Investing

The IRS has been slow to pay car dealers for electric vehicle tax credits since mid-September, dealers said.
Some have continued issuing the EV tax credit to consumers as an upfront rebate, even if it puts them in a cash crunch, while others have pulled back on sales, dealers said.
Analysts expected September to be a blockbuster month for EV sales. The federal EV tax credit disappears after Sept. 30.

Internal Revenue Service headquarters on April 30, 2025, in Washington, DC.
J. David Ake | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The Internal Revenue Service has been slow in recent weeks to approve and pay federal tax credits for electric vehicles, according to auto dealers and industry analysts — creating confusion for car dealers and hindering EV sales less than a week before the tax break is slated to disappear.
The delays began in earnest in mid-September, according to accounts shared with CNBC from three dealers in different parts of the country. Auto analysts and two national trade associations also confirmed to CNBC dealership reports of delays.

The dealerships say it forces them into a tough choice: carry the cost to keep offering the credit, or pull back and risk losing vehicle sales.
“We’re continuing to pay the tax credit, though with a lot of anxiety,” said Jesse Lore, founder of Green Wave Electric Vehicles in North Hampton, New Hampshire. “We’re out close to $100,000 right now.”

Most consumers access the tax break — worth up to $4,000 for used EVs and $7,500 for new EVs — as an upfront rebate at the point of sale. That rebate can serve as a full or partial down payment, or reduce a car’s overall cost, for example.
Car dealers generally front that money to qualifying consumers after getting online approval from the IRS, and the agency then repays dealers.
Prior to mid-September, that entire process generally happened within a few days, dealers said.

Now, the IRS is taking an unusually long time to approve and pay EV tax credits, dealers said. They say they are unable to get in touch with the agency, and as a result are in limbo and without an idea of when — or if — they’ll get those funds.

A White House official said in an e-mail that all valid EV tax credits applied for before the Sept. 30 deadline would be granted and paid out.
Robyn Capehart, an IRS spokesperson, wrote in an e-mail that “any submissions through the Energy Credits Online portal have always been subject to IRS review and approval.”
“Once approved by the IRS, seller reports (also known as time of sale reports) support vehicle eligibility for the credit, even if that acceptance followed an IRS review period,” Capehart wrote.
The White House and the IRS offered no explanation for the reported delays.

‘We’re in the dark’

Some dealerships have continued to issue the EV tax credit to qualifying buyers, hoping the federal government will pay them back later.
A dozen new applications Lore has submitted to the IRS since Sept. 15 are still listed as “pending,” he said. Three others were approved on Thursday. None have been paid yet. Lore showed screenshots of the transactions to CNBC.
Such a delay had previously rarely occurred since the tax break first became available as an upfront rebate, in January 2024, Lore said.
“We’re in the dark,” he said.
He also hasn’t been able to provide customers with the time-of-sale report that they need to reconcile the tax credit on their annual tax return, Lore said.

EV tax credit delays come at ‘worst possible time’

