Investing

The Supreme Court on Thursday denied a challenge to a federal tax on foreign investments, but left questions about whether a wealth tax is constitutional.
In Moore v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld a one-time tax on unrealized income from a foreign investment for a Washington state couple.
“They didn’t really issue a red light on anything,” said tax attorney Don Susswein, principal in the Washington national tax office at RSM US. “But there’s a gigantic yellow light about a lot of things.”

An exterior view of the Supreme Court on June 20, 2024 in Washington, DC. 
Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

In a closely watched case, the Supreme Court on Thursday denied a challenge to a federal tax on certain foreign investments — but left questions about whether a wealth tax is constitutional.
The case, Moore v. United States, focused on whether a Washington state couple received income from an investment in an India-based company that didn’t distribute dividends.

The Moores incurred roughly $15,000 in taxes due to the “mandatory repatriation tax,” a one-time levy on earnings and profits in foreign entities. The provision was enacted via the Republicans’ 2017 tax overhaul to help pay for the legislation’s other tax breaks.
More from Personal Finance:As retirement looms, many Gen Xers are still playing catch-upMore states poised to roll out Inflation Reduction Act energy rebates this summerHere’s what advisors are telling clients before Trump tax cuts expire after 2025
Some experts believed the Moore case could have implications for future wealth tax proposals, which have called for taxes on “unrealized gains” or profitable assets that haven’t been sold.
While the Supreme Court upheld the tax on the Moores, the justices steered clear of the broader debate on whether a wealth tax is constitutional.
“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.

He emphasized the limited scope of the opinion and how it only addressed the “precise and narrow question” of the Moore’s case.

“The opinion itself is very narrow,” said University of Chicago Law School professor Aziz Huq. However, “powerful constitutional arguments against a wealth tax” existed before the Supreme Court opinion and still exist now, he said.
“The wealth tax thing was a stalking horse,” Huq said. “What was really at stake was this highly, highly regressive litigation strategy.”

The opinion left a ‘gigantic yellow light’

Some experts worried the case could have implications for domestic stockholders who could have imputed income from corporations that didn’t issue dividends. However, the opinion said the Moore’s realization of income was similar to other pass-through taxes on foreign companies.
But the majority didn’t decide whether realization is required for income tax.
“They didn’t really issue a red light on anything,” said tax attorney Don Susswein, principal in the Washington national tax office at RSM US. “But there’s a gigantic yellow light about a lot of things.” More

Social Security faces looming depletion dates for its trust funds in the next decade, prompting some experts to say the program is on the ballot this November.
Yet, while older voters rank the program as a top priority, they are not overwhelmingly supporting one party over another on the issue, according to a new AARP poll.
“Social Security is really an up-for-grabs issue,” one pollster said.

Joe Biden and Donald Trump
Getty Images

Voters, ages 50 and older, will have a strong influence on the November election.
And politicians who want to win their vote would be wise to emphasize personal economic issues that affect them, particularly Social Security, according to a new AARP poll of likely voters from the 44 most competitive congressional districts.

When asked one question — “How worried are you about your personal financial situation?” — 63% of all voters and 62% of voters ages 50 and older checked the worried box, according to the bipartisan survey conducted earlier this month by Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research.
“It’s a substantial majority of voters who are concerned about their personal financial situation, and why economic issues are going to play such a big role in in this election,” Bob Ward, partner at Fabrizio Ward, said during a Thursday presentation of the results.
Meanwhile, for older voters, ages 50 and older, Social Security is a top economic concern, the results found.
The program’s trust funds are at risk of being depleted in the 2030s, at which point there would be across-the-board benefit cuts unless Congress acts.

Social Security an ‘up-for-grabs issue’

When asked how important the health of Social Security is in determining their vote, 80% of voters — ages 50 and older — said it is either extremely important or very important.

The issue also ranks high as a priority for voters who identify as Democrats, Republicans or independents.
“Democrats only have a three-point advantage on Social Security right now, so the parties are basically tied,” said Jeff Liszt, partner at Impact Research.
“Social Security is really an up-for-grabs issue,” he added.
Many voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who will protect Social Security, he noted.
Another issue — family caregiving — also ranked as a high priority with voters in the older cohort. To that point, 80% of the group said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would provide support to family caregivers to help seniors live independently as they age, and 74% said they would support a candidate who would provide tax credits to help cover the costs of family caregiving.
While President Joe Biden has vowed not to cut Social Security benefits, former President Donald Trump said in a March CNBC interview that he would reevaluate spending on entitlements, which could include benefit cuts. Democrats in Congress have proposed plans to make Social Security benefits more generous, which would be paid for by taxing the wealthy.

