Investing

As House Republicans look for ways to cut spending to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, they’ve floated plans that may raise student loan bills for millions.
The average new borrower could pay nearly $200 a month more if the GOP plans succeed, according to an early estimate by The Institute for College Access & Success.

US President Donald Trump speaks during the National Prayer Breakfast at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2025. 
Mandel Ngan | Afp | Getty Images

As House Republicans look for ways to slash spending to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, they’ve floated proposals that could raise federal student loan bills for millions of borrowers.
GOP lawmakers are expected to use the budget reconciliation process to make major cuts to the federal budget. The savings from the student repayment plan overhaul would be $127.3 billion over 10 years, according to their estimate.

The timing is uncertain on when any of these changes could surface. It’s also possible that the final Republican plan will be different than those proposed.
But the average student loan borrower could pay nearly $200 a month more if the GOP plans to reshape the repayment program succeed, according to an early estimate by The Institute for College Access & Success.
“Most people don’t have an extra $200 a month to throw toward their student loan bill,” said Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at the institute.
Under the Republican-backed plans, the average borrower could see their monthly bill swell to $288 from $95, TICAS calculated. Researchers at TICAS estimated the monthly bill from repayment terms floated under current and former GOP-backed proposals. They compared those bills to what borrowers would pay under the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment option, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, or SAVE.
More from Personal Finance:What the ‘mother of all trade wars’ can teach us about U.S. tariffsCould Trump’s tariffs replace the income tax?Stockpiling ahead of higher tariffs is a big mistake

The changes to the student loan system would likely only apply to new borrowers, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
If GOP lawmakers mirror the repayment terms in the legislation introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and supported by many House Republicans last year, the College Cost Reduction Act, the typical student loan borrower with an associate degree could pay around 50% more over time than they would under SAVE, a new report by the Center for American Progress noted. Graduate students, however, could pay between 10% and 15% less than on SAVE.
“Paying for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy on the backs of student loan borrowers who are already struggling would be deeply unfair and harmful to millions of Americans,” said Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education policy at the Center for American Progress.

A reversal from SAVE plan

Republicans have expressed interest in narrowing the number of income-driven repayment, or IDR, plans for student loan borrowers to just one. Congress created IDR plans in the 1990s to make borrowers’ bills more affordable. The plans cap people’s monthly payments at a share of their income, and cancel any remaining debt after a certain period, typically 20 years or 25 years.
More than 12 million people were enrolled in the plans as of September 2024, according to Kantrowitz.
Former President Joe Biden’s SAVE plan, which is currently tied up in legal challenges, had the most generous terms of any IDR plan to date.
It cut many borrowers’ bills in half and offered expedited loan forgiveness to those with smaller balances. SAVE could cost as much as $475 billion over a decade, an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model found.
That made it a target for Republicans, who argued that taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize the loan payments of those who’ve benefited from a higher education, experts explained. Critics also accused Biden of trying, with SAVE, to find a roundabout way to forgive student debt after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that his sweeping debt cancellation plan was unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, consumer advocates say that most families now need to borrow to send their children to college and that they will require more affordable ways to repay their debt. Research shows that student loans make it harder for people to start businesses, buy a house and even have children.
In addition to scrapping SAVE and leaving borrowers’ with just one IDR plan option, Republican lawmakers may also move to end the loan forgiveness that borrowers are currently entitled to after a certain time period on the plans, experts said.
That would deprive many borrowers of a way out of their debt, according to Kantrowitz.
“It will effectively be a form of never-ending indentured servitude,” he said.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Higher supply of available units for rent is fostering a renter-friendly market in the U.S. 
But it might not last — on top of low profitability, construction companies are facing uncertainties, an economist points out. 
Here are three things to do now while you can.

Maskot | Maskot | Getty Images

Renters should reap the benefits of a lower-cost rental market while they can. It might not last, experts say. 
As of December, the median asking rent price in the U.S. was $1,695, down 0.5% — or $8 — from November, according to a report by Realtor.com. The latest rent price is 1.1% lower — or $18 — from a year before, and down 3.7% from peak highs in July 2022.

Rent prices have come down because newly built apartments are increasing the supply of units available. With more inventory, some property managers must consider lowering their asking prices to attract tenants. 
“We’re calling it a renter’s market. We think that’s going to continue for the next year,” Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin, recently told CNBC.
Read more from Personal Finance:Tariffs are coming: How secondhand shopping is an option’Where’s my refund?’ How to check the status of your federal tax refundWhat the ‘mother of all trade wars’ can teach us about U.S. tariffs
But this renter-friendly market is not forever.
With construction activity of multifamily housing slowing down, the renter’s market might fizzle out after this year, experts say. 

