are elderly or ill.

Some of the perks include being given advance warning of blackouts, free gas safety checks and extra support if you’re struggling.

Get in touch with your energy firm to see if you can apply.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

There are certain benefits to being married in retirement. For one thing, it’s nice to have somebody’s company at a time when you’re not working and may find yourself getting lonely and bored.

Retirement is also a time when a lot of people try to ramp up on travel. And it can be more enjoyable to have a travel partner than to take your dream trips on your own.

Image source: Getty Images.

When it comes to the financial side of retirement, being married also has its advantages. If you and your spouse each have some savings, you can pool your resources for a larger income.

Plus, if you’re married, it could mean that you’re eligible to receive spousal benefits from Social Security. And that extra money could come in very handy. But if you’re looking to claim spousal benefits from Social Security, it’s important to understand the ins and outs. Here are three misunderstandings you must get to the bottom of if you think spousal benefits are something you’ll end up filing for.

1. You can only claim spousal benefits if you’re married

You may start off retirement as a married couple only to decide to dissolve your relationship a few years down the line. Sometimes, too much togetherness can unveil differences that are just too difficult to overcome.

You might assume that if you get divorced, you won’t be eligible for Social Security spousal benefits. But if you were married for at least 10 years before that divorce, and you’re not remarried, then those spousal benefits should still be on the table.

2. You can only claim spousal benefits if you didn’t work

The nice thing about Social Security is that it will pay spousal benefits to people who didn’t work. But even if you did work, you may still be eligible for spousal benefits.

Let’s say you worked enough to qualify for Social Security, but your wages were much lower than your spouse’s. If the spousal benefit you’re entitled to is greater than the benefit you’re entitled to based on your own earnings record, then you’ll get that spousal benefit.

However, if your personal benefit is the larger number, that’s what Social Security will pay you. This system is more than fair, as it basically allows you to collect whichever benefit puts the most money in your pocket each month. The only thing you can’t do is double dip by collecting a spousal benefit plus your own benefit at the same time.

3. You can grow your spousal benefits by delaying your Social Security claim

If you’re claiming Social Security on your own wage history, there’s an upside to delaying your claim past full retirement age, which is 67 for anyone born in 1970 or later. For each year you do, until you turn 70, your monthly benefit gets a permanent 8% boost.

But when you’re claiming spousal benefits, there’s no sense in delaying past full retirement age. That’s because you can’t grow a spousal benefit the same way you can grow a benefit based on your own earnings record.

Social Security spousal benefits max out at 50% of what your spouse is eligible for at their full retirement age. If you claim them before reaching your full retirement age, they’ll be reduced. But they also can’t grow beyond 50% of what your spouse gets at their full retirement age.

You may end up relying on Social Security to provide quite a bit of your retirement income. So it’s important to understand how the program’s spousal benefits work, especially since they can differ from how regular retirement benefits work. Knowing the rules inside and out could prevent you from making a big mistake you regret later on.

A 20-YEAR-OLD mother has revealed how she really spends her Universal Credit payments. 

Skye Byrne, a young mum from the UK, claimed that not only has she treated herself to a holiday, but she even splashed the cash in Sainsbury’s on a huge homeware haul.

2

2

And as well as stocking up her daughter’s wardrobe, she also indulged with a McDonald’s takeaway.

Posting on social media, the content creator who lives in a council house, revealed a typical day in her life. 

She said: “What I spend in a day, UC Benefit Britain Edition.”

Skye kicked off her morning with a Universal Credit appointment and was quick to clap at trolls who have criticised her for booking a trip abroad.

She said: “For everyone that said, ‘you shouldn’t be going on holiday when you’re on UC,’ well, I told my work coach and she cried, she actually cried because she knows how much I’ve been wanting so badly to take my daughter on a holiday and she was so happy and thrilled for us, so, yeah, suck on that, everyone.”

Following this, Skye then headed to her local supermarket and stocked up on homeware buys and clothes for her daughter.