Social Security advocacy organizations including Social Security Works and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare recently endorsed Biden.
It was only the second time in the National Committee’s history that it endorsed a presidential candidate.
“We broke precedent in 2020 because we believed Joe Biden would fight for America’s seniors — and protect Social Security and Medicare,” Max Richtman, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement.
“We did not trust Donald Trump to safeguard either program or to uphold other cherished American institutions,” he said. “Four years later, those beliefs have been validated beyond dispute.”
More from Personal Finance:Why there’s fierce debate over creating a Social Security commissionHow Supplemental Security Income benefits may changeWhy more people don’t wait to claim Social Security
When polling for the full ballot in the 44 competitive districts, Trump led with 42% among voters ages 18 and up, while Biden had 37% and Robert Kennedy, Jr. came in with 11% support.
Yet older voters, ages 50 to 64, are more likely to support Trump, while voters ages 65 and up are more likely to lean toward Biden.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans are tied with 45% support in the 44 districts. Voters ages 50 to 64 are the lone group favoring the GOP, with a 13-point margin. Voters ages 65 and up plan to vote for Democrats by five percentage points, the AARP poll found.
“Everyone’s focused on the presidential race, but this is very much up in the air who will control the House of Representatives this year,” Ward said.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More

Generation X feels less prepared for retirement than other generations despite approaching it sooner.
Nearly half of Gen Xers, or 48%, say they won’t have enough money to enjoy retirement.
Much of Gen X is in the “sandwich generation,” taking on the financial burden of caring for both adult children and aging parents.

Fg Trade | E+ | Getty Images

As older members of Generation X inch toward their golden years, the pressure of retirement saving is on — especially for those sandwiched between the financial burdens of caring for both elderly parents and adult children.
About half, or 48%, of Gen Xers say they won’t have enough money to enjoy their retirement, a 2024 report from global asset management company Natixis Investment Managers found. Meanwhile, of those surveyed, 31% say they fear they’ll never save enough to retire. 

Gen X is typically defined as those born between 1965 and 1980. Its oldest members are several years away from retirement, but they are already starting to think about where they will live in their 70s, 80s and even 90s.
“I think where it’s very stressful for [Gen X] is being sandwiched in that tug of war, saving for their retirement as well as helping aging parents,” said Marguerita Cheng, a certified financial planner and Gen X mother. “Even if they don’t have aging parents, their parents are fine, there is still that tug of war between retirement savings and helping their kids with education.” 
Gen X is the first generation of U.S. workers to come of age with 401(k) plans as their primary retirement vehicle after employers largely shifted away from traditional pensions in the 1980s.
As retirement approaches, Gen X is feeling the financial squeeze — but financial planners say there are still ways to maximize your savings.
“Generation X is the guinea pig for the 401(k),” said CFP Preston D. Cherry, founder and president of Concurrent Financial Planning.

Cheng, CEO of Blue Ocean Global Wealth, and Cherry are both members of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.

The survey, conducted by CoreData Research in March and April 2023, included 8,550 individual investors across 23 countries.

The ‘forgotten’ generation

Gen Xers experienced political turmoil and societal change as children in the 1970s and later entered the workforce without the security that a pension offered their parents, Cheng said. 
“We’re very irreverent, latchkey kids, independent, a little bit skeptical,” she said. “I feel like Gen X is the middle child, it’s like Rodney Dangerfield said, ‘they get no respect.’ People talk a lot about millennials, talk about boomers, but then Gen X is like the middle child, forgotten.”
As Gen Xers began to think about planning for retirement, they faced 401(k) decisions about how much and what to invest in that their boomer parents never had to consider, Cherry said.
“They’re having to make constant decisions to choose how much they’re going to contribute to their 401(k),” Cherry said. “That’s why we have automatic enrollment now, because it was so much of an under-allocation for so many years.”
The median age at which Gen X workers began saving for retirement is 30, according to the research nonprofit Transamerica Institute, which is significantly older than the generations that came after.

