Markus Andrews

A sign is posted in front of an Olive Garden restaurant on June 20, 2024 in Rohnert Park, California. 
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

Dividend-paying stocks can help investors bolster their portfolios and boost returns.
Investors searching for these names will need to find companies that have a track record of making steady payments, backed by robust financials.

Here are three attractive dividend stocks, according to Wall Street’s top pros on TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
Darden Restaurants
The first dividend stock is Darden Restaurants (DRI), which operates several popular brands in full-service dining, including Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and Yard House. The company recently announced mixed results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024. While Darden exceeded analysts’ earnings expectations, its sales slightly missed the Street’s consensus amid increased discounting by rivals.
Darden issued $628 million in dividends and committed $454 million to share repurchases in fiscal 2024. Moreover, the company announced a dividend hike of nearly 7%, bringing the quarterly dividend to $1.40 per share. The stock has a dividend yield of 3.5%.
Following the results, BTIG analyst Peter Saleh reiterated a buy rating on DRI stock with a price target of $175. The analyst highlighted that at the mid-point, Darden’s earnings per share outlook of $9.40 to $9.60 indicates double-digit total shareholder return, which is in line with the company’s long-term targets.
Saleh thinks that the company can achieve its targeted return metrics, supported by several factors, including a modest rise in pricing, advertising initiatives and easing inflation.

“We view Darden Restaurants as one of the strongest operators in the industry with historical sales and restaurant margin performance that has consistently exceeded peers,” said Saleh.
Saleh ranks No. 360 among more than 8,900 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 61% of the time, with each delivering an average return of 11.7%. (See Darden’s Financial Statements on TipRanks)
International Seaways
Next up is International Seaways (INSW), a tanker company that offers energy transportation services for crude oil and petroleum products. On June 26, the company paid a combined dividend of $1.75 per share. The company’s combined dividend represented 60% of its first-quarter adjusted net income.
In its first-quarter results, INSW highlighted that its combined dividend payments of $5.74 per share over the last twelve months reflected a dividend yield of more than 13%.
Following meetings with INSW’s management, Stifel analyst Benjamin Nolan reaffirmed a buy rating on the stock and increased the price target to $68 from $66. The analyst noted that the tanker market remains cyclically strong due to a continued increase in global oil consumption, the limited supply of new ships and the longer average voyage lengths caused by the ongoing geopolitical troubles.
Accordingly, Nolan increased his rate assumptions for 2024 and 2025. The analyst expects International Seaways to continue to deliver higher cash flows, fueled by a favorable backdrop for the tanker market.
Nolan expects INSW to sustain high supplemental dividends, given the estimated $200 million to $300 million of excess cash flow after capital expenditure (assuming there is no new debt associated with tanker acquisitions). “We are modeling $5.51/share in 2024 dividends, although there is room to be a little higher,” said the analyst.
Nolan ranks No. 68 among more than 8,900 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 67% of the time, with each delivering an average return of 19.5%. (See International Seaways’ Stock Charts on TipRanks)
Citigroup
Finally, let’s discuss this week’s third dividend stock, banking giant Citigroup (C). At a quarterly dividend of 53 cents per share, Citigroup offers a yield of 3.3%.
The bank held its Services Investor Day on June 18. Management expressed confidence about achieving the 2024 guidance, driven by revenue growth across all the core businesses despite macro uncertainty and the possibility of lower interest rates.
Following the event, Goldman Sachs analyst Richard Ramsden reiterated a buy rating on Citigroup stock and slightly raised his price target to $72 from $71. The higher price target reflects an increase in the analyst’s EPS estimates for 2024, 2025 and 2026 based on management’s commentary, which indicated that the bank’s strategic transformation plan is gaining momentum.
Ramsden noted that Citi is highly focused on its transformation efforts, with the bank making steady progress on risk control and data quality. Coming to the Services business, the analyst noted that management established strategic priorities for this vital component of the company’s financial targets. The analyst estimates that the Services business will account for 25% of the group revenue growth through 2026.
“The Services business is well positioned to maintain their market leading positions with potential to continue share gains across businesses,” said Ramsden. The analyst’s optimism is based on Citi’s extensive global network in 95 countries, well-established long-term client relationships, and market share gains that are expected to be driven by investments in technology and innovative offerings.
Ramsden ranks No. 969 among more than 8,900 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 65% of the time, with each delivering an average return of 11.9%. (See Citigroup Technical Analysis on TipRanks) More