Uwe Krejci | Digitalvision | Getty Images

It’s unclear why and to what extent delays are happening.
Some dealers speculated they may be tied to backlogs at the IRS due to reduced staffing and higher volume of EV sales. Others said they think it could be a purposeful move by the Trump administration in an effort to reduce EV sales.
Regardless, the roadblocks come at a bad time, dealers and analysts said.
Republicans ended the EV tax credit after Sept. 30 as part of the so-called “big beautiful bill” passed in July. The tax break was supposed to last through 2032.
Consumers have rushed to buy EVs before the tax break disappears, to secure the cars at a discounted price.
That helped push new and used EV sales to record highs in August, according to Cox Automotive data. September was expected to be another blockbuster month.
But some dealers have pulled back amid the uncertainty, unable to float big sums of cash to consumers.
“I know for a fact there are dealers saying, ‘We’re not doing it anymore. We’re not getting paid,'” Lore said. “Others are saying [to consumers], ‘We’re holding the cars, and you can’t drive the car home until we get paid in full.'”
More from Personal Finance:How EVs and gasoline cars compare on total costClimate change is gentrifying neighborhoodsHere’s how to buy renewable energy from your electric utility
Gary Pretzfeld, co-owner of AutoTrust USA in Miramar, Florida, said the IRS owes him about $80,000 to $90,000 in rebates that he has floated to EV buyers this month.
“There are definitely some dealers who can’t afford to do it this way,” Pretzfeld said.
Car dealerships are a “really cash-intensive business,” and payment delays threaten to tip dealers into a “cash crunch” at a time when they were expecting to sell huge volumes of EVs, said Scott Case, the CEO of Recurrent, an EV market research firm.
“It’s a quiet, festering problem at the worst possible time,” Case said.
The National Independent Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group that represents used car dealers, is aware of the issue, said spokesperson Richard Greene.
“The dealers and NIADA have engaged the IRS,” Greene said in an e-mail. “NIADA hopes the payments are processed by the IRS before the program’s expiration.”
Amy Hunter Wright, a spokesperson for the National Automobile Dealers Association, a trade group, also said some members had experienced delays.
“Anecdotally, we have heard some dealers report that recent submissions have been placed in pending status since last week,” she wrote in an e-mailed statement. “NADA has been and continues to work with the IRS and the Department of Treasury regarding the portal and they have been cooperative.”

Why the upfront rebate is important to buyers

Jackyenjoyphotography | Moment | Getty Images

Of course, dealers aren’t obligated to offer the tax credit as an upfront payment.
Consumers can still try to claim the tax break when they file their annual tax returns next year.
But the point-of-sale rebate has been a big draw for consumers, said Al Salas, CEO of Eco Auto, a dealer with operations in Massachusetts and Washington state, and which is expanding to Florida, Georgia and New Jersey.

It’s a quiet, festering problem at the worst possible time.

Scott Case
CEO of Recurrent

Getting the tax break upfront reduces monthly payments for consumers who finance their purchase and reduces the total sales tax on the purchase, Salas said.
For example, a consumer who buys a used EV might pay $80 to $100 more per month on a five-year loan if they’re unable to get the $4,000 tax credit upfront, Salas said.
The tax break is also harder for certain consumers to access at tax time. While the point-of-sale rebate is available to qualifying consumers regardless of their tax liability, that’s not true for those who claim the tax break on their annual tax return: They must have a tax liability to claim even a partial credit.

The IRS has approved some applications Salas submitted last week, while others are pending.
“As dealers, it’s a really unfortunate situation, because we are fronting the money,” Salas said. “And in a lot of ways, we’re financing the consumer’s ability to get a new vehicle.”
The IRS owes him about $50,000 of tax credits, Salas said. He expects the federal government to pay him back eventually.
So does Pretzfeld, the dealer based in Miramar, Florida.
Pretzfeld saw all EV sales submitted to the IRS for tax credit approval listed as “pending” starting around Sept. 15, he said.
One submitted Sept. 16 and one from Sept. 17 have been approved, and he’s awaiting payment.
“The timeline is now longer, and it’s murkier,” Pretzfeld said. “That’s the part that’s freaking everyone out.” More

Most Americans can’t correctly identify the age when they will be eligible for 100% of the Social Security benefits they’ve earned.
Congress may change the language used to describe those ages to help individuals better assess their benefit claiming decisions.
Social Security retirement ages aren’t changing now, though there’s fierce debate over whether those thresholds should be raised.

Brothers91 | E+ | Getty Images

Deciding when to claim Social Security retirement benefits is a big decision — and Congress is looking at changing the program’s wording to help people better understand their options.
Understanding the trade-offs for claiming at different ages can be confusing, and some experts say the terms the agency currently uses do not help. Only 21% of more than 1,800 adults recently surveyed by the Nationwide Retirement Institute can correctly identify the age at which they qualify for full Social Security benefits.