More than half Gen Xers, or 55%, wish they saved more for retirement, according to a recent report from the Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. That report was based on a survey of 1,000 respondents conducted between March and April 2024. The 55% who wished they saved more said in the report that day-to-day necessities, credit card debt and housing debt prohibited them from saving more.
Much of Gen X, coined the “sandwich generation,” also found themselves caring for elderly parents and supporting their kids’ college funds as they got older. 
That toll is expected to impact the financial freedom of nearly half of the generation, with 46% anticipating living frugally in retirement, according to the Natixis report.

‘Retirement savings rates determine retirement dates’

Gen X can take advantage of their peak earning years, roughly the 40s and 50s, by maxing out contributions to tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, according to Cherry.
Additionally, individuals who are age 50 or over at the end of the calendar year may be permitted to make annual catch-up contributions of up to $7,500 in 2023 and 2024 to their 401(k) plans.
The more someone saves toward retirement from their income, Cherry said, the earlier they can retire.
“Retirement savings rates determine retirement dates,” he said. 
For Gen Xers without a lot of extra cash flow to devote to savings, not much can be done to make up for lost time, advisors say. But it’s not too late to start saving and maximize existing savings accounts, they said.
Gen Xers can also look to delay claiming Social Security until age 70 to maximize their monthly benefits, Cherry said. They can also consider working past the typical retirement age of 65 if they are able, he added.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More

Student loan borrowers have until June 30 to meet a deadline that could lead to quicker debt forgiveness.
Here’s what borrowers should know.

Tanja Ivanova | Moment | Getty Images

Student loan borrowers have until the end of June to meet a deadline that could lead to quicker debt forgiveness.
Some could even see their debt cleared immediately.

Those with several student loans who apply for so-called loan consolidation by June 30 — a move that packages multiple federal student loans into a single new loan — may benefit from the temporary policy.
Here’s what borrowers should know.

Combining loans can lead to earlier relief

Many student loan borrowers have multiple education loans, either because they borrowed repeatedly throughout college or returned to school at some point.
If these borrowers are enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan, it can mean they’re also on multiple different timelines to forgiveness. (Depending on the plan, borrowers can get any remaining debt excused after 10, 20 or 25 years.)
Under the temporary policy instituted by the Biden administration, borrowers who consolidate will earn credit toward all their loans based on the one they have been paying off the longest. They will also earn credit for certain periods that previously didn’t count, including some months spent in deferments or forbearances.

“This will ensure folks get the maximum number of months of credit towards student debt cancellation,” Jane Fox, the chapter chair of the Legal Aid Society’s union, previously said in an interview with CNBC.
More from Personal Finance:Treasury Department announces new Series I bond rateCash savers still have an opportunity to beat inflationHere’s what’s wrong with TikTok’s viral savings challenges
Consolidating while this policy is in place could be a good deal for many, experts say.
For example, say a borrower graduated from college in 2004, took out more loans for a graduate degree in 2018, and is now in repayment under an income-driven plan with a 20-year timeline to forgiveness. Consolidating before July 1 could allow them to quickly qualify for forgiveness on all those loans, experts say, even though they would normally need to wait at least another 14 years for full relief.
“Many borrowers will get complete debt cancellation, particularly those who have been paying for over twenty years,” Fox said.
Usually, a student loan consolidation restarts a borrower’s forgiveness timeline to zero, making it a terrible move for those working toward cancellation.

What to know about the consolidation process

All federal student loans — including Federal Family Education Loans, Parent Plus loans and Perkins Loans — are eligible for consolidation, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz, in a previous interview with CNBC.
You can apply for a Direct Consolidation Loan at StudentAid.gov or with your loan servicer. Experts say the process should take under 15 minutes.
Some borrowers who took out small amounts may even be eligible for cancellation after 10 years’ worth of payments if they enroll in the new income-driven repayment option, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan.
Consolidating your loans shouldn’t increase your monthly payment, since your bill under an income-driven repayment plan is typically based on your earnings and not your total debt, Kantrowitz said.
The new interest rate will be a weighted average of the rates across your loans. More

Trillions of dollars in tax breaks enacted by former President Donald Trump are scheduled to expire after 2025 if Congress doesn’t take action.
The law included lower federal income tax brackets, bigger standard deductions and higher gift and estate tax exemptions, among other provisions. 
In the meantime, financial planners are advising clients on how to prepare.