While lawmakers have a growing interest in taxing the ultra-rich, last week’s Supreme Court ruling could threaten future wealth tax proposals, experts say.
Many tax experts watched Moore v. United States to gauge Congress’ authority to tax unrealized earnings.
While the justices didn’t comment directly on wealth taxes, the ruling scattered clues about whether certain revenue raisers could pass constitutional muster.

Spotmatik | Photodisc | Getty Images

While lawmakers have a growing interest in taxing the ultra-rich, last week’s Supreme Court ruling could threaten future wealth tax proposals, experts say.
In Moore v. United States, the Supreme Court blocked a challenge to the “mandatory repatriation tax,” a one-time levy on certain foreign investments enacted in 2017.

The case centered on a U.S. couple who incurred about $15,000 in taxes on undistributed profits from an overseas company. The Moores argued the levy violated the 16th Amendment because they didn’t “realize” or receive income.  
More from Personal Finance:Supreme Court rejects challenge to tax on foreign investments — but avoids wealth tax debate55-year-olds are ‘critically underprepared’ for retirement, survey findsHere’s where U.S. rents are rising — and falling — the fastest
Many tax experts watched the Moore case to gauge Congress’ authority to tax unrealized earnings, which could have an impact on wealth tax proposals. But the Supreme Court didn’t comment directly on the issue.
“Nothing in this opinion should be read to authorize any hypothetical congressional effort to tax both an entity and its shareholders or partners on the same undistributed income realized by the entity,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his majority opinion.
Still, the 83-page ruling scattered some clues about whether certain versions of a wealth tax could pass constitutional muster, experts say. 

Issues with wealth tax proposals

In concurring and dissenting opinions, four justices — Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — said the 16th Amendment requires realization for taxes. One more justice could create a majority in future cases.
That could be a roadblock for Biden’s billionaire tax, which calls for a 25% tax on unrealized gains for households with wealth exceeding $100 million, experts say. Biden also included a billionaire tax in his 2023 and 2024 budget proposals, but the plan hasn’t gained broad support.

No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker or a nurse.

President Joe Biden

“No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker or a nurse,” Biden said during the State of the Union, where he renewed his proposal. He also briefly mentioned the plan during the first presidential debate on Thursday.
However, the Supreme Court opinions and Biden’s proposal “seem like they’re probably on a collision course,” said Alan Cole, senior economist with Tax Foundation’s Center for Federal Tax Policy.
Of course, the future of Biden’s tax proposal is unclear with uncertain control of Congress.

Plans ‘on the wrong side of the constitutional line’

Federal wealth taxes drew national attention during the 2020 presidential primaries when Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released dueling proposals. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has also proposed a similar tax on billionaires.
The issue is whether wealth tax proposals count as a “direct tax,” which must be apportioned, or split, among the 50 states based on their percentage of the total U.S. population, according to the Constitution.
That’s a barrier because “no taxes are ever apportioned,” said Steve Rosenthal, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. “It’s impossible.”

At oral arguments for the Moore case in December, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said a wealth tax would need to be apportioned among the states, which Rosenthal said “essentially threw the Warren and Sanders wealth tax under the bus.”
What’s more, Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, which “analytically divides direct and indirect taxes” and referenced Prelogar’s comment, could put the wealth tax proposals from Warren and Sanders “on the wrong side of the constitutional line,” Rosenthal said.