Earlier this month, the House Ways and Means Committee advanced the Claiming Age Clarity Act, a bipartisan bill, in a 41 to 1 vote. A version of the bill has also been proposed in the Senate.
More from Personal Finance:Social Security, other federal benefits to phase out paper checksFewer people think retirement will ‘take a miracle,’ report findsSocial Security COLA may be slightly higher in 2026, estimates find
The proposed changes would make the claiming language “substantially clearer,” said Emerson Sprick, director of retirement and labor policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

‘Unreduced retirement benefits,’ ‘full retirement age’

If you were born after 1959, you will be eligible for the full Social Security retirement benefits you have earned at age 67. That is what the agency calls your “full retirement age” — the point at which you may claim 100% of the benefits you’ve earned.
The full Social Security retirement age has been changing — from age 66 to 67 — based on year of birth.

The shift to a higher full retirement age was enacted in 1983 as part of a legislative package that restored the program’s financing after it faced a funding shortfall. That included raising the age of eligibility for so-called unreduced retirement benefits to 67 by 2027.
Today, Social Security also faces a funding shortfall, and there is a debate among lawmakers and experts as to whether raising the retirement age may again be on the menu of changes.
Currently, Social Security beneficiaries can maximize their benefits by delaying the age at which they start their monthly retirement payments. Beneficiaries first become eligible for benefits starting at age 62, but they take a permanent cut for doing so. By waiting to claim until age 70, they may receive the maximum monthly benefit available to them.

How Social Security claiming terms may change

Peopleimages | Istock | Getty Images

The Claiming Age Clarity Act calls for changing the language the Social Security Administration uses to describe claiming ages:

Age 62, currently referred to as the “early eligibility age.” would become the “minimum benefit age” to reflect the permanent benefits reduction that claimants see if they start that soon.

Age 66 to 67, currently called “full retirement age” based on an individual’s birth year, would instead be referred to as “standard benefit age.”

Age 70, the latest age for benefit increases, would no longer be called “delayed retirement age” and instead be referred to as “maximum benefit age.” For every year an individual delays claiming from full retirement age up to age 70, they may earn an 8% increase in benefits, boosting their benefits by up to 24%.

Calling age 62 the “early eligibility age” conveys you can start benefits then, but “it says nothing about what that benefit is going to look like,” Sprick said.
By instead calling that milestone “minimum monthly benefit age,” that better communicates the implications for the monthly payments those beneficiaries will receive, he said.
“There’s evidence that it would have real effects on claiming behavior, and that will have real effects on folks’ financial security throughout retirement for the rest of their lives after they claim,” Sprick said.

Will the Social Security retirement age move higher?

In a Sept. 18 Fox News interview, Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano said “everything’s being considered” in response to a question on whether the retirement age may be raised.
However, the next day Bisignano clarified in a follow-up statement on X, “Raising the retirement age is not under consideration.”
The prospect of raising the Social Security retirement age has little support among Americans, according to a January study from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, National Institute on Retirement Security and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The reason: Americans are “broadly opposed” to benefit cuts, the research found, and raising the retirement age counts as a benefit reduction.

To be sure, any such change would have to be enacted by Congress. Democrats have largely rejected suggestions to raise the Social Security retirement age. “For every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits,” Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., said in a Sept. 18 statement.
Yet suggestions of raising the retirement age continue to come up.
In December, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., proposed an amendment to the Social Security Fairness Act that would raise the full retirement age to 70. That proposal did not pass.
A December Congressional Budget Office analysis found moving the full retirement age to 70 would not fully address the program’s 75-year shortfall.
Denmark recently pushed its retirement age to 70.
Yet some experts say it would be a stretch for the U.S. to follow its cue, since U.S. poverty rates are higher, leading life expectancy increases to be spread unevenly.
“There are increasing concerns in recent years about an across-the-board increase to the retirement age, given the disparities in longevity between higher earners and lower earners, folks with higher education levels and lower education levels,” Sprick said.