Andresr | E+ | Getty Images

With trillions of dollars in tax breaks scheduled to expire after 2025, financial advisors are working with clients to prepare for the looming tax cliff.    
Enacted by former President Donald Trump, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or TCJA, included lower federal income tax brackets, bigger standard deductions and higher gift and estate tax exemptions, among other provisions. 

If Congress doesn’t take action, those tax breaks will sunset after 2025. And if the TCJA provisions expire, more than 60% of tax filers could face increased taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.   
While the expirations are roughly 18 months away, “now is the time for clients to be focused on the fundamentals of tax planning,” said certified financial planner Jim Guarino, managing director at Baker Newman Noyes in Woburn, Massachusetts.
More from Personal Finance:80% of Americans say grocery costs have increased since the pandemic startedHere’s how to get lower interest rates without waiting on a Fed rate cutIRS unveils plan to close ‘major tax loophole’ used by large partnerships
Of course, with control of Congress and the White House uncertain, it’s difficult to predict which TCJA provisions, if any, could be extended.
Still, without advanced preparation, some taxpayers could have to resort to “Hail Mary planning” at the end of 2025, said Guarino, who is also a certified public accountant.

Here are some tax strategies advisors are discussing with their clients.

Consider ‘accelerating income’ 

The TCJA temporarily lowered federal income tax rates, which dropped the top rate from 39.6% to 37% through 2025. In the meantime, you could consider “accelerating income” before 2025 to maximize lower rates and expanded brackets, Guarino said.
For example, some retirees may take early or increased pre-tax retirement account withdrawals that are “above and beyond” their required minimum distributions, he said.

Another way to leverage temporary lower tax brackets is through so-called Roth individual retirement account conversions, according to CFP Nayan Lapsiwala, director of wealth management and partner at Aspiriant in Mountain View, California.
You can use the strategy to transfer pre-tax or non-deductible IRA funds to a Roth IRA for future tax-free growth. While the converted balance incurs upfront levies, your bill is typically smaller in lower tax years.

However, before incurring extra income, you need to weigh how increased earnings could trigger the so-called net investment income tax or affect phaseouts for tax deductions or credits, Guarino warned.
Plus, with added income, you’ll typically need to make quarterly tax payments to avoid underpayment penalties, he said.

Weigh ‘lifetime gifts’ for large estates

The temporary raised gift and estate tax exemption is a key provision for high-net-worth families, experts say.
Adjusted for inflation, the exemption rose to $13.61 million per individual or $27.22 million for married couples in 2024. But those limits will drop by roughly half after 2025. 
“Nobody can control when they die, but there are benefits to making lifetime gifts,” said Jane Ditelberg, director of tax planning for Northern Trust in Chicago. 

Individuals or married couples can remove assets from their estate by making lifetime gifts before the higher thresholds expire.
“But it really only applies to those people who are in a position to make a gift of more than $7 million,” Ditelberg said.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More

In his new book, “Drive: Scraping By in Uber’s America, One Ride at a Time,” Jonathan Rigsby takes the reader into the driver’s seat of ride-sharing work.
“You’re forced to work long hours at odd times and to rely on bonuses and tips and surge payments to earn a decent hourly wage,” Rigsby told CNBC. “The uncertainty eats away at you.”

Halbergman | E+ | Getty Images

Most people know very little about the Uber drivers who take them to work, school and wherever else they need to go.
In his new book, “Drive: Scraping by in Uber’s America, One Ride at a Time,” Jonathan Rigsby takes the reader into the driver’s seat. Despite Rigsby working as a crime intelligence analyst for the state of Florida, he doesn’t earn enough to pay his bills, take care of his son and save for his family’s future.

When he and his wife divorced, he was earning less than $25,000 a year after taxes, alimony, child support and other debt payments. In 2016, he decided to turn to ride-sharing to make some extra money.
He eventually wrote his memoir about all that followed.
To earn “a decent hourly wage,” Rigsby told CNBC earlier this month, “you’re forced to work long hours at odd times and to rely on bonuses and tips and surge payments.”
He aimed to make $250 a week on the road, but this wasn’t always possible. After his car expenses, he earned just $80 one week.
“The uncertainty eats away at you,” he said.