It’s not clear whether the Biden and Wyden proposals, which use so-called “mark-to-market” or yearly taxes of capital gains, would be constitutional either, experts say.
Wyden has insisted his plan is constitutional because annually taxing capital gains is already part of the tax code. 
The high court opinion “will open up the floodgates to much more litigation,” Rosenthal added.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Krisanapong Detraphiphat | Moment | Getty Images

Company: Rapid7 (RPD)                                      

Business: Rapid7 is a global cybersecurity software and services provider. Its products span across information security, cloud operations, development and information technology teams, enabling them to understand attackers and leverage that information to take control of their fragmented attack surface. Rapid7 Managed Threat Complete is the company’s flagship offering, and it includes the Rapid7 Managed Detection and Response program. Rapid7 also provides risk and threat coverage through InsightIDR and Insight VM services, making them available in a single package. Its security solutions help more than 11,000 global customers unite cloud risk management and threat detection.
Stock Market Value: $2.69B ($43.23 per share)

Stock chart icon

Rapid7 in 2024

Activist: Jana Partners

Percentage Ownership:  n/a
Average Cost: n/a
Activist Commentary: Jana is a very experienced activist investor founded in 2001 by Barry Rosenstein. The firm made its name taking deeply researched activist positions with well-conceived plans for long term value. Rosenstein called his activist strategy “V cubed.” The three “Vs” were” (i) Value: buying at the right price; (ii) Votes: knowing whether you have the votes before commencing a proxy fight; and (iii) Variety of ways to win: having more than one strategy to enhance value and exit an investment. Since 2008, the firm has gradually shifted that strategy to one which we characterize as the three “Ss” (i) Stock price: buying at the right price; (ii) Strategic activism: sale of company or spinoff of a business; and (iii) Star advisors/nominees: aligning with top industry executives to advise them and take board seats if necessary.

What’s happening

On June 26, The Wall Street Journal reported that Jana has taken a significant position in Rapid7 and may urge the company to sell itself, as well as improve operations and forecasting.

Behind the scenes

Rapid7 is a cybersecurity company that expands the expertise of its clients’ security operations. Its Managed Threat Complete flagship offering combines end-to-end 24/7 managed detection and response with vulnerability management offerings. Historically, the company has focused on on-site cybersecurity operations, but it has begun to expand into the explosive growth area of cloud security. Rapid7 operates in a highly attractive industry and is the beneficiary of some meaningful tailwinds. In a time where software budgets are being cut or reallocated toward AI, the threat of cyberattacks looms large and presents a great enough risk that spend is either flat or increasing for these types of services. In addition, cybersecurity analysts and internal security staff are limited, so there is a tremendous need for outsourcing. With more complex operations and numerous applications both on-site and in the cloud, Rapid7 is well-positioned to continue growing and aims to be a high-quality provider for subject matter experts who may not be able to retain the services of their largest and most expensive competitors.