If the retirement age were increased, claimants who cannot wait past age 62 may see further benefit reductions. Moreover, it may impact the progressivity of the benefit formula, which provides lower-level earners with higher replacement rates.
There are ways Congress could mitigate those effects, such as by creating a new basic minimum benefit to help those who cannot delay benefits, for work, health or other reasons, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Lawmakers could also opt to increase the benefit replacement rate for lower earners, according to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank. More

The Education Department said the 2026-27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid is now available to everyone.
For many families, submitting a FAFSA is key when it comes to covering college costs.
The earlier that college-bound students and their families fill out the form, the better their chances are of receiving financial aid, experts say.

SDI Productions | E+ | Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Education opened the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form on Wednesday — one week before the anticipated Oct. 1 launch date. The early start may help more students gain college access, experts say.
Completing the FAFSA is the only way to tap federal aid money for higher education, including federal student loans, work-study and grants.

“Given the previous glitches, delays, and confusion, having the FAFSA delivered not only on time but early is a huge win,” said Rick Castellano, a spokesperson for Sallie Mae. 
More from Personal Finance:As some colleges near $100,000, these schools are freeThese college majors have the best job prospectsStudent loan forgiveness may soon be taxed again
In part because of previous complications with the new form, which initially launched in late December 2023 after a months-long delay, completion rates fell last year.
Only 71% of families submitted the FAFSA for the 2024-25 academic year, down from 74% in the previous cycle, according to Sallie Mae’s recent How America Pays for College report, which surveyed 2,000 college-aged students and their parents.
“Hopefully we’ll see those numbers begin to tick in the right direction,” Castellano said.

Further, the earlier college-bound students and their families fill out the form, the better their chances are of receiving aid, Castellano said. That’s because some financial aid is awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, or from programs with limited funds.
“Filing early also means students and families may receive financial aid offers from schools earlier, which can help them make more informed decisions about planning and paying for college,” he said.
For many families, financial aid is key when it comes to covering the cost of college, which has jumped significantly in recent decades. Grants — including federal ones such as the Pell Grant — have become the most crucial kind of assistance, because they typically do not need to be repaid.
Submitting a FAFSA is also one of the best predictors of whether a high school senior will go on to college, according to the National College Attainment Network, or NCAN. Seniors who complete the FAFSA are 84% more likely to enroll in college directly after high school, according to an NCAN study of 2013 data. 
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Recent changes to the student loan system have left borrowers with fewer repayment options.
And now one of the remaining plans available plans — known as the Income-Based Repayment plan, or IBR — is in trouble, too.
Student loan borrowers can’t access the perks of the plan at the moment, if they can even get enrolled in it at all.

Workers leave the Department of Education building during a rain shower in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, May 21, 2025.
Wesley Lapointe | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Recent changes to the federal student loan system have left many borrowers with fewer repayment options. But even one of the remaining plans — known as the Income-Based Repayment plan, or IBR — is proving hard to access.
“Applications are being rejected without clear or logical explanations,” said Carolina Rodriguez, director of the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program. Rodriguez and her team members work with clients with student loans.

“These ongoing delays continue to erode public trust in the student loan system and are likely to worsen the delinquency and default rates we’re already seeing,” Rodriguez said.
IBR will be one of only a few repayment options left to many borrowers after recent court actions and the passage by Congress of President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” That legislation phases out several existing student loan repayment plans.
Here’s what student loan borrowers need to know about the challenges with IBR.

IBR debt forgiveness is still frozen

Over the summer, the U.S. Department of Education announced that it would temporarily stop forgiving the debt of borrowers enrolled in IBR. According to the plan’s terms, IBR concludes in debt erasure after 20 years or 25 years of payments, depending on the age of a borrower’s loans.
The Education Department told CNBC in July that it paused loan forgiveness under IBR while it responds to recent court actions involving the Biden administration-era SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan.