“This construction boom is probably going to be over and rents will probably start going up again,” Fairweather said.

What’s slowing down supply

“We’re seeing multifamily construction permitting slowing a bit,” said Joel Berner, a senior economist at Realtor.com.
There are several reasons behind this. With rent prices coming down, it’s not  “economically viable,” or profitable, at the moment to build multifamily housing, Berner said.
There’s also a level of uncertainty about the current administration’s policies around tariffs and deportations, he said. 

This week, President Donald Trump imposed broad tariffs on imports from China. He paused the implementation of 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for at least 30 days. 
In part due to such policy changes, costs are increasing for builders, Berner said. Tariffs on lumber and other materials make prices go up while mass deportation plans are making the labor force “smaller and more expensive,” he said.
Nearly a third, or 31%, of construction tradesmen in the U.S. in 2022 were immigrants, according to the National Association of Home Builders, which analyzed 2022 Census data.
“Anything that threatens to disrupt the flow of immigrant labor will send shock waves to the labor market in home construction,” Jim Tobin, president and CEO of the NAHB, previously told CNBC.

3 key moves for renters

If you’re in the rental market right now or plan to start looking this year, here are key steps you can take to maximize affordability while it’s still a renter’s market:
1. Ask for a multiyear lease to secure a lower cost
If you’re in an area where prices have been coming down, you could tell your landlord or property manager you’re interested in signing a multiyear lease if they reduce the rent price, Berner said. 
In such negotiations, it can be helpful to have something to offer in return, like being flexible on the length of the lease, or paying a larger security deposit, he said.
Tenant turnover can be expensive for landlords, especially if the property sits unoccupied for a few months.
2. If you plan to buy a home, start saving now
“If you’re a renter who intends to become a homeowner, this is a good time to save on rent,” Berner said — and then bank the difference for your down payment.
Builders are expected to pivot their priorities and build more homes in the for-sale market this year. Single-family housing starts are forecast to increase by 13.8% in 2025, totaling 1.1 million new homes, according to Realtor.com data.
Many renters struggle to build wealth in the U.S., and financial obstacles like high rent can keep would-be buyers from coming up with enough money for a down payment.
If you manage to lower your monthly rent costs, “stash away some cash for a down payment,” Berner said. “The larger your down payment can be, the better.”

3. Keep tabs on affordable markets elsewhere
It can be tempting to look at more affordable housing markets as ideal places to move to, but experts don’t recommend uprooting your life and career just because rent prices are falling in one metro versus another. 
On the other hand, if you’re looking to move at some point, it can be helpful to stay updated on where affordability is improving the most.
For example, Austin, Texas, is the top metro among Redfin’s “most affordable metros,” or places where renters typically earn more money than they need in order to afford the typical rental unit. The typical renter in the area makes $69,781 annually, which is 25.14% higher than the $55,760 the site estimates is required to afford a typical apartment there, Redfin found.
“Pay attention to how things are changing market to market and where you know you can make your money go the furthest,” Berner said.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

The IBM logo is displayed on a smartphone in Poland.
Omar Marques | Lightrocket | Getty Images

Talk around tariffs, the emergence of China’s DeepSeek and earnings of key companies have put the stock market on a roller-coaster ride. Investors seeking stable returns may consider adding dividend stocks to their portfolios.
Given the vast universe of dividend-paying stocks, it can be difficult to select the right one. To this end, investors can benefit from tracking the stock picks of top Wall Street analysts, whose recommendations are based on in-depth analyses of a company’s financials and growth prospects.

Here are three dividend-paying stocks, highlighted by Wall Street’s top pros on TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
International Business Machines (IBM)
This week’s first dividend stock is tech giant IBM (IBM). The company impressed investors with its market-beating fourth-quarter earnings. Notably, IBM’s Software segment’s performance reflected solid demand for artificial intelligence (AI) and the Red Hat Linux operating system.
The company returned $1.5 billion to shareholders via dividends in the fourth quarter. IBM has a dividend yield of 2.6%.
In reaction to the results, Evercore analyst Amit Daryanani raised the price target for IBM stock to $275 from $240 and reiterated a buy rating. The analyst highlighted that the Q4 revenue growth was driven by continued acceleration in IBM’s Software business growth, which helped offset the weakness in the Consulting and Infrastructure segments.
“We think the print highlighted IBM’s unique position across both Software and Consulting segments that are starting to inflect higher with AI and potential M&A being incremental upside catalysts,” said Daryanani.