Despite its favorable position, the company has delivered negative returns on a one-, three-, and five-year basis. Rapid7 is one of three main players in vulnerability management, yet it’s assigned a much smaller revenue multiple (3x) compared to peers Tenable (5.5x) and Qualys (8x). One factor in this is that Rapid7 offers a combination of low- and high-growth cybersecurity offerings, which is difficult to value, but more important are the multiple slip-ups by management, exacerbated by a lack of oversight by the board. First, the company has undergone changes to its sales model, including a shift to selling packaged products from selling offerings individually. It’s also moved to a channel model from direct. Next, the company has encountered challenges in bringing its cloud product to market. In addition, to shift from pure growth to a profitable software company, Rapid7 has focused on meeting targets for $160 million in free cash flow and improved margins. In August 2023, likely in pursuit of these goals, the company abruptly announced plans to reduce its staff by 18%. Rapid7 has had further retention problems in key executive roles, including the departure of its chief innovation officer and its critically important chief operating officer and president. Finally, the company has not been able to properly make forecasts, leading to tremendous investor uncertainty and questions of board oversight. In February 2024, the company announced its 2024 guidance, which it stated it was highly confident in, only to cut it in May when the company delivered its Q1 results. That led to a 17% stock price decline on May 8. This is a company operating in a highly complex and dynamic space – it is doing everything all at once and has seemingly failed to deliver.
With a company like this, there are generally two paths to shareholder value creation: (i) a long-term plan involving board reconstitution, management overhaul and review of strategic and operational plans and (ii) a shorter-term plan to sell the company to an interested buyer who can make those changes. With respect to the long-term plan, Jana generally works with industry executives and consultants in performing due diligence and implementing its activist plans, and we do not expect this situation to be different. The firm will often bring these individuals to the table to serve as director nominees, if deemed necessary. Jana is experienced in getting these experts on company boards, where they often serve as assets in getting the company to correct its issues, from operational to governance to capital allocation. But Jana also has extensive experience in strategic activism and getting portfolio companies sold. We expect that Jana will advocate for the strategy it expects will maximize shareholder value on a risk- and time-adjusted basis. Given the problems the company has been experiencing and the lack of CEO focus (Aside from being chairman and CEO of Rapid7, Corey Thomas is on the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He also serves on the boards of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, LPL Financial and Vanderbilt University.), a sale looks like it could be the easier and more certain path if there is a suitor at the right price.
Given industry tailwinds, there may be several strategic and financial buyers interested in this company. Recent transactions in the cybersecurity sector include Cisco’s $28 billion takeover of Splunk and Francisco Partners’ $1.7 billion acquisition of Sumo Logic. If Jana does advocate for a sale of Rapid7, it will ask the board to do it through a full sales process that attains the highest value for shareholders. In addition, Jana has a strategic partnership with Cannae Holdings, which could be helpful in providing the equity in a strategic transaction with a private equity firm. Consider that in 2019, Cannae joined with private-equity firms to buy Dun & Bradstreet. It is important to note that even if Jana thinks a sale of the company is the best way to optimize shareholder value, the firm will still have to get the board to agree. This does not look like a board and management team that will just go quietly. In such a case, Jana’s remedy would be to launch a proxy fight, but that could take some time. The 2024 annual meeting just passed on June 13 and the director nomination window does not open until Feb.13, 2025.
Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments. More

More than one-third of summer vacationers say they are willing to take on debt to pay for travel, according to a March 2024 report from Bankrate.
About a quarter (26%,) of summer travelers said they intend to use a credit card and pay for the vacation over multiple billing cycles.
“This represents a lot of people taking on expensive debt, and this is the kind of thing that can linger,” said Ted Rossman, a senior credit card industry analyst at Bankrate.

Some people could find themselves wrangling with summer travel bills well after Labor Day.
To that point, 36% of Americans said they plan to take on debt in order to travel this summer, according to a March survey from Bankrate. The payment methods for summer travel expenses ranged from personal loans (5%) and buy now, pay later services (8%) to borrowing from family and friends (6%).

Additionally, 26% of summer travelers said they intend to use a credit card and pay over for the vacation over multiple billing cycles.
“The reason that’s worrisome is because the average credit card charges more than 20%, which is close to a record high,” said Ted Rossman, a senior credit card industry analyst at Bankrate.
“I don’t want to tell people they can’t have any fun,” he said. “But this represents a lot of people taking on expensive debt, and this is the kind of thing that can linger.”
More from Personal Finance:Households have seen their purchasing power increaseHow to get a lower credit card interest rateCash savers still have an opportunity to beat inflation
Millennials (47%) and Gen Zs (42%) are the demographic cohort most likely to say they plan to go into debt to pay for vacation, according to Bankrate.