The department said that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in February, which blocked the SAVE plan, had other impacts on student loan repayment. For example, under the rule involving SAVE, certain periods during which borrowers postponed their payments would count toward their forgiveness timeline. With SAVE blocked now, borrowers no longer get credit during those forbearances.
More from Personal Finance:Social Security cost-of-living adjustment may be slightly higher in 2026Some jobs may not qualify for the ‘no tax on tips’ policyTrump administration to warn families about student debt risks
“The Department has temporarily paused discharges for IBR borrowers in order to correctly count loan forgiveness amounts under a court injunction regarding the Biden Administration’s illegal SAVE repayment plan,” said Ellen Keast, deputy press secretary at the Education Department.
“For any borrower that makes a payment after they became eligible for forgiveness, the Department will refund overpayments when the discharges resume,” Keast said.
Earlier this month, the department wrote on its website that the system changes to IBR could take until “winter 2025.”
“More than enough time has passed for the Department to fix whatever issues were supposedly affecting IBR forgiveness,” said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. “That suggests the holdup is intentional.”
The pause puts many student loan borrowers who’ve been in repayment for decades and are now eligible for forgiveness in an especially frustrating bind, Kantrowitz said. IBR is the only income-driven repayment plan still available that leads to loan erasure, he said.

Wrongful IBR denials

When lawmakers phased out several student loan repayment plans over the summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they made a change to IBR aimed at expanding people’s eligibility for the program. Experts say that’s likely because many borrowers would need access to the plan after the other options became defunct or are set to expire.
The change eliminated the former requirement that borrowers prove a partial financial hardship to qualify for IBR. In the past, borrowers needed to show, based on their income, that their monthly IBR payment would be less than their bill on the department’s standard plan.
However, “borrowers are still being rejected due to their income,” said Elaine Rubin, director of corporate communications at Edvisors.
Kantrowitz said the same: “I’ve heard that some borrowers were denied IBR even though the change was supposed to be effective upon enactment on July 4, 2025.”

There are similar accounts in the American Federation of Teacher’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education. The union, which represents some 2 million members, has said the Trump administration is depriving borrowers of their rights.
One plaintiff, who owes approximately $252,659 in federal student loan debt, has been paying for over 25 years, according to a September court filing in the AFT legal challenge. The woman applied for IBR in July but said that she was denied in August “on the grounds that she does not have a ‘partial financial hardship,’ which has not been a requirement for the IBR plan since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the AFT said.
“The Department therefore improperly denied her access to a payment plan for which she is eligible and is withholding loan cancellation,” the union said. More

Fewer Americans are quitting their jobs, and hiring has slowed, creating a frozen labor market with limited mobility.
Economic uncertainty is causing workers to stay put despite growing dissatisfaction.
“Job hugging” is masking widespread disengagement, costing employers billions and weakening productivity, innovation and future workforce development.

Americans aren’t quitting their jobs — and that trend is changing the way the labor market functions.
Since April 2024, the U.S. economy has shed 1.2 million jobs. Hiring has slowed to its lowest pace in a decade, excluding the pandemic dip. The quits rate, once a key marker of worker confidence, has fallen to around 2%, a level not regularly seen since early 2016.

“There’s been a lot of anxiety about the direction of both the economy and the labor market as well,” said James Atkinson, vice president of thought leadership at SHRM, a professional group for human resource management. “I think that is part of what’s keeping people in jobs.”
More from Personal Finance:Fed cuts will ‘take a bite out of savings.’ How to lock in higher ratesHow to maximize travel card benefits with high annual feesTreasury, IRS release key details about ‘no tax on tips’ deduction
Consulting firm Korn Ferry calls the trend “job hugging,” and said fear of the unknown is driving it. Workers are choosing stability over risk, even if it comes at a personal or professional cost.
“A few years ago, [during] the great resignation, people were quitting in large numbers for bigger pay bumps,” said Matt Bohn, a senior client partner at Korn Ferry. “I think wage growth has cooled, job-switching premiums have shrunk, and a lot of workers worry that their pay won’t keep up with rising costs. So I think they’re clinging to stability in a time of uncertainty.”

‘Job hugging’ may mask disengagement

That hesitation has broad implications. While employers might see low turnover as a good sign, experts warn it can mask something more troubling: rising disengagement.