She added: “I went into Sainsbury’s and picked up these little bits and bobs for the house – I got three pillows and a blanket.”

As well as this, Skye also nabbed some tea towels and place mats, bringing her interior purchases to a total cost of £48.

However, Skye then picked up two pairs of £3.50 leggings and a pair of £7 jeggings for her child.

Following this, she also nabbed a pair of beige trousers and a PAW Patrol bottle, but was lost for words when she went to the till and saw the total cost of her haul.

The benefits recipient shared: “Honestly, I almost had a heart attack when I saw the price – this all came to £88, I was stunned.”

But the money spending clearly didn’t stop there, as Skye ended her day with a takeaway.

So glad my taxes are being spent wisely

TikTok user

Although Skye didn’t splurge masses on her fast food as it cost her just £2.99. 

“Then went into Maccas cause I was quite hungry, so I picked up a triple cheeseburger,” she concluded.

Social media users react

Skye’s TikTok clip, which was posted under the username @skyebyrnex, has clearly left many open-mouthed, as it has quickly racked up 32,100 views. 

But social media users were fuming by how Skye spent her money and many raced to the comments to express this. 

One person said: “So glad my taxes are being spent wisely.” 

I am allowed a nice home for my daughter to live in. I’m also allowed to take my daughter on holidays and enjoy her childhood

Skye Byrne

Another added: “How can you afford to shop in Sainsbury’s on UC? I’m lucky if I can afford Primark nowadays.” 

A third commented: “Workshy and diet shy.”

To this, Skye responded and alongside a kiss emoji, cheekily wrote: “Don’t be jelly.” 

At the same time, one user questioned: “Isn’t UC designed to help you survive when you aren’t working? Not for pillows? And apparently a holiday.” 

In response, Skye shared: “1. I am allowed a nice home for my daughter to live in. 2. I’m also allowed to take my daughter on holidays and enjoy her childhood.” 

Meanwhile, someone else asked: “How on earth do you afford to go on holiday?”

Setting the record straight, Skye wrote back and confirmed: “I save. I make sure I can do these things for my daughter.” 

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club

FAMILIES can now receive a cut of £56million in energy bill support from a ‘Big Six’ supplier.

From today, OVO Energy is handing out free electric blankets as one of its ways to help customers with rising energy bills.

1

The supplier runs the extra support service for users all year round, but is now increasing the amount of aid it’s giving out ahead of the winter months.

Since 2022, OVO has given £190million in aid, including heated blankets, smart sockets, and efficiency kits, helping 42,000 customers last year.

The latest £56million package includes free energy-saving products and direct financial support.

And it’s not just electric blankets that you could bag for free.

OVO is also giving away mattress toppers and home efficiency kits to struggling households as part of the scheme.

Customers could also receive a wide range of energy-saving measures installed through ECO4 – from loft insulation to a new boiler, or even high-end tech like heat pumps.

Eligible customers could get a whole package installed, all for free.

Financial support including Direct Debit reductions, emergency credit top-ups, and extended repayment plans are also being offered.

To check your entitlement, visit ovoenergy.com/extra-support.

Ovo is separately campaigning for the introduction of a social tariff to protect vulnerable customers from high energy prices and combat fuel poverty across the UK.

David Buttress, chief executive of OVO, said: “We’re providing support to those who need it most by working together with our charity partners and committing our largest ever customer support package.”

“But this isn’t a long term solution.

“We need to make the energy system work better for everyone.

“That starts with targeted support in the form of a social tariff – no one can be, or no one needs to be left behind.”

What other grants are available?

There are several other ways households can boost their home’s energy efficiency and save money through a variety of grants.

From insulation and boiler upgrades to modifications for disabled residents, financial assistance can cover a substantial portion of your home improvement costs.

Some grants may even cover up to £50,000 worth of home improvements.

Great British insulation scheme – £1,000s

You can get help insulating your home through the Government’s Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS) if you’re not eligible under the ECO scheme.