“There are so many compelling reasons why people choose to take on debt to have these vacations,” said Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist.
“If your kids are dreaming of going to Disney World and there’s no way the family could ever really swing it without going into debt, it could be a memory the family will have forever,” she said by way of example.
“And parents often can rationalize spending in these terms for their children, especially when the trip feels like such an important, seminal part of childhood,” she added.

How to have fun on a budget: ‘Zig when others zag’

Financial experts advise that the key to affording a vacation is to plan ahead and budget accordingly.
“Money on trips can feel like Monopoly money,” Romanoff said. “For some reason, we’re much more willing to just say yes to the experience because we’re just in this, like, luxurious mindset.”
For that reason, Romanoff advises her clients to set a budget for categories of spending while traveling such as food, activities and transportation.

Romanoff also suggests to give yourself areas where you splurge and those in which you spend conservatively.
“I had a client I worked with who decided they were going to stay in an Airbnb, and they were going to cook all of their food, so they were going to save on food and they were going to splurge on this boat trip they were really excited about, and it felt like a compromise,” Romanoff said.
The next step after establishing a budget is making a plan to save. Romanoff recommends starting small and setting aside a little bit of money from each paycheck.
People can also find other creative ways to save and to make the most of their trips. For example, Rossman suggests taking advantage of frequent flier miles or other credit card rewards.
Travelers can also save by choosing to visit locations at different times of the year. Lower demand usually leads to lower prices.
“Zig when others zag,” Rossman said. “Maybe travel in the offseason or the shoulder season, or drive instead of fly, or travel midweek instead of on the weekend. If you can let the deal dictate the destination, that can really help you out. Flexibility is key.”
Watch the video above to learn more about how Americans are paying for summer vacation. More

The Biden administration will place about three million student loan borrowers enrolled in its new repayment plan in forbearance while it defends the program in court.
Those who have signed up for The Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE plan, and have a monthly payment above $0 will not owe anything on their debt for the time being.
The Department of Education will reach out to affected borrowers in the coming days.

U.S. President Joe Biden is flanked by U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona as he speaks about administration plans to forgive federal student loan debt during remarks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington on Aug. 24, 2022.
Leah Millis | Reuters

The Biden administration is pausing student loan payments for about three million borrowers who are enrolled in its new repayment plan as it defends the program in court against Republican-backed lawsuits.
Those who have signed up for The Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE plan, and have a monthly payment above $0 will not owe anything on their debt for the time being, the U.S. Department of Education told CNBC.

More from Personal Finance:Why inflation is still upending retirement plansOlder voters want candidates who will protect Social SecurityWorkers in certain industries tend to have higher 401(k) balances
Earlier this week, two federal judges in Kansas and Missouri temporarily halted significant parts of President Joe Biden’s SAVE plan.
The preliminary injunctions are a result of lawsuits filed earlier this year by Republican-led states, including Florida, Arkansas and Missouri. The states argued that the Biden administration was overstepping its authority and trying to find a roundabout way to forgive student debt after the Supreme Court blocked its sweeping plan last year.
Under the SAVE plan, many borrowers pay just 5% of their discretionary income toward their debt each month, and its guidelines state anyone making $32,800 or less has a $0 monthly payment. It also expedited the timeline after which many borrowers receive the full cancellation of their debt.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a request to stay the injunction in Kansas.

“Republican elected officials continue to fight to block their own constituents from saving money, having their monthly payments cut in half, and receiving relief,” an Education Department spokesperson said in a statement.
They added that the Biden administration “will not stop vigorously defending the SAVE Plan, the most affordable repayment plan in history.”
The Department of Education will reach out to affected borrowers in the coming days. Those borrowers will have their loans put into forbearance and will not accrue interest.
The 4.5 million borrowers who have a $0 monthly payment under SAVE will continue to owe nothing and be considered up to date with their payments, the Department of Education said.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

The leader who occupies the White House after November’s election may influence the fate of Social Security and Medicare.
Here’s what President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump said about the programs during the first presidential debate on Thursday night.

