Technologies
Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2027 may be above average. Some say it’s not enough
The Social Security Administration is expected to announce the cost-of-living adjustment for 2027. Projections point to a higher-than-average increase.
Millions of Social Security beneficiaries may see a larger-than-average cost-of-living adjustment in 2027, according to experts’ estimates.
The Social Security Administration is expected to announce the COLA for 2027 on Wednesday with the release of new government inflation data. Social Security experts estimate that the COLA may raise benefits by 3.5% to 3.6% next year, which would be the largest increase in three years.
Yet, even with an above-average increase, beneficiaries may still struggle to cover everyday costs.
More than three-quarters of adults 50 years and older — 76% — said they do not think a projected 3.5% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2027 would be enough, according to an AARP survey published Monday. The poll of 1,023 adults ages 50-plus was fielded between Sept. 17 and 21. The survey had a 4.25% margin of error.
“I would love it if the cost-of-living increase was more generous,” said Donna Dalrymple, a 70-year-old retiree in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Dalrymple retired at age 65 following a cancer diagnosis, she said, which prompted her to claim Social Security benefits and start 401(k) withdrawals five years earlier than she had planned. Today, she worries that other rising costs, particularly those for Medicare, may outpace the annual Social Security benefit increase, she said.
Cost-of-living adjustments have averaged about 3.1% over the past decade, according to the Social Security Administration.
In September, estimates showed the Social Security COLA may be the highest in three years.
The Senior Citizens League, a nonpartisan senior advocacy group, and Mary Johnson, an independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst, both forecast a 3.5% COLA for 2027. Meanwhile, AARP forecasts a 3.6% increase to benefits.
The last time beneficiaries saw a larger increase was in 2023, when the COLA jumped to 8.7% — the highest in four decades — as a result of soaring inflation. In 2022, beneficiaries saw a 5.9% rise as the inflation rate began to climb.
In 2026, Social Security beneficiaries received a 2.8% boost to their benefits.
A 3.5% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2027 would increase the average benefit check by $67.90 per month — to around $2,008 per month from $1,940 — according to the Senior Citizens League.
How COLA may differ from estimates
AARP’s recent survey found that 7 in 10 adults ages 50-plus said an increase between 5% and 8% would be sufficient to help keep up with the daily cost of living.
The official Social Security COLA announcement expected Wednesday may differ from September’s estimates, since it will include an additional month of inflation data.
A “very stiff jump in inflation” could push the Social Security COLA to 3.6%, Johnson said. But if inflation comes in lower than expected, the COLA may be 3.4%, she said.
Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment is automatically applied to benefits to help keep pace with inflation.
Since 1975, COLAs have been calculated annually for both Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits. However, in some years when there was little to no inflation, the COLAs have been zero.
“People are very, very grateful for it, and they look forward to it,” Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano said Monday of the upcoming COLA announcement during an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.”
How Medicare costs may affect COLA
Rising Medicare costs in 2027 may limit how much of an increase Social Security beneficiaries see in their monthly checks.
Standard monthly premiums for Medicare Part B, which are typically automatically deducted from Social Security checks, are projected to be $209.50 in 2027, up from $202.90 in 2026. Medicare Part B covers certain medically necessary and preventive services. Some beneficiaries may pay extra surcharges, known as Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amounts, if their incomes exceed certain thresholds.
Meanwhile, Medicare Part D prescription drug plans may see modest premium increases in 2027, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group. Part D premiums may also be deducted directly from Social Security checks.
The Trump administration recently announced it is sending one-time $90 direct payments to more than 20 million Medicare Part B enrollees to help pay for monthly premium costs.
Dalrymple, the New Hampshire retiree, said she does not think she qualifies for the one-time payment, which excludes millions of Part B beneficiaries through certain eligibility criteria. Dalrymple said she worries about rising Medicare costs for 2027.
“If Medicare cost eats up the cost of living [adjustment], I’m really going to get slammed by the affordability crisis because rents are going up, groceries are going up, gas is going up,” Dalrymple said.
Some Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, have questioned the Trump administration’s motives to send the $90 payments just a month or so ahead of the midterm election. President Donald Trump has separately said the government would send $5,000 to every U.S. adult citizen if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate.
Bisignano told CNBC on Monday that the $90 one-time payments are an example of the Trump administration “taking care of Americans” and working to keep vulnerable individuals, including the elderly, out of poverty.
Kathy Callaghan, 80, of Montpelier, Vermont, said she would have preferred the money had been put in the Medicare trust fund — which is projected to run out of money to fund Part A in 2033 — rather than distributed to Americans through checks.
Callaghan said she plans to donate her $90 check to the Senate campaign of James Talarico, a Democrat and Texas state representative running for the U.S. Senate.
Technologies
Netflix to lay off roughly 1,000 employees, or 6% of workforce
Netflix will lay off roughly 6% of its workforce, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.
Netflix
The job cuts will largely impact the product, tech, legal and HR teams.
“Our mission – to entertain the world – is ambitious, and delivering on it requires us to be disciplined about where we prioritize our people and resources,” Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters wrote in the email to employees. “Our business is strong and growing, and we remain on track to deliver our full year forecast.
We’ll continue to invest aggressively in high impact areas to improve our service and further drive growth and innovation.
“Doing that means making focused choices across the business so we can keep delivering for our members, partners, employees, and investors,” the note said.
Netflix said it did not have additional comments beyond the co-CEOs’ memo. The company is due to report quarterly earnings on Oct. 20.
The layoffs come just a few weeks after Sarandos told attendees at the Bloomberg Screentime conference that the company was “not growing as fast as I want.”