A spokesperson for Uber said compensation for a driver will vary depending on a variety of factors, such as local demand.
“The median Uber driver in the U.S. is earning more than $30 per active hour, and the flexibility to work whenever and wherever they want is a core reason why many drivers turn to Uber,” the spokesperson said.
CNBC interviewed Rigsby this month. The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Annie Nova: You eventually decided to drive for Uber, even though you had a job with the Florida government. Can you talk about why you made that decision?
Jonathan Rigsby: After my divorce, I had to learn to juggle a lot of new expenses with fewer resources. I had alimony and child support on top of rent and student loans. I was very fortunate to have a full-time job that gave me a salary and health insurance, but the burden of all these new expenses was more than a government worker’s salary could bear. A lot of ride-share drivers are living in similar circumstances to what I experienced, without having even that minimal safety net.
 AN: What was the most you made in a single week, and the least, driving for Uber?
JR: Halloween is without a doubt the most profitable time for Uber drivers in my city. People will come from as far as Miami to party in Tallahassee because it’s cheaper. In 2018, I buckled down and drove a huge number of hours during that week. On top of my day job, I probably drove for 30 hours and made more than $700. But I spent all of the money paying off car repairs that I had been forced to put on a credit card.
Then there’s a period just after the students graduate and before summer classes start when the town is just empty. I remember panicking because I’d only made about $120 in a week, and that was before factoring in all the gas I’d burned. Once I took out my expenses, I might have made $80 for 15 to 20 hours of work.
AN: I know the cost for a ride a passenger pays doesn’t reflect what a driver makes. How does it work?
JR: The split between the driver and the company on any given ride can vary a lot. Sometimes you give someone a ride and find out that the company is taking 50% of the ride’s cost for themselves. Sometimes the driver makes 80% of the ride. Companies have been slowly increasing their average take. First, it was 20%, then 22%, then 24%. Every change has been to decrease driver pay and to push the companies toward profitability.
Even when drivers are making good hourly rates, you are taking on the cost of fuel, maintenance and wear and tear. It reduces your earnings by roughly $4 to $5 per hour, which is usually the difference between being above or below minimum wage. No one gets rich doing this except Uber’s executives.

Drive: Scraping by in Uber’s America One Ride at a Time by Jonathan Rigsby.
Courtesy: Jonathan Rigsby

AN: I know Uber is not your main source of income, but it is for others.
JR: I’m fortunate to have the backstop of a salaried job, but there are lots of people out there using ride-share and delivery jobs for their basic necessities. It’s precarious and stressful. You’re forced to work long hours at odd times and to rely on bonuses and tips and surge payments to earn a decent hourly wage. The uncertainty eats away at you.
AN: Did driving for Uber make it harder to spend time with your son? What was your visitation agreement like after the divorce?
JR: In the beginning, our agreement was that I would spend Tuesday, Thursday and alternating Saturdays and Sundays with him. Even in the hardest times, I never took away from my time with him to drive. If I gave up time with my son just to work, then what was the point of everything I was doing? All of the hard work was for him. When I wasn’t with him, I was working as the ‘taxi man’ —  the name he gave to it — but I carried a little stuffed bear in my car’s cupholder with me. It was my way of taking him with me everywhere I went.
AN: During your toughest times, you write about making constant difficult decisions like whether to pay to wash your clothes or to buy food, and finding “every possible way to conceal my situation from the people around me.” Why did you feel you needed to hide your poverty?
JR: I had a full-time job with health insurance and a retirement fund and all those things they tell you make you middle class. But I was destitute, teetering on the brink of being homeless. There’s a sense that it shouldn’t be so hard to get by. You blame yourself because everything in the American ethos tells you that hard work leads to success, and if you’re struggling, it must be your own fault.
AN: You write that driving for Uber worsened your drinking problem. How so?
JR: I was out driving until 2 a.m. some nights, and the only way I could stay awake to do that was to ingest huge amounts of caffeine. When I got back to my little apartment, I’d be so wired, I’d drink myself to sleep — then get up the next morning to do it all over again.
AN: How else did the work impact your health?
JR: Sitting for long periods in your car is very taxing. I force myself to take breaks, to get out and stretch, but during really busy nights, rides come one after the other. You look at the clock and realize you’ve been sitting in one place for five hours. You’re hungry. You’re thirsty. You need to use the bathroom, but the only places that are open are fast-food restaurants. You eat cheap junk food so that you can get back on the road quickly and keep working. My blood pressure and cholesterol both suffered from the physical toll. I often worried about blood clots. 
AN: What was it about the ride-sharing that made you feel so lonely?
JR: People tap on their phones and summon this single-use servant, a person they don’t even have to talk to. You take them where they’re going and they disappear. Sometimes people are rude or mean to you for no reason, and you have no choice but to put up with it because you need the money. You’re alone when you log on, and when passengers get out, you’re alone again.
AN: Your situation changed considerably when you met another partner. What does this aspect of your story tell us?
JR: Modern American life is really precarious. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and surviving on one income is becoming increasingly impossible. Having a partner helps to ease the burden by giving you a backstop, someone who can share the financial costs. Once you get a little bit of breathing room, you regain the ability to think about the future and to take a few risks. 