Republican presidential candidate former U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic Party presidential candidate U.S. President Joe Biden speak during a presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., June 27, 2024 in a combination photo.
Brian Snyder | Reuters

The future of Social Security and Medicare may be greatly impacted by whoever occupies the White House following the November presidential election.
When asked during Thursday night’s presidential debate who is the biggest risk to those programs, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump pointed to each other.

Biden said Trump wants to “get rid of” Social Security and cut Medicare.
Trump said Biden is “destroying” those programs.
Social Security provides monthly income to more than 72 million beneficiaries, including retired and disabled workers and families. Medicare provides health coverage to more than 65 million Americans age 65 and over.  
With more than 11,000 Americans now turning 65 every day, according to estimates from the Retirement Income Institute at the Alliance for Lifetime Income, more retirees are relying on support from both programs.
When voters age 50 and up were asked how important Social Security is to their vote this November, 80% said it is extremely important or very important, a recent AARP survey found.

While those voters want a candidate who will protect the program, their support is still up for grabs, according to the results.
Both Biden and Trump moved to win those voters on Thursday. Here’s what they said.

Biden: ‘Make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share’

When Biden was asked how he would keep Social Security solvent, he reiterated promises he made during the State of the Union to make the wealthy pay more toward the program.
Social Security’s trust funds face a looming depletion date. The program’s trustees project Social Security’s combined funds may run out in 2035, at which point 83% of benefits will be payable unless Congress acts sooner.
Social Security relies on payroll taxes. Currently, that includes 6.2% of a worker’s pay — which is matched by employers — on up to $168,600 in 2024 earnings.

Biden is proposing that those payroll taxes are also applied to earnings over $400,000. Similar Democratic proposals also call for additional taxes on investment income.
“I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000,” Biden said on the debate stage on Thursday. “After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share.”
While the taxable maximum is adjusted each year, the percentage of total earnings above that threshold has increased over time. This year, that meant a top earner with $1 million in gross annual wage income stopped paying into Social Security in March.  
Unlike Biden, Trump did not suggest specific changes to Social Security during the debate.

Trump: Millions of immigrants get Social Security

Trump said Biden is “destroying” Social Security by letting millions of people into the country, who he claimed are accessing not only that program but also Medicare and Medicaid.
“Trump baselessly claimed that that undocumented workers are collecting benefits — a myth that has no basis in reality,” Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said in a statement.
“Undocumented workers are not eligible for Social Security benefits, period,” Richtman said. “Either Trump doesn’t understand how America’s greatest social insurance programs work — or he is purposely lying.”
Immigration may instead help Social Security’s funding woes, experts say, by increasing the number of people who will work and pay payroll taxes into the program.
That goes for illegal immigration as well, where workers tend to adopt false Social Security numbers and therefore still contribute to the program without working toward benefit eligibility, Social Security expert Laura Haltzel said in May.

Trump: ‘I’m the one that got the insulin down’

Members of the media work during the first presidential debate with US President Joe Biden and former US President Donald Trump in Atlanta, Georgia, US, on Thursday, June 27, 2024.
Eva Marie Uzcategui | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Medicare now has a $35 cap on co-payments for insulin, and both Biden and Trump take credit for the change.
While Biden incorrectly said during the debate that the price was lowered to $15 per shot, Trump said he was the one to actually lower those prices.
“I took care of the seniors,” Trump said.
It’s not the first time that Trump has suggested he lowered insulin costs. The former president also recently made the same claims on his social media platform, Truth Social.
A recent analysis by health policy research organization KFF evaluated the efforts by both presidents to lower insulin costs.
Trump established a voluntary, limited-time model from 2021 to 2023 where participating Medicare Part D prescription drug plans covered one dosage form and type of insulin product that was capped at $35 per month.

Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which starting in 2023 made it so Medicare Part D plans can only charge up to $35 per month for covered insulin treatments, while cost sharing for insulin under Medicare Part B is also limited to $35 per month. Deductibles also no longer apply to insulin under either Medicare plan.
Trump’s plan affected around 800,000 insulin users in 2022, according to KFF, while Biden’s plan may affect about 3.3 million insulin users covered by Medicare Part D, as well as Medicare Part B beneficiaries.
“The Trump Administration’s $35 insulin copay model had a more limited reach than the insulin copay cap now in place under the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed into law,” wrote KFF experts Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy, and Tricia Neuman, executive director for the program on Medicare policy.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

If you buy health insurance via the federal marketplace, your premiums could increase significantly after 2025 — unless Congress takes action.  
The premium tax credit lowers upfront marketplace health insurance premiums and the benefits were temporarily enhanced during the Covid-19 pandemic.
“The expiration of the expansion is going to have an impact on just about everyone,” said Andrew Lautz, associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s economic policy program.

Nortonrsx | Istock | Getty Images

If you buy health insurance via the federal marketplace, your premiums could increase significantly after 2025 — unless Congress takes action.
The premium tax credit makes health insurance purchased via the marketplace more affordable. Participants can use the credit to lower insurance premiums upfront or claim the tax break when filing their return.

The credit was temporarily enhanced via the American Rescue Plan Act during the Covid-19 pandemic. The legislation covered plans in 2021 and 2022, but the Inflation Reduction Act extended that benefit through 2025.
If the benefits sunset after 2025, “virtually everybody would face higher premiums,” according to Gideon Lukens, senior fellow and director of research and data analysis for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who wrote about the expirations this month.
More from Personal Finance:Here’s why your July 4th barbecue may be pricier this yearTypical cost to sell a home in the U.S. is nearly $55,000: How to lower expenses55-year-olds are ‘critically underprepared’ for retirement, survey finds
The White House in January reported record-high enrollment in marketplace plans for 2024, with more than 21 million participants.
In his fiscal 2025 budget request, President Joe Biden proposed making the premium tax credit expansion permanent. He briefly plugged the program’s benefits for communities of color during the first presidential debate on Thursday.

However, making the program permanent would increase the federal budget deficit by $335 billion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the program.

Tax break expiration will affect ‘just about everyone’

Without an extension from Congress, marketplace premiums will increase for Americans across the income spectrum, with an effect in mid-2025 when health insurers begin releasing rates, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report found.   
For example, a typical family of four making $60,000 would see monthly premiums jump from $100 to $326, or about $2,700 more per year. By comparison, the same-size family earning $125,000 would see monthly premiums rise from $885 to $1,525, which adds about $7,700 annually.       
“The expiration of the expansion is going to have an impact on just about everyone,” said Andrew Lautz, associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s economic policy program.

The expiration of the expansion is going to have an impact on just about everyone.

Andrew Lautz
Associate director for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s economic policy program

The tax credit has reduced costs for all enrollees, even those ineligible for the tax break because “additional enrollment has improved the nongroup market risk pool,” according to the Urban Institute.
Until 2021, the credit was only available for households with income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. But the American Rescue Plan Act removed those limits and capped premiums at 8.5% of income.
The premium tax credit is based on the difference between a benchmark premium — the cost of the second-lowest-cost silver plan available in an area — and a maximum contribution based on a percentage of income. The tax break is adjusted over time.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

81% of Americans say they dine out at least once a month and 31% dine out at least once a week.
Consumers say inflation is affecting their tipping habits.
Free loyalty clubs and discounted gift cards can help stretch your dollar when dining out.

A group of guys enjoy a dinner at Cassias outdoor patio as the much loved restaurant re-opens its indoor dining and continues outdoor dining on Wednesday, May 5, 2021 in Santa Monica, CA. 
Jason Armond | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Consumers aren’t sacrificing dining out, even with prices on the rise — but they are getting more savvy about managing those bills.
The majority of Americans surveyed, 81%, say they are dining out once a month or more and 31% say they dine out once a week or more, according to new research from e-commerce provider Lightspeed Commerce Inc.