GBIS is open to an extra 400,000 households in council tax bands A to E across England, Wales and Scotland who might not be claiming benefits.

To qualify, you must have an energy performance certificate rating of D or lower.

You could be in line for essential upgrades to your home, including roof, loft or cavity wall insulation – which could cut your annual energy bill by £100s.

Check whether you meet the eligibility criteria by visiting gov.uk/apply-great-british-insulation-scheme.

Boiler upgrade scheme – £7,500

Through the boiler upgrade scheme, you could get a grant to cover part of the cost of replacing fossil fuel heating systems with a heat pump or biomass boiler.

You can get one grant per property, towards help with the following:

• £7,500 towards an air source heat pump
• £7,500 towards a ground source heat pump (including water source heat pumps and those on shared ground loops)
• £5,000 towards a biomass boiler

To qualify for this scheme you must own the property you are looking to upgrade.

You must find an MCS-certified installer to claim the grant on your behalf.

MCS is the certification scheme for energy-efficiency product installers.

You can find the nearest ones to you by visiting www.mcscertified.com/find-an-installer, but it is worth shopping for a few quotes.

Home upgrade grant – £1,000s

The home upgrade grant provides funding for various energy efficiency measures for homes that are not connected to the gas grid, often in rural or semi-rural areas.

To be eligible, you must own and live in the property you’re applying for and not use a mains gas boiler as your home’s main heating system.

You’ll also need an performance certificate (EPC) rating of D, E, F or G – if you do not know your home’s EPC you can find it out when you apply.

You’ll usually need to have a household income of £36,000 a year or less.

If you’re eligible, your local council will arrange a home survey to see how your home could be made more energy efficient.

They might suggest improvements like installing wall, loft and underfloor insulation, air source heat pumps, electric radiators

Find out more by visiting gov.uk/apply-home-upgrade-grant.

What energy bill help is available?

There’s a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you’re struggling to get by.

If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter.

This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period.

If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don’t think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal.

Several energy firms have schemes available to customers struggling to cover their bills.

But eligibility criteria vary depending on the supplier and the amount you can get depends on your financial circumstances.

For example, British Gas or Scottish Gas customers struggling to pay their energy bills can get grants worth up to £2,000.

British Gas also offers help via its British Gas Energy Trust and Individuals Family Fund.

You don’t need to be a British Gas customer to apply for the second fund.

EDF, E.ON, Octopus Energy and Scottish Power all offer grants to struggling customers too.

Thousands of vulnerable households are missing out on extra help and protections by not signing up to the Priority Services Register (PSR).

The service helps support vulnerable households, such as those who are elderly or ill.

Some of the perks include being given advance warning of blackouts, free gas safety checks and extra support if you’re struggling.

Get in touch with your energy firm to see if you can apply.

TRADESPEOPLE are struggling to expand their businesses because of growing costs, bureaucracy and hiring pressures, a new study suggests.

A survey of 850 tradespeople working across the UK by Checkatrade showed they were eager to contribute to the Government’s plan for growth, but challenges were preventing them from doing so.

1

Four out of five of those surveyed said rising costs of materials and tools, plus increased levels of tool theft, were preventing them from growing their business.

A similar number blamed rising taxes, such as the increase in employer National Insurance Contributions.

In April the Government increased the rate of National Insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%.

It also lowered the threshold at which employers start paying National Insurance from £9,100 to £5,000.

This has piled further pressure onto tradespeople already struggling to make ends meet.

Jambu Palaniappan, chief executive of Checkatrade, said: “The UK is a nation dependent on the trade industry — from carpenters to electricians, decorators to roofers.

“The 900,000 people behind it couldn’t be more important for propelling our economy.”

He said that the research shows how eager tradespeople are to contribute to the Government’s growth agenda.

As part of the plan the Government wants to improve the UK’s rate of economic growth and boost national productivity.