A February study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimated that employee disengagement costs a typical 1,000-person company around $5 million per year in lost productivity. The average disengaged worker could cost the company $4,000 over the course of a year, while an executive could cost $20,000.
Additionally, 58% of U.S. professionals surveyed by LinkedIn earlier this year said their skills are underutilized in their current roles.
If someone is disengaged but still clocking in, that work has to be absorbed by other team members, which can create additional stress and drag down productivity across the board, said SHRM’s Atkinson. 
“Even if people are engaged and people are putting forth their extra effort, they might have to go even above and beyond to make up for some of the teammates who are disengaged,” he said. “So it’s both an individual employee, but then there’s kind of that knock-on effect across the organization as well.”

The trend also poses risks for the broader economy, experts say. Fewer workers moving between jobs could lead to wage growth flattening and companies becoming more cautious. In some sectors, hiring freezes and natural attrition have replaced layoffs, creating a labor market that looks stable on the surface, but lacks momentum.
Still, some workers could benefit in this environment. Gen Z workers, Bohn noted, are adaptable and tech-savvy. This could make them well-positioned to thrive if companies focus on upskilling and smarter workforce strategies.
But in the near term, experts say, unless confidence rebounds and mobility returns, the U.S. economy could face a prolonged period of stagnation.
Watch the video above to learn more about why so many Americans are clinging to their jobs and how it’s reshaping the U.S. labor market. More

President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” temporarily raised the limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT, from $10,000 to $40,000 for 2025. 
However, you must itemize tax breaks to benefit from the change, which is typically only a small percentage of filers.
Plus, some taxpayers could see a bigger benefit, depending on where they live, according to a Redfin report.

People enjoy an unusually warm day in New York City as temperatures reach the low 80s on June 4, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” temporarily raised the limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT, from $10,000 to $40,000 for 2025. 
But some residents of certain states could see a bigger tax benefit, according to a Redfin report released last week. 

The results are “in line with what you might expect,” and there is “a sizable benefit to residents of certain states,” said Chen Zhao, head of economics research for Redfin.  
More from Personal Finance:Fed cuts will ‘take a bite out of savings.’ How to lock in higher ratesHow to maximize travel card benefits with high annual feesTreasury, IRS release key details about ‘no tax on tips’ deduction
Trump’s 2017 tax cuts capped the SALT deduction at $10,000. Before 2018, the SALT deduction — including state and local income taxes, and property taxes — was unlimited. But the so-called alternative minimum tax reduced the benefit for some wealthy homeowners.
You must itemize tax breaks, rather than claim the standard deduction, to benefit from SALT. During tax year 2022, only 10% of filers itemized deductions, and those taxpayers were more likely to be higher earners, according to the latest IRS data.
Here is where taxpayers could see the biggest benefit from the $40,000 SALT deduction cap for 2025.

States with the biggest SALT savings

Trump’s legislation temporarily raised the SALT deduction limit to $40,000 starting in 2025. That benefit starts to phase out, or decrease, for consumers making more than $500,000. Both figures will increase by 1% yearly through 2029, and the higher deduction limit will revert to $10,000 in 2030.
But itemizers in certain states could see a greater benefit, according to the Redfin report. Here are the 5 states where residents could see the biggest median savings from the new law.

New York: $7,092
California: $3,995
New Jersey: $3,897
Massachusetts: $3,835
Connecticut: $3,133

Meanwhile, these five states are where itemizers would see the smallest median savings from Trump’s law.

South Dakota: $1,033
Alaska: $1,052
Nevada: $1,090
Tennessee: $1,097
New Hampshire: $1,101

To estimate savings, Redfin calculated how much the typical impacted homeowner could deduct under the new SALT legislation. Then, they applied the 24% marginal tax rate to the amount over the previous $10,000 SALT cap.
However, this is “very much a simulation,” with a lot of assumptions, including property values, estimates for property taxes and estimates for state income taxes, Zhao said. The report does not consider local income taxes, which can vary significantly by jurisdiction.