Even though inflation has slowed significantly from its pandemic-era peak, consumers still feeling the financial squeeze are opting for takeout, value meals and happy hour deals, the report found.
The consumer price index, which gauges how fast prices are changing in the U.S. economy, shows food prices at restaurants have been growing faster than grocery store items — but finance experts have tips for stretching your dollar.

“While Americans are still dining out, they are also looking for ways to keep dining fun and affordable amidst changing economic conditions. It’s all about value for diners — they’re looking to enjoy eating out, but at a good price,” Lightspeed CEO Dax Dasilva said.
Lightspeed surveyed 1,500 Americans in May as part of an international survey that included 7,500 overall responses.

Higher meal prices and ‘shrinkflation’

U.S. diners are noticing rising prices when the server drops off their bill, with 69% in the Lightspeed survey reporting pricier meals. Some said they’re seeing “shrinkflation” in action, with 39% noticing their favorite dishes shrinking in size even as the prices remain the same or increase.

Even with a jump in prices, about half of respondents said they will continue to dine out at the same rate or increase their frequency of restaurant visits. 
Ted Jenkin, a certified financial planner and CEO of oXYGen Financial Inc. in Atlanta, said consumer dining trends could be a lingering effect from the aftermath of the pandemic. 
More from Personal Finance:Here’s why your July 4th barbecue may be pricier this yearBiden’s new student loan relief plan is on pause. What to knowHomeowners typically spend nearly $55,000 to sell a home
“It started with revenge travel, and then it was followed by revenge shopping. And now I think it’s just a way that people are living their life with this mentality of ‘I’m going to just enjoy my life today, because I don’t know what tomorrow is going to bring me,'” said Jenkin, who is a member of the CNBC Advisor Council. “And I think there’s been some permanency to that.”
Nearly half of U.S. diners, 45%, are being more frugal by asking for to-go boxes to enjoy leftovers later, according to Lightspeed. Meanwhile, 43% are hunting for deals with coupons, 39% are choosing value meals and 36% are taking advantage of happy hour specials.

Past the ‘tipping point of tipping’

One way consumers say inflation is impacting their dining habits is through tipping. Of those surveyed, 44% of consumers said inflation has affected their ability to tip.
The majority of diners surveyed, 73%, say they’re not happy when the cashier flips around a tablet screen to reveal auto-tipping options. 
“I think when times were better, you definitely saw more people being more comfortable at the iPad paying tip,” said Winnie Sun, co-founder and managing director of Irvine, California-based Sun Group Wealth Partners. She is also a member of the CNBC Advisor Council.
“Nowadays, consumers are fed up with having to tip at places that they don’t normally tip at,” she added.

When looking at scenarios outside of sit-down restaurants, consumers are more likely to tip delivery drivers (61%), than baristas at coffee shops (28%) or an employee working behind a counter (19%).
“People have passed the tipping point of tipping. I think people are willing to tip when they go out to a real service-based restaurant,” Jenkin said. “The days of going in and having to pay for a $7 coffee and leaving a $2 tip are, I think, are getting smaller and smaller as consumers are feeling the bite at their wallet.”

Ways to spend wisely while dining out

Beyond taking advantage of deals a restaurant offers, Jenkin and Sun shared tips for cutting costs when dining out:

Join free loyalty clubs restaurants offer to get free perks.
Dine out on Monday or Tuesday when restaurants tend to be slower and may offer more deals.
Opt for two appetizers and one entree, instead of one appetizer and two entrees. This can cut $20 to $30 off your bill Jenkin said, and the entree is typically big enough to split.
Look for discounted restaurant gift cards on secondary market sites such as CardCash, Raise or eBay.
When ordering on sites like DoorDash or UberEats, choose pickup instead of delivery to cut fees. 
Research menus and plan ahead to know which dishes are in your budget.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More