But while there is lots of optimism and significant opportunities for growth, there are still significant challenges tradespeople face.

Palaniappan said: “The Government needs to work with industry to close skills gaps, ensure apprenticeships work for small businesses, and do everything they can to reduce the burdens, the costs, and the taxes that can stifle tradespeople’s growth.”

What support is available?

If you are self-employed and are struggling with the higher cost of living, then there is support available to you.

Universal Credit

One way is to top up your income with Universal Credit.

You can apply if you need to top up your income and have low income and savings.

But you won’t be eligible if you live with a spouse or partner and have combined savings of more than £16,000 or your partner earns too much.

You can check if you are eligible and your claim is likely to be successful by using a benefits calculator.

Turn2us and Entitledto both offer calculators that can help you check whether you qualify.

You will need to attend a gateway interview with a DWP work coach so they can check that being self-employed is your main job.

They will also confirm if you are making a profit or are expected to if you’ve just started out.

This means you’ll need to provide evidence such as receipts, a business plan, copies of invoices, trading accounts or proof you’ve registered as self-employed with HMRC.

If you don’t have enough evidence, then they may decide that you’re not “gainfully” self-employed.

You will need to look and be eligible for other work while you get Universal Credit.

For more information and to apply visit the GOV.UK website.

Employment and Support Allowance

If you’re self-employed, then you can’t claim Statutory Sick Pay.

But if you’ve paid enough National Insurance, then you may be able to claim the new-style Employment and Support Allowance if you’re ill.

If you qualify for the benefit, then you can claim it regardless of your household income or savings.

But if you haven’t paid enough National Insurance, then you may be able to claim the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of Universal Credit.

To be eligible your savings must be less than £16,000.

If you live with a partner, then their income will also be taken into account as part of the claim for Universal Credit.

For information on if you qualify for Employment and Support Allowance and what to do if you don’t visit GOV.UK.

Cut your tax bill

You could be missing out on key tax allowances that could save you hundreds of pounds a year.

If you work from home, then you may be able to claim for costs associated with work, such as business phone calls, gas and electricity.

If you work from home between 51 and 100 hours a month, then you could get £18.

Meanwhile, if you work for more than 101 hours a month from home, then you could get £26 a month – or £312 a year.

If the amount of time you work from home varies month-to-month, then you can claim the relevant amount for that month.

To apply visit the GOV.UK website.

You may also be able to claim tax relief on your mileage if you drive a car or van for work.

You can claim 45p tax relief on every mile you do for the first 10,000 miles a year of business journeys.

If you travelled this distance in a year, you would get £4,500 in tax relief a year.

If you drive more than 10,000 miles, then you can claim 25p tax relief per mile.

You can also get an additional 5p per mile in relief if you carry a passenger.

You can log the number of miles you do and add reminders to report your mileage using apps including driversnote and Fuelio.

To use these apps just download them from the app store and create an account.

Read our helpful guide for more advice on how to cut your tax bill if you’re self-employed.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

SCRAPPING the two-child benefit cap may not help with a child’s early development and being ready for school, a report says.

The new study says ending the policy would massively help reduce child poverty but it currently has “no adverse” impact on kids by the end of their reception year.

1

Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to end the cap from ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.

But ending the policy that came into effect in 2017 would cost between £2 billion and £3.5 billion by the end of the decade.

The government has a goal of raising the proportion of children starting school ready to learn from the current 68 per cent to 75 per cent by 2030.

Report author Tom Waters, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “This suggests that it might be hard for the Government to ‘kill two birds with one stone’ – simultaneously reducing child poverty and raising school readiness – through scrapping the two-child limit.”

The government is expected to set out its strategy to tackle child poverty this Autumn.

Cabinet Minister Bridget Phillipson said scrapping the cap is “on the table” while drumming up support for her bid to be Labour’s deputy leader, following Angela Rayner leaving the role.

A YOUNG woman has moaned about how the Jobcentre has found “yet another way” to get on her nerves. 