The analyst noted that despite flattish trends in the fourth quarter, the company expects the Consulting segment’s performance to improve in 2025, driven by higher IT spending and the conversion of the $5 billion of AI signings to revenues.
Daryanani further added that during the December quarter, IBM’s shareholder returns comprised only dividends and no share repurchases. He highlighted that the company is committed to a consistent and growing dividend. He expects IBM to allocate more capital to mergers and acquisitions rather than share repurchases.
Daryanani ranks No. 244 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 61% of the time, delivering an average return of 14%. See IBM Stock Charts on TipRanks.
Verizon
The next dividend pick is telecom giant Verizon Communications (VZ). The company posted strong results for the fourth quarter of 2024 and achieved the best quarterly postpaid phone gross additions in five years. On Feb. 3, Verizon paid a quarterly dividend of just over 67 cents per share. VZ stock offers a dividend yield of 6.8%.
Recently, Tigress Financial analyst Ivan Feinseth reiterated a buy rating on Verizon stock with a price target of $55. The analyst highlighted that a reacceleration in mobile and broadband subscriber growth is fueling the company’s revenue and cash flow.
Feinseth thinks that Verizon will continue to gain from robust 5G adoption and increasing services revenue growth. He also thinks that the company is well-positioned to benefit from AI-led growth in mobile edge computing. The analyst noted that Verizon has a solid track record of developing and integrating AI enhancements across its network and is in the process of integrating several generative AI initiatives.
“5G and margin expansion combined with AI-driven network optimization and operating efficiency expansion is driving a re-acceleration in Business Performance trends,” said Feinseth.
The analyst also expects Verizon’s expansion into emerging technologies, like autonomous vehicle connectivity, smart city infrastructure and remote health-care solutions, to drive further growth. Moreover, Feinseth thinks that VZ’s above-average dividend yield makes it a compelling pick. He pointed out that the company has hiked its dividend every year for the past 18 years.
Feinseth ranks No. 169 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 62% of the time, delivering an average return of 15%. See Verizon Insider Trading Activity on TipRanks.
EPR Properties
Another attractive dividend stock is EPR Properties (EPR), a real estate investment trust (REIT) that is focused on experiential properties such as movie theaters, amusement parks, eat-and-play centers and ski resorts. EPR offers a dividend yield of 7.2%.
After the company hosted a multi-city non-deal road show, RBC Capital analyst Michael Carroll reiterated a buy rating on EPR stock with a price target of $50. The analyst stated that management “highlighted an attractive story supported by a healthy tenant base, recovering box office, and a pragmatic investment approach.”
Carroll noted that consumers have been resilient following the Covid-19 pandemic and continue to give importance to experiences, thus benefiting EPR due to its focus on experiential properties. Also, management noted that the mid- to high-end customers, who are its tenants’ major clients, continue to be healthy and are visiting its properties.
The analyst added that EPR expects to gain from a rebound in box office in 2025. The company expects 110-115 wide releases by studios in 2025 and more than 120 in 2026, compared to only 95 in 2024.
Carroll is also bullish on EPR stock due to its lucrative dividend yield of more than 7%, which it expects to grow at the rate of 3% to 5% per year. At a multiple of an estimated 9.0-times forward adjusted funds from operations, the analyst finds EPR’s valuation attractive.
Carroll ranks No. 886 among more than 9,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 61% of the time, delivering an average return of 7.5%. See EPR Properties Ownership Structure on TipRanks. More

New projections for the federal Pell Grant program now estimate a $2.7 billion funding shortfall later this year. 
About 40% of college students rely on Pell Grants, a type of aid available to low-income families.
“If program funding is not shored up, students could face eligibility or funding cuts for the first time in more than a decade,” said Michele Zampini, senior director of College Affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success.

Hero Images | Hero Images | Getty Images

College advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the U.S. Department of Education said the Trump Administration’s “federal funding freeze” would not affect federal Pell Grants and student loans. 
Nearly 75% of all undergraduates receive some type of financial aid, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. About 40% of college students rely on Pell Grants, a type of federal aid available to low-income families who demonstrate financial need on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid application.