Author Jonathan Rigsby: Drive – Scraping by in Uber’s America One Ride At A Time
Courtesy: Jonathan Rigsby

AN: Are you done driving for Uber?
JR: I still drive on Friday nights. My driving hours are vastly reduced from what I used to do, and I’m hopeful that I’ll be able to quit driving soon. But right now, I still need that little bit of extra income. When the day comes that I don’t, I’m going to delete the apps and never do this sort of work again.
AN: How is your life different now from those days when you were driving for Uber much more?
JR: The biggest change was the ability to take care of myself and have hobbies. I’ve now learned how to paint by watching old episodes of “The Joy of Painting” on YouTube, and my apartment is full of landscapes that I painted. I’m a healthier, happier version of myself and a better, more present father for my son. There are some scars, but they’re a part of me. More

More than $32 billion in U.S. property may be affected by issues that can interfere with transferring homes from one generation to the next, according to estimates.
A situation known as heirs’ property happens when homeowners die without a will and informally leave property to multiple descendants.
Those heirs may be more vulnerable to foreclosures, tax sales or investors who try to acquire the homes for below market value.
A new philanthropic commitment from JPMorgan aims to help tackle this estate planning gap.

A potential buyer walks in to view a home for sale during an open house in Parkland, Florida, May 25, 2021.
Carline Jean | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

Owning a home can provide a way to build wealth that will transfer from one generation to the next.
But more than $32 billion in assessed values of U.S. property in 44 states and Washington, D.C., may be affected by issues that can interfere with that wealth transfer, according to estimates.

One such issue, known as heirs’ property, happens when homeowners die without a will and informally leave property to multiple descendants.
The non-formal ownership may make it difficult to pass on property, access government assistance in the event of a natural disaster and to qualify for property tax relief, according to research from JPMorgan Chase.
Those homeowners may also be vulnerable to foreclosures, tax sales, or investors who try to acquire the homes for below market value.
JPMorgan Chase on Tuesday announced it is providing more than $9.6 million in philanthropic commitments to organizations that help preserve homeownership by addressing heirs’ property issues, appraisal bias and the undervaluation of homes.
“As interest rates and mortgage costs are rising, the path to sustainable homeownership has become increasingly difficult,” Heather Higginbottom, head of research policy and insights for corporate responsibility at JPMorgan Chase, said at a Tuesday event hosted by the firm in Atlanta.

“For many existing homeowners, including many here in Atlanta, high rates of heirs’ property and appraisal bias have made it challenging to maintain homeownership and benefit from the equity of their property,” Higginbottom said.
Both heirs’ property and appraisal bias disproportionately affect communities of color.

Estimates have found that as much as half of the property owned by Black Americans is owned as heirs’ property, according to the National Consumer Law Center.
“It’s clearly disproportionately a Black and Brown problem,” said Thomas Mitchell, a professor at Boston College and director of the Initiative on Land, Housing & Property Rights. “But it’s not exclusively, by any stretch, just a Black and Brown problem.”
Meanwhile, persistent undervaluation of homes in communities of color encourages a racial wealth gap.
Homes in Black neighborhoods are valued at approximately 21% to 23% less than comparable homes in non-Black majority neighborhoods, according to research from the Brookings Institution.
JPMorgan’s philanthropic commitment will focus on preserving homeownership in targeted locations in Georgia and New York, as well as Jacksonville, Fla., Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C.
The money will go toward organizations working to combat heirs’ property and appraisal bias issues through estate planning clinics, legal services, research and market innovations.
More from Personal Finance:Treasury Department announces new Series I bond rateCash savers still have an opportunity to beat inflationHere’s what’s wrong with TikTok’s viral savings challenges
That includes:

$3 million to be granted to Catapult Greater Philadelphia, a community-based nonprofit that is providing a clinic to help people who do not have a legal title to their property in their name;
$2.3 million to the Brookings Institution and Economic Architecture, two organizations that are partnering to address the devaluation of homes in Black neighborhoods;
$2 million to the Initiative on Land, Housing & Property Rights at Boston College to produce research and policy recommendations to improve property rights in underserved communities;
$889,000 for Center for NYC Neighborhoods, a community-based nonprofit that raises awareness among Black homeowners and provides free estate planning services;
$500,000 for LISC Jacksonville, an organization from the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, to expand heirs’ property and family wealth creation programs;
$500,000 to Howard University’s legal clinic, which provides estate planning and heirs’ property legal services;
$300,000 for the Alcorn State University Foundation, which will conduct research and provide recommendations for the ethical use of public heirs property data;
and $150,000 to the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund to expand legal assistance to rural homeowners in the Southeast U.S. More

Real hourly earnings, or wages after inflation, have been positive since May 2023.
That means buying power has increased for the average worker, especially those in non-managerial roles.
Real wages have been negative for two years amid fast-rising consumer prices.

Rudi_suardi | E+ | Getty Images

Americans have seen their buying power rise for a year amid falling inflation and a strong job market, which might be welcome news for households struggling to afford everyday purchases.
The average worker in the private sector saw their real hourly earnings grow 0.8% from May 2023 to May 2024, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

“Real” earnings measure the net growth in workers’ wages after inflation. In other words, the average worker in the private sector got a net raise from May 2023 to May 2024, after accounting for price growth in consumer goods and services. Their paycheck today buys more than it did a year ago.

The trend of growth in annual real earnings has persisted since May 2023, according to BLS data. It’s been especially strong for rank-and-file workers who work in non-managerial roles, data shows.
That marks a reversal from April 2021 to April 2023, when inflation spiked and eclipsed growth in the average worker’s paycheck.
More from Personal Finance:How to get a lower credit card interest rateTax strategies after a prolonged job layoffHow to tap your home equity
“The last year of increases in real wages is a large and important step forward for working families,” said Chris Tilly, a professor and labor economist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“It means that they can buy more while putting in the same number of hours of work,” he added. “Or, they can decrease the total number of household work hours — for example, cutting down from two jobs to one, or having one earner reduce to part-time in two-earner families — while buying an equivalent amount.”

What happened with real earnings

Real earnings tend to grow at a positive rate during “normal” times, said Maximiliano Dvorkin, an economic policy advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
However, dynamics in the pandemic-era U.S. economy threw that equilibrium out of whack, economists said.
For one, inflation surged, peaking at a four-decade high in mid-2022.

Meanwhile, the labor market was white-hot as the U.S. economy reopened from its pandemic-induced lull. Job openings hit a record high, unemployment was near a historical low, and workers quit at record levels amid the ease of finding higher-paying gigs elsewhere.
For example, job openings peaked at more than 12 million in March 2022, up from roughly 7 million before the pandemic. That month, the average worker saw their pay growth spike to about 6% annually. Before the pandemic, average raises hadn’t exceeded 4%, according to the BLS, which tracks such data back to 2007.
The average worker got a bigger raise than they had in decades, but the raise wasn’t enough to eclipse inflation, which peaked more than 9% in June 2022. That resulted in two years of falling real wages.

However, inflation has since eased and the labor market remains strong, though it has broadly cooled since 2022, roughly to its pre-pandemic baseline.
“What we observe over the last year is a return to more normal economic conditions after the disruptive forces of the Covid pandemic waned,” Dvorkin said.
“This is good news for consumers,” since it generally equates to an increase in their well-being over time, he added.

Average “nominal” pay (i.e., before inflation) for all workers is up almost 23% to $34.91 an hour since January 2020. Pay has grown even faster for rank-and-file employees, rising over 25% to $30 an hour.
The consumer price index, a key inflation measure, is up a smaller 21% in that time.
While consumer sentiment has been improving, workers are still sour on the U.S. economy. The disconnect between the economy’s overall strength and its perceived weakness among households has come to be known as a “vibe-cession.”

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More