Serena Lola, a 23-year-old who receives Universal Credit, described the Jobcentre as “dumb” and “poorly run.”

2

2

The content creator, who is currently unemployed and is “vibing her way through life” took to social media to express her frustration at her situation, leaving many open-mouthed.

As she travelled to her local Jobcentre, she fumed: “The Jobcentre has found yet another way to p**s me off.”

The youngster acknowledged that she was sent money to pay for travel to an interview, but the ticket didn’t cost the full amount she was given.

As a result of being overpaid by the Jobcentre, she now owes them £15.

After receiving a letter requesting the overpaid money back, Serena explained: “They told me that I have to come into the Jobcentre and hand them cash – now this just seems illogical to me, especially in a day and age of technology where we can bank transfer money.

“I’m now having to pay £1.75 to go to the Jobcentre, when I don’t have a job or an income, to hand in cash.

“So now that’s £1.75 I’m wasting to go to the Jobcentre, when that’s something that could be done online.”

Serena was fuming with the circumstances, after being forced to go to a cash point, withdraw money and then “physically trek” to hand the payment back.

While Serena recognised it was a “minor, non-issue,” she was clearly very irritated by the “illogical” situation,.

“But come on – it just shows you how poorly run the system is and they could be doing things a lot better and a lot easier,” she concluded.

Social media users react

Serena’s TikTok clip, which was posted under the username @serenaxlola, has clearly left many open-mouthed, as it has quickly racked up 359,600 views, 9,177 likes and 445 comments.

Social media users were stunned by Serena’s situation and many flocked to the comments to express their thoughts. 

One person said: “So ridiculous.” 

They have to make everything 10 times more difficult for no reason

TikTok user

Another added: “Ring them and raise a complaint. You are out of pocket for travelling to the Jobcentre to pay them back, defeating the purposes of supporting you in the first place. That’s not okay.”

In response, Serena wrote back and penned: “It’s such a silly system.” 

A third commented: “They have to make everything 10 times more difficult for no reason.”

To this, Serena responded: “Tell me about it.” 

Meanwhile, someone else questioned: “Can’t they just take it from your next UC payment?”

Clearly baffled by the situation, Serena responded: “That’s what I thought?!? But clearly not.” 

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club

Homestays run by women in Nepal

Nestled in the Kathmandu Valley, Nagarkot Community Homestay Network is a cornerstone for building businesses. It enables women to grasp financial independence by opening up their homes to tourists. It was an enriching cultural experience for both me and my host. Their support of each other spilled over during my stay, in their warmth, delight and genuine desire to share and learn.
Vicky Bamford

Fishing conservation in Mexico

I had the trip of a lifetime in Mexico and out in the Pacific, diving with some incredible creatures. We funded – and were joined on the trip by – two young women who were learning to dive with a charity called Héroes del Mar, which works with Mexican young people in fishing communities to raise awareness of conservation and how it can go hand in hand with fishing as an economic lifeline for rural areas. They should be able to gain a career in conservation, train the next generation in their community and ensure fishing benefits communities and wildlife.
Holly

Dolphin-watching in East Sussex

Sussex Dolphin Project runs some fantastic boat trips from Newhaven and Brighton marinas, including a wildlife sailing experience and a sunset cruise, on which you may be lucky enough to see dolphins. Trips are from £30 for adults and £19 for children. The Trust focuses on education, training and citizen science in the local community.
Ayesha Twyman

Giving peace a chance, worldwide

Not one trip but many – like thousands of others across the world, we are members of Servas, set up in 1949 as a volunteer-run NGO to build international friendships, and promote peace and understanding. We have learned about urban ecology in Nantes, self-sufficiency in Asturias and what it was like to live in Ceaușescu’s Romania, and met like-minded people who have become friends. We have also welcomed visitors from all over the world. Others who travel more widely than we do tell us about warm welcomes and fascinating experiences all across the globe.
Barbara Forbes