For these students and their families, this aid is crucial for college access.
However, there’s a problem brewing.
The Congressional Budget Office in January released new supplemental projections for the Pell Grant program, which now estimate a $2.7 billion funding shortfall for the 2025 fiscal year. 
“If program funding is not shored up, students could face eligibility or funding cuts for the first time in more than a decade,” said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success. “We are back in the danger zone.”

More students qualify for Pell Grants

The new, simplified FAFSA, which first launched in 2023, was meant to improve access by expanding Pell Grant eligibility to provide more financial support to low- and middle-income families.

But overall, the number of Pell Grant recipients is down significantly.
In fact, the number of Pell Grant recipients peaked over a decade ago, when 9.4 million students were awarded grants in the 2011-12 academic year, and sank 32% to 6.4 million in 2023-24, according to the College Board, which tracks trends in college pricing and student aid.
Now data from the Department of Education shows that many more students are on track to receive Pell Grants this year: As of Dec. 31, more than 9.3 million 2024–25 FAFSA applicants were eligible for a Pell Grant. Among recent high school graduates attending college for the first time, the number of Pell recipients is up 3.3% compared to a year earlier, an increase of approximately 30,000 students.

Why this year is problematic for Pell Grants

Although there have been other times when the Pell Grant program operated with a deficit, this year’s shortfall “was perhaps made worse by the changes to Pell Grant eligibility that increased the number of students eligible for the Pell Grant starting in 2024-25,” said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
Not only do more students now qualify for a Pell Grant because of changes to the financial aid application, but more students are also enrolling in college — a reversal from the significant decline in college-bound students after the pandemic.

Freshmen enrollment jumped 5.5% this fall compared with last year, with the sharpest gains among those from the lowest-income neighborhoods, according to a recent analysis by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (Because of a “methodological error” in research group’s preliminary enrollment findings, the rebound in freshmen enrollment this year was particularly striking.)
“They really low-balled enrollment projections,” Zampini said. “Program costs are based on how many students are expected to enroll in a given year and how many of those students will be eligible for Pell funding.”
The Congressional Budget Office’s projected change from a surplus to a deficit is due in part to that shift in enrollment figures from a decrease to an increase, according to Kantrowitz. 

How the Pell Grant program is funded

The Pell program functions like other entitlement programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, where every eligible student is entitled to receive a Pell award.
However, unlike those other programs, the Pell program does not rely solely on mandatory funding that is set in the federal budget. Rather, it is also dependent on some discretionary funding, which is appropriated by Congress.
In 2024, the discretionary portion of Pell Grant program was estimated to cost about $24.5 billion, funded with $22.5 billion of appropriations, $1.2 billion of mandatory dollars and less than $1 billion of reserves, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
More from Personal Finance:Morehouse College president: Trump funding freeze is an ‘existential threat’Student loan debt swelled under Biden, despite historic forgivenessWhat shutting down the Education Dept, could mean for student loans
Because Congress appropriates discretionary funds for the program based on projections of how much it will cost in the upcoming year, “there is an inevitable annual mismatch between how much the program costs and how much funding is actually available,” Zampini said.
“It becomes a guessing game,” she added.
In previous years, Congress has provided supplemental funding to avoid a shortfall. But if Congress doesn’t fix this problem, “the U.S. Department of Education would be forced to respond by either cutting eligibility or the average grant,” Kantrowitz said.

Already, those grants have not kept up with the rising cost of a four-year degree. Currently, the maximum Pell Grant award is $7,395 — after notching a $500 increase in the 2023-34 academic year.
Meanwhile, tuition and fees plus room and board for a four-year private college averaged $58,600 in the 2024-25 school year, up from $56,390 a year earlier. At four-year, in-state public colleges, it was $24,920, up from $24,080, according to the College Board.
Future deficits could be even greater if the maximum Pell Grant award is adjusted to keep pace with inflation in the years ahead. In one scenario, the Pell Grant program could face a $38 billion cumulative shortfall over the next decade as awards are inflation adjusted, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also found.