Other measures of the SALT deduction benefit

A separate report released by the Bipartisan Policy Center in May also analyzed which states benefit most from the SALT deduction, based on the number of residents paying SALT, and where taxpayers have the largest SALT deductions.
In 2022, the average SALT deduction was close to $10,000 in states such as Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts, according to the analysis, based on the latest IRS data. The bottom five were Wyoming, Tennessee, Nevada, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Those higher averages suggest a large portion of taxpayers claiming the deduction came close to the $10,000 cap, the researchers wrote.

Meanwhile, the states and district with the highest share of SALT claimants were Washington, D.C., Maryland, California, Utah and Virginia, the Bipartisan Policy Center analysis found. The bottom five were West Virginia, South Dakota, North Dakota, Ohio and Wyoming.
However, “neither of these measures is a perfect proxy for how states benefit from the SALT deduction—or are impacted by the SALT cap,” the researchers said. More

The Federal Reserve has made its first interest rate cut and signaled more to come.
For savers, that may mean lower returns on the money they have set aside.
Here’s why experts say it’s not too late to lock in higher interest rates on cash.

Skaman306 | Moment | Getty Images

How CDs make it possible to secure rates

Certificates of deposit, or CDs, offer the opportunity to lock in returns for a certain period — such as a 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 3-year or 5-year duration.

To be sure, CD rates will also be affected by the recent Fed cut, as well as any future moves by the central bank to lower rates. So experts say now could be a good time to lock in.
While 4% returns on cash have been possible this year with money market funds and online savings accounts, that likely won’t be the case next year, Tumin said.
However, right now there are still CDs available offering 4% rates with durations that carry into next year, he said.

For someone who wants a good rate of return that’s safe and conservative while minimizing risk, CDs can be a great option, said Kates. That also goes for someone in or near retirement, he said.
It is important to understand the terms of the CD before you sign on. Some CDs will charge a penalty if the funds are withdrawn before the term comes due.
Savers may be able to avoid that if they purchase a no-penalty CD, Tumin said. Those products often require a full withdrawal to access any of the money, he said.
Laddering CDs, where savings are invested in CDs with staggered maturity dates, can also be an effective strategy. Once a CD matures, it may be reinvested in another CD with a longer maturity, Tumin said.

When to turn to savings accounts

When deciding where to put your cash, the priority should be how the money may be used, Kates said.
If the money is intended for an emergency fund, where the funds may need to be withdrawn in a pinch, or earmarked for a near-term expense like a vacation or home down payment, a CD may not be ideal, Kates said.
Savers may also opt to divide their cash between savings accounts and CDs to have liquidity for immediate needs and also lock in returns on a portion of their nest egg, Tumin said.

The good news for savers in high yield online savings accounts is those yields are still more than 3%, with a few top-yielding accounts at 4% or better, according to Bankrate. Those exceed the 2.9% 12-month inflation rate recently posted for the Consumer Price Index for August.
However, as lower rates set in, savers may want to watch to see if the terms on their accounts change.
“It’s important for savers to keep a close eye on their accounts and what they’re earning,” Tumin said. “Banks can make rate changes very fast.” More

ETF Strategist

ETF Street
ETF Strategist

Exchange-traded funds and mutual funds are similar but also have key differences that may be significant for investors.
ETFs tend to be cheaper and save investors money on taxes, experts said.
ETFs are scarce in 401(k) plans, though. They also lose their relative tax advantage in tax-preferred retirement accounts.

Wera Rodsawang | Moment | Getty Images

To the average investor, mutual funds and exchange-traded funds may not seem very different.
After all, they are both relatively liquid baskets of stocks, bonds and other assets overseen by professional money managers, and can help investors diversify their portfolios.

But there are some key differences that may make one a better financial choice than the other for certain investors, according to experts.

How they trade

Perhaps the most obvious difference is how investors trade ETFs and mutual funds.
ETFs trade like stocks: Investors buy or sell them on a stock exchange. By comparison, mutual fund investors transact directly with the fund itself.
While investors can place mutual fund trades during the business day, they won’t know their transaction’s exact price per share until the end of the day. However, ETF investors know their exact purchase price when they transact.
These differences generally matter more for day traders but not the average buy-and-hold investor, said Gloria Garcia Cisneros, a certified financial planner and wealth manager based in Los Angeles, and a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.