Time for tea in Sri Lanka

In the mountains on the outskirts of Kandy sit the lush hills that host the plantations of this famous tea-growing region. We visited our female hosts as they finished their eight-hour shift, for which they earn £20 a week for working six days and carrying 20kg a day on their backs. We visited their home close by, where we mixed spices, cooked our dinner and enjoyed a typical evening with several generations of the family. A truly authentic experience, steeped in the local culture, with our payment supporting and benefiting the entire community.
Julie Fell

Crofting and standing stones on Lewis

A small village in mainland terms, Carloway runs an annual agricultural show which attracts about 2,000 visitors to what is now the best window on crofting in the Western Isles. It’s located on the western fringe of Lewis, the most northerly island in the Outer Hebrides. The mixture of fete, Highland games, baking and fruit-and-veg competitions with best sheep, dog, horse and cattle show is all run by local volunteers. Held on the first Wednesday in August, it also has ceilidhs and Highland dance events through the week. There’s a community-owned shop, self-catering and bunks (Garenin village) – and it’s only a few miles from the world-famous Callanish or Calanais standing stones. You have to pinch yourselves at the privilege of listening to superb Gaelic singers while supporting their culture and community.
Foster Evans

Winning tip: Local hosts on an Alpine hike in Italy

We completed three weeks of the Grande Traversata delle Alpi, an 800km (500 mile) long-distance trek in the Italian Alps. It was conceived as an economic regeneration project in the 1970s to join up and provide tourism to tiny villages with ageing populations and declining industry. In each location, one or more providers elects to supply overnight accommodation and food to hikers; as a result the variety in our stays was immense. It cost €60-70pp pn for half-board, sometimes less in dormitories. It’s a very quiet trail compared with many in the Alps, and we often had it to ourselves. Villagers are really friendly and we enjoyed some delicious local food, always at least three courses, with vegetarians fully catered for.
Samantha McGrady

MILLIONS of struggling households on Universal Credit could be missing out on discounted broadband worth up to £200.

Social tariffs are offered to those on Universal Credit and other government benefits such as Pension Credit.

1

And it can help you save hundreds of pounds a year compared to the standard deals.

Not only that, but they often come with no exit fees, although you should always check the terms and conditions carefully.

It comes after fresh analysis by Policy in Practice shows that there was over 7.5million missed claims for the tariffs.

And the average household is missing out on £200 a year.

It means you can get access to broadband at a discounted price, which can help if you are struggling with other costs.

For example, 4th Utility social tariffs offers a broadband for £13.99 a month.

Meanwhile, BT offers a Home Essentials package for those on Universal Credit and the guaranteed element of Pension Credit.

And those Employment and Support Allowance, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support can also apply.

You’ll need to provide some personal information when you apply, including your National Insurance Number, so we can check that you’re eligible.

Community Fibre also offers an essentials package that costs just £12.50 a month.

Meanwhile, EE also offers a £12 monthly sim deal, for those on claiming Universal Credit.

The group will ill carry out an eligibility check every 12 months to see if you still meet the criteria to get the discounted deal.

How to get the best deal

Like with any offer, it is worth shopping around to ensure you are getting the best deal.

The regulator Ofcom has a list on its website of all the firms offering social broadband and mobile phone tariffs.

The list can be found here – www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/saving-money/social-tariffs.

It’s worth scanning the list to find the package that best suits your needs.

You can also compare deals via comparison sites like Uswitch.

What other support can I get

If you claim Universal Credit you could be missing out on extra support, such as discounts to your council tax bill.

The support is given out by local councils in England, so how much is cut will depend on where you live, your income, dependants and other benefits.

You can find out if you’re eligible by visiting gov.uk/apply-council-tax-reduction.

Households can also get access to free school meals, and school uniform grants which can be worth up to £300.

During the winter, claiming benefits such as Universal Credit can also make you eligible for the warm home discount scheme.