Adding to the complications this year, the Trump administration is reportedly looking for ways to close parts or all of the Department of Education, which is responsible for disbursing college aid.
“I am very concerned about the idea that there would be no Education Department,” Zampini said, but “the Pell program has always been bipartisan given its effectiveness and we are hoping that will continue to be the case.”
Even if the Education Department no longer existed, another government agency would likely administer the task of distributing those funds, other experts say.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Pavlo Gonchar | Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

Company: Becton Dickinson and Co (BDX)

Business: Becton Dickinson develops, manufactures and sells medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products for health-care institutions, physicians, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, pharmaceutical industry and the public worldwide.
Stock Market Value: ~$66.65B ($229.85 per share)

Stock chart icon

Becton Dickinson shares in the past 12 months

Activist: Starboard Value

Ownership: ~0.70%
Average Cost: n/a
Activist Commentary: Starboard is a very successful activist investor and has extensive experience helping companies focus on operational efficiency and margin improvement. Starboard also has significant experience with its strategic activism. In 57 prior campaigns where it had a strategic thesis, the firm had a 32.96% return versus 14.61% for the Russell 2000 during the same period. Additionally, Starboard has initiated activist campaigns at 24 prior health-care companies and its average return on these situations is 17.65% versus an average of 9.57% for the Russell 2000 during the same time periods.

What’s happening

On Feb. 3, Starboard announced it has taken a position in Becton Dickinson and called for the separation of its life sciences division. Days later, on Feb. 5, the company shared its intent to separate its biosciences and diagnostics solutions business.

Behind the scenes

Becton Dickinson (BDX) is a global medical technology company comprised of essentially two businesses: (i) MedTech, which consists of the BD Medical (medication delivery and management solutions, advanced monitoring and pharmaceutical systems) and BD Interventional (products for vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialties) and (ii) BD Life Sciences, which provides products for the collection and transport of diagnostics specimens as well as instruments and reagent systems to detect a range of infectious diseases. Within MedTech, BDX is the market leader in the infusion pumps and prefilled syringes businesses, a position which has been supercharged by the growth in popularity of GLP-1s. These two businesses have historically been similar in size, but MedTech has been growing faster and now accounts for $15.1 billion of revenue and $6.7 billion of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization versus Life Sciences contributing $5.2 billion of revenue and $2.0 billion of EBITDA.

The problem here is simple and straightforward: The company operates two distinct businesses that are at different stages with different growth rates and valuation multiples and no real reason to be under the same roof. The MedTech business has a higher growth rate (mid-single digits) than Life Sciences (low-single digits) but a lower valuation multiple (13-times to 14-times) than Life Sciences (upward of 20-times) because MedTech is assessed as a rule of 40 company – that is, its growth rate plus its operating margins should equal or exceed 40. Life Sciences is seen as more structurally stable and immune to things like cyclicality, and it has reduced exposure to reimbursement pressure. Additionally, the presence of major industry players like Thermo Fisher and Danaher give the Life Sciences business a little consolidation value that slightly boosts its valuation multiple.
This is not always a problem, but in BDX’s case, the entire company is trading at 16.8-times EBITDA, closer to the value of its least valuable part. As Starboard has recommended, spinning off or selling the Life Sciences business is a simple solution to a simple problem. The short-term value creation here is straightforward. If separated, the Medtech Business should get a 13-times to 14-times EBITDA valuation based on its growth, while Life Sciences should get a valuation north of 20-times. This alone would result in a valuation north of $110 billion at the low end of the multiple range. But there is additional value creation that could be attained after separation. The ability to better motivate management with the success of their own division and expand the universe of potential investors to two pure-play businesses are just the table stakes in a separation. The real value comes from two separate management teams being able to better focus on and devote resources to their own businesses. In the case of BDX, that could lead to margin improvement through the integration of acquisitions that were somewhat neglected as part of a bigger company. There have been reports of a $30 billion valuation price for the Life Sciences business. This is a valuation slightly below the expected 20-times EBITDA multiple we think it could receive. We expect that is because BDX may retain some parts of the Life Sciences business that synergize with MedTech.
This is not always a problem, but in BDX’s case, the entire company is trading at 16.8-times EBITDA, closer to the value of its least valuable part. As Starboard has recommended, spinning off or selling the Life Sciences business is a simple solution to a simple problem. The short-term value creation here is straightforward. If separated, the Medtech Business should get a 13-times to 14-times EBITDA valuation based on its growth, while Life Sciences should get a valuation north of 20-times. This alone would result in a valuation north of $110 billion at the low end of the multiple range. But there is additional value creation that could be attained after separation. The ability to better motivate management with the success of their own division and expand the universe of potential investors to two pure-play businesses are just the table stakes in a separation. The real value comes from two separate management teams being able to better focus on and devote resources to their own businesses. In the case of BDX, that could lead to margin improvement through the integration of acquisitions that were somewhat neglected as part of a bigger company. There have been reports of a $30 billion valuation price for the Life Sciences business. This is a valuation slightly below the expected 20-times EBITDA multiple we think it could receive. We expect that is because BDX may retain some parts of the Life Sciences business that synergize with MedTech.
Starboard is known as a very diligent, tenacious and committed activist investor that will do whatever is necessary to create value for its investors and other shareholders. When the firm wants board seats, it generally gets board seats. But that is not the case here. Starboard’s “activist” skills might be wasted or not needed here as it appears that in this case, the firm is pushing an open door rather than breaking one down. BDX has already acknowledged this issue and announced that it is considering the divesture of its Life Sciences segment. Whether this is because the company has been considering this anyway or because it heard Starboard loud and clear is irrelevant. Starboard is the type of activist that does not care who gets the credit, as long as the best decisions are made for shareholders.
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