Netflix has faced a paradox in recent months. It continues to post solid profits and remains the biggest player in the streaming realm, but its viewing time has stagnated and the main driver of new subscriber acquisitions has been its password-sharing crackdown and the launch of a cheaper, ad-supported tier.
Netflix’s biggest threat has been YouTube, but looming on the horizon is Skydance
Netflix has diversified its content in recent years, expanding into live sports, documentaries and video games in order to compete for share of consumer attention. At the same time, it’s lacked the water-cooler-type hits like “Stranger Things” and “Squid Game” that previously boosted subscriber growth and viewership.
And Netflix is not the only company looking to cut costs in the media space. Last month, Disney said it would lay off around 300 employees, with the majority of cuts coming from human resources and technology roles.
— CNBC’s Julia Boorstin and Stephen Desaulniers contributed to this report.
Technologies
Treasury says largest U.S. banks let politics influence who received banking services
New Treasury Department findings may lend weight to President Donald Trump’s long-running grievance that major banks have discriminated against conservatives.
The Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found some of the largest banks serving the U.S. allowed political considerations, public pressure and social concerns to influence decisions about who received banking services, according to a sweeping report released Wednesday.
The OCC said it reviewed the nine largest national banks under its supervision, examining nearly 100,000 complaints and about 420,000 pages of documents. It found that all nine had used “reputation risk” policies that lacked “clear,” “objective” standards and could disadvantage customers because of their political or religious views or lawful business activities.
“Banks should make decisions based on financial risk, not the political or social preferences of their employees or executives,” Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould said, according to a transcript of his in remarks Wednesday in Lexington, Kentucky.
The findings may lend new regulatory weight to a grievance President Donald Trump has pressed since returning to office. Trump has repeatedly accused and sued major banks for discriminating against conservatives and has said he was personally “debanked” after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, claims banks have denied.
The report lands a day after the OCC and other Treasury regulators imposed more than $1.2 billion in penalties on Bank of America
The review covered JPMorgan Chase
The OCC stopped short of announcing fines or sanctions Wednesday, but said it is considering additional rules aimed at preventing political or religious discrimination.
Among the cases it highlighted: JPMorgan subsidiary WePay closed accounts belonging to merchants selling Trump and conservative merchandise. An internal screening list included terms such as “MAGA,” “Make America Great” and “America First,” even though the OCC found neither WePay nor JPMorgan had formal written standards for deciding when flagged material amounted to prohibited hate or violence.
JPMorgan told CNBC its policies prohibit discrimination based on political or religious views and said WePay’s process “did not meet our expectations.” The bank said it fixed the issue and has since shut down the business.
“We are not forcing these banks to serve every customer,” Gould said. “Instead, banks should evaluate every customer on objective, risk-based criteria.”
Citi declined to comment. The other banks did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The Bank Policy Institute, which represents large U.S. and foreign banks, said in a statement that the industry supports “clear and consistent standards that promote access while maintaining sound risk management,” adding that political or religious beliefs should not affect access to banking services.
The report also found examples cutting the other way politically.
Capital One declined relationships with an abortion-rights group after noting that about 95% of its political contributions went to Democrats, and with a public education group whose political arm endorsed only Democratic candidates. It also passed on a gun-rights group over concerns that banking it could look like an endorsement.
The practices extended beyond overtly political groups too, the report indicates.
The OCC found restrictions affecting firearms, fossil fuels, private prisons, tobacco and cryptocurrency, and said some banks’ appetite for those businesses shifted with the political climate — risking a “whipsaw” effect between administrations.
All nine banks told the OCC they have since revised or consolidated policies aimed at ensuring fair access. But the regulator said none has fully acknowledged past debanking decisions or created a comprehensive program to remediate affected customers.
Technologies
Trump’s diesel dilemma — by the numbers
Conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have created major ripple effects across global energy markets causing major price swings.
Diesel prices are surging as midterms approach – and they are likely to stay high in the near future, according to analysts.
The International Energy Agency’s monthly report for October, released Wednesday, was the latest to predict that constraints on the diesel market will likely keep prices elevated into next year. The group warned that even if refineries step up production of diesel into the year-end, inventories will likely remain strained until the second half of 2027.
Last Friday, President Donald Trump unexpectedly paused sanctions on Russian diesel fuel and announced that he reached a deal with President Vladimir Putin in which the Kremlin would release 4.8 million metric tons of diesel, or nearly 36 million barrels, to the global market.
Over the weekend, he took to Truth Social to announce an “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy later accused Russia of attacking the country’s energy facilities.
The foreign policy developments come as rising fuel prices — particularly skyrocketing diesel — have become a major flashpoint ahead of this year’s midterm election. But releasing Russian diesel to the global market is unlikely to drop prices in the near term. A note from Goldman Sachs last week even predicted that diesel prices will remain high through 2027 as refineries struggle to meet demand.
Here’s what the numbers tell us so far:
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
Wholesale diesel prices have more than doubled since the beginning of 2026 through the end of September as both the war in Iran and Russia’s war in Ukraine have dramatically cut global supply.
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
Trump has insisted that the war in Ukraine is to blame for high diesel prices. On July 8, Russia banned diesel exports after Ukraine struck its refineries. In the U.S., the price of a gallon of diesel rose nearly 40% between July 6 and Sept. 22.
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
However, the price of diesel had already jumped after the Iran war started and was still 20% above its prewar level when Russia instituted its export ban, making that tightening of supply feel that much more acute.
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
Indeed, both conflicts have created major ripple effects across global energy markets causing major swings, sometimes daily.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