This is a £150 discount on your electricity bill to help tackle rising costs during the winter.

MILLIONS of Brits who rely solely on the state pension face having to pay income tax within the next two years.

Rises guaranteed under the triple-lock will push many dangerously close to the £12,570 tax threshold.

State pensions rise each year by the rate of either inflation, earnings growth, or 2.5 per cent — whichever is highest.

With wage growth at 4.7 per cent, the full new state pension will rise to £12,535 a year next April.

That is £35 short of the frozen income tax threshold, meaning OAPs in question are certain to be paying up by 2027.

Despite warnings, the Government has made no commitment to raising tax thresholds or making an exemption for Brits who have only the state pension.

A spokesman said: “We are committed to helping pensioners live their lives with dignity and respect, which is why millions will see their pension rise by up to £1,900 this Parliament.”

They also stated that people completely reliant on the state pension would not have to pay any income tax “this year”.

HMRC is expected to deduct tax directly through pension providers — or send pensioners a Simple Assessment tax bill that they have to work out.

Campaigners last night blasted the news, with ex-Pensions Minister Sir Steve Webb calling it a “creeping injustice” due to “drag millions more into the tax net”.

Rachel Vahey, of pensions firm AJ Bell, said it would force many older Brits to fill out their first self-assessment, and warned that present financial woes made reforms on taxes and pensions unlikely.

1

You’re ready for a change of pace — not just leaving the workforce, but moving to another state or country in order to start fresh. While exciting, you’re probably also prepared for some challenges, like learning your way around your new neighborhood and coming up with a new retirement budget.

Though you might not expect it, you could also face Social Security challenges that affect your benefit delivery or how far your checks go. Fortunately, you can minimize the difficulty these issues pose by planning for them well in advance.

Image source: Getty Images.

Moving to another state

Moving to another state won’t change the monthly Social Security check you’re entitled to, whether you’re receiving a retirement or spousal benefit. But it could affect how far your checks go. For example, if you move from a city with a high cost of living to a rural area where living expenses are cheaper, you might find that your checks go further than they would in your current city. On the other hand, if you move to a pricier area, you may have to pay for more of your expenses out of your own pocket.

Moving could also put you at risk of or help you avoid state Social Security benefit taxes. Only nine states still have these, and each has its own rules that determine who owes these taxes. It’s possible to live in a state with a Social Security benefit tax and not pay any state taxes on your checks. But it’s worth reaching out to your new state’s department of taxation or an accountant in that state to learn how it could affect your tax bill.

You could also find yourself owing federal Social Security benefit taxes wherever you go. These depend on your provisional income — your adjusted gross income (AGI), plus any nontaxable interest you have from municipal bonds and half your annual Social Security benefit. If you’re forced to spend more due to a higher cost of living in your new home, this could increase your AGI and your provisional income, potentially forcing you to pay more in federal income taxes.

Moving to another country

If you decide to move to another country, you sidestep the issue of state Social Security benefit taxes. Depending on where you go, you might also be able to secure a lower cost of living to help your benefits go further.

You will still be responsible for paying federal Social Security benefit taxes if your provisional income is high enough. And you could also run into an accessibility issue if you retire in certain countries.

The Social Security Administration can pay you via direct deposit or a prepaid debit card in most parts of the world. However, if you retire in the following countries, you may not be able to receive your benefit payments:

• Azerbaijan
• Belarus
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan

You may be able to petition the Social Security Administration to make an exception for you if you agree to certain restricted payment terms.

This isn’t an option for those who choose to retire in Cuba or North Korea, however. There, you cannot get Social Security benefits at all.

If you retire in a country where the U.S. government won’t send Social Security checks, you may still be able to receive all your back payments if you later move from that country to a place where the Social Security Administration can send benefits again.

It’s best to contact the Social Security Administration directly if you have any questions about how your move could affect your Social Security checks. This way, you’ll be able to get a personalized answer and then you can adjust your budget accordingly.