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in the running to serve as Health and Human Services secretary, revealed he was carrying up to $1.2 million in credit card debt in recent financial disclosures.
While experts say it’s a “massive” balance, the politician does have the income to pay it off.
As inflation has picked up, more Americans have turned to credit cards for financial wiggle room.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies before a Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., Jan. 29, 2025. 
Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

Americans’ credit card balances soared to a record $1.17 trillion in 2024 — and even the wealthy are not immune from carrying these balances.
One example is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who recently revealed in financial disclosures that he was carrying up to $1.2 million in credit card debt. Kennedy is President Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary.

Kennedy’s credit card balances range between $610,000 and $1.2 million in accounts that carry interest rates of 23.24% to 23.49%, the filing shows.
More from Personal Finance:What to know about student loans as Trump seeks to close Education DepartmentHow the U.S. has used tariffs throughout history — and why Trump is different’Where’s my refund?’ How to check the status of your federal tax refund
Financial experts interviewed by CNBC said balances that high are unusual.
“That’s a truly massive amount of credit card debt,” said Ted Rossman, senior industry analyst at Bankrate.
“He has a lot of income, so I don’t even know why you’d have all that debt if you have that much income,” said Carolyn McClanahan, a certified financial planner and founder of Life Planning Partners, who reviewed Kennedy’s filing.

Kennedy was not immediately available for comment.
For all consumers — from the ultra-wealthy like Kennedy with an estimated $30 million net worth, to lower earning households — experts say it’s best to stay away from ongoing credit card debt.

Credit cards have become a ‘de facto emergency fund’

Yet in recent years, as prices have climbed, carrying credit card debt has been difficult for some borrowers to avoid.
“With inflation being so powerful and so stubborn, it’s just shrunk a lot of people’s financial wiggle room down to zero,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree. “Americans look at credit cards as kind of a de facto emergency fund.”
Those balances can be costly.
Because the disclosures are essentially snapshots, it’s not clear if he pays off his balances in full each month, experts say.
If Kennedy pays $50,000 per month toward the lower estimated $610,000 credit card balance, it will take him an estimated 15 months to pay off the debts. Notably, that will cost him approximately $93,000 in interest, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas calculator.
If he pays $50,000 per month on a $1.2 million balance, it will take 33 months to pay off and cost roughly $434,000 in interest.

To reduce those costs, experts say, it would be wise for Kennedy to accelerate the paydown of those balances.
That same advice may apply to the average household, for whom credit card debt can also be costly.
The average debt per credit card borrower was $6,380 as of the third quarter of 2024, according to TransUnion. Currently, the average credit card interest rate is 20.13%, according to Bankrate.
Those borrowers may also be paying for other debts. Average unsecured debt — excluding balances tied to real property such as cars or homes — climbed 8% to $29,364 in 2024, according to Money Management International.

Paying off debts provides ‘guaranteed risk-free’ return

With interest rates that high, it usually makes the most sense to prioritize debt paydown over other priorities such as investing or saving, according to experts.
“If you’re paying down credit card debt at 20%, that’s a guaranteed risk-free, tax-free return,” Rossman said. “You’re unlikely to get that much from your investments.”
Bankrate’s research has found higher-income individuals are more likely to carry long-term credit card debt, with 59% of borrowers who earn $100,000 or more having been in debt for at least a year. That includes 24% who have been in credit card debt for at least five years, Rossman said.
“Higher-income people often get higher credit limits, and sometimes that gets people into trouble,” Rossman said.