Investors can hurt themselves financially by trading too frequently, experts said.
“Even in a scenario where you’d want to sell intraday, it’s [often] emotion-based and usually not a good way to invest,” said Bryan Armour, director of ETF and passive strategies research for North America at Morningstar.

ETFs are ‘way more tax-efficient’

Taxes and fees are much more consequential differences for everyday investors, experts said.
For example, ETFs can save certain investors from a big year-end tax bill that mutual fund shareholders might otherwise incur.
In this case, the taxes are capital gains, which are taxes owed on investment profits. Fund managers can generate such taxes within a fund when they buy and sell securities. Those capital gains then get passed along to all the fund shareholders, who owe a tax bill even if they reinvest those distributions.

More from ETF Strategist:

Here’s a look at other stories offering insight on ETFs for investors.

However, ETF investors rarely owe these tax bills: Just 6.5% of U.S. stock ETFs distributed capital gains to investors in 2024, compared to 78% of U.S. stock mutual funds, according to Morningstar.
The trend was similar for international stock funds: About 6% of ETFs distributed capital gains, versus 42% of mutual funds, according to Morningstar.
“Sometimes, [mutual fund investors] get a bit of a nasty surprise in the form of capital gains and a tax bill,” said Lee Baker, a certified financial planner based in Atlanta, and a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.
While mutual fund managers use cash to buy and sell securities, ETF managers use a different mechanism known as an “in-kind” transaction to facilitate a trade. This basically entails trading securities instead of cash; the method doesn’t trigger a sale, and therefore doesn’t create capital-gains tax.
“ETFs are way more tax-efficient,” Armour said. “That’s a huge advantage over the long term.”
However, there are certain times when ETFs can’t make in-kind transfers, and may therefore create a taxable event: for example, many kinds of derivatives, currency trades and when handling securities from certain international jurisdictions (like India, South Africa and Brazil), Armour said.
Also, ETFs’ tax advantage only exists for investors who hold their funds in a taxable brokerage account. It disappears for those who hold their funds in a tax-sheltered account, like a 401(k) or individual retirement account.

ETFs cheaper ‘in pretty much every way’

Oliver Helbig | Moment | Getty Images

ETFs also tend to be significantly cheaper for investors to own than mutual funds, experts said.
The average asset-weighted investment fee for ETFs was 0.42% in 2024, compared with 0.57% for mutual funds, according to Morningstar.
These fees, known as expense ratios, represent a share of investor assets in a fund. They are charged annually and withdrawn directly from investor accounts.
Some of this fee differential is because a larger share of ETFs are index funds, which tend to be cheaper than actively managed ones, Armour said. It’s therefore natural that mutual funds would be more expensive if a larger share of them is actively managed.
However, many asset managers have debuted identical investment strategies in both an ETF and mutual fund — and, when comparing their fees, the ETFs are still often cheaper for retail investors, Armour said.
He gave the example of the T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth fund, which charges a 0.57% annual fee for the ETF version and 0.69% for the investor share class of the mutual fund version.
“In pretty much every way, ETFs are cheaper than mutual funds,” Armour said.

May not have a choice

There may be times when it’s better for investors to buy mutual funds.
For example, the universe of mutual funds is much larger, meaning investors may only be able to access certain funds in a mutual fund structure, experts said.

The ETF universe is expanding, though.
“ETFs are growing in popularity,” Cisneros said. “Even mutual fund managers are launching ETF versions of their strategy.”
Additionally, ETFs aren’t readily available in 401(k) plans, so investors may not have a choice.
Certain brokerages may not allow for dollar-cost averaging into an ETF, Baker said. Investors who want to schedule automatic contributions into a fund on a regular basis may have to choose mutual funds, depending on their brokerage, he said. More