While wealthy borrowers may face substantial interest charges, they may be tempted to use credit cards for certain perks. For example, the American Express Centurion Card, also known as the Black Card, comes with a $10,000 one-time fee, as well as an annual $5,000 fee. In return, borrowers get access to airport lounges, elite status at hotels and help finding tables at restaurants, among other rewards.
Nevertheless, credit cards usually are not the most effective way for the wealthy to borrow money, according to Charlie Douglas, a certified financial planner who works with ultra-high-net-worth families.
For wealthy investors to avoid having to sell investments and incur capital gains taxes when they want to make a big purchase such as real estate, it makes sense to have a line of credit already established, Douglas said. Importantly, that comes with no costs on an ongoing basis.
It may also make sense to have up to one years’ worth of expenses in cash as a buffer, he said. More

President Donald Trump has renewed calls to end a popular Wall Street tax break.
The “carried interest loophole” refers to favorable tax treatment for certain compensation received by private equity, venture capital and hedge-fund managers.
Investment fund general partners pay long-term capital gains on carried interest held for more than three years.

President Donald Trump takes questions during a press conference with unseen Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2025.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | Afp | Getty Images

Investment managers also receive management fees, subject to regular income taxes. But most earnings come from carried interest, according to tax expert Steve Rosenthal.

Bipartisan support for carried interest reform

Critics of carried interest argue these earnings should be treated like wages, taxed at regular income tax rates, rather than receiving preferential capital gains treatment. 
“It’s come up again and again on a bipartisan basis,” said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation. But there’s been consistent pushback from industry lobbyists. 

“We encourage the Trump administration and Congress to keep this sound tax policy … that supports jobs, workers, small businesses, and local communities,” the American Investment Council, a trade group that represents private equity, said in a statement.
More from Personal Finance:What to know about student loans as Trump seeks to close Education DepartmentHow the U.S. has used tariffs throughout history — and why Trump is different’Where’s my refund?’ How to check the status of your federal tax refund
While Trump vowed to end the tax break during his first term, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts of 2017 enacted a smaller change — extending the required holding period for long-term capital gains treatment to three years from more than one year. 
A provision to extend the holding period to five years was considered for the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. But in an evenly divided Senate, the change was cut amid industry pushback.
“The carried interest loophole is a fascinating challenge,” Rosenthal said. “Everyone wants to close it, except private equity executives.”

Projected revenue is a ‘drop in the bucket’

The carried interest proposal comes as Republicans debate spending priorities and seek additional ways to pay for Trump’s tax cuts. 
However, revenue from eliminating the carried interest tax break is a “drop in the bucket” compared with the trillions needed to extend expiring tax breaks and pass additional priorities, Watson said.
Taxing carried interest as regular income could decrease the federal budget deficit by $13 billion over 10 years, according to a December estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.  More

The IRS has issued 3.2 million refunds for the 2025 filing season so far.
As of Jan. 31, the average refund amount was $1,928, which covers the first four days of the filing season.
The agency sends most refunds in less than 21 days. You can check the status via “Where’s My Refund?” on IRS.gov.

Hispanolistic | E+ | Getty Images

Tax season has kicked off, and the IRS has issued roughly 3.2 million refunds this year as of Jan. 31, the agency reported. 
This represents current-year returns filed.

The average refund was $1,928 over the first four days of the filing season.
However, the IRS expects more than 140 million individual filings through the April 15 deadline, so the average refund could change throughout the season.
Typically, you can expect a refund when you overpay taxes throughout the year via paycheck withholdings or estimated payments.
More from Personal Finance:Your tax return could be ‘flagged for audit’ without these key forms’Where’s my refund?’ How to check the status of your federal tax refundLower earners can see ‘five-figure refunds’ from these tax creditsAs of Dec. 27, the average refund for the 2024 season was $3,138, which is about 1% lower than the average payment in 2023, according to the IRS.
You can check the status of your refund for the 2025 season via the “Where’s My Refund?” tool or the IRS2Go app.

How to get a faster tax refund

“Filing electronically and selecting direct deposit is the best way to get your refund quickly,” former IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in early January.
Typically, the IRS issues most refunds in less than 21 days, but several factors can impact your refund timing, according to the agency.
By law, the IRS can’t issue earned income tax credit or additional child tax credit refunds before mid-February. Those refunds should arrive by March 3 if there are no issues with your tax refund, the agency said.  More