The debate comes as Social Security spends more on benefits than it collects from payroll taxes. The program has increasingly relied on its trust fund to cover the difference. Without changes from Congress, that reserve is projected to run out in 2032.

At that point, Social Security could face an estimated 22% reduction in benefits.

A Higher Payroll Tax

Payroll taxes provide most of Social Security’s funding. Workers and employers generally divide the 12.4% tax equally, while self-employed people pay the full amount.

The tax rate has changed significantly since Social Security began in 1937. It was only 2% at the program’s launch. Today, policymakers are considering whether another increase could help close the funding gap.

Instagram | tamuecon | Romina Boccia states most workers cannot afford extra costs because they lack $400 in emergency savings.

The Cato Institute estimates that raising the payroll tax from 12.4% to 17% could restore enough revenue to keep Social Security paying full benefits for the foreseeable future.

However, that change would come with a noticeable cost. For a median worker earning about $62,000 per year, Cato estimates an additional $2,600 to $3,000 in annual payroll taxes. The increase would generally be shared between the worker and employer.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at Cato, said many households would have trouble handling that extra expense.

“Most of the individuals we’re talking about … don’t even have $400 set aside to respond to an emergency,” Boccia told CBS News. “It’s financially impossible for most workers to bear that additional cost, so Congress will need to look at other options.”

The concern is especially important for workers who already have limited savings. A higher payroll deduction could reduce the money available for housing, food, debt payments and retirement savings.

Should the Tax Cap Change?

A major payroll tax increase is not the only proposal being discussed. Another option would change the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes.

For 2026, the Social Security taxable wage base is $184,500. Workers generally do not pay the Social Security portion of payroll taxes on earnings above that amount.

Removing or increasing the cap would make higher earners pay Social Security taxes on more of their income. The tax rate on wages below the existing cap would not need to increase under such a plan.

The idea has received support from lawmakers across party lines. In July, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio called for lifting the payroll tax cap. They argued that the change could create a system in which higher earners contribute a similar share of their income as low- and middle-income workers.

Public support also appears relatively strong. A 2025 Bipartisan Policy Center survey of more than 4,000 Americans found that 65% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans supported raising or removing the cap. The survey also found that a majority of households earning more than $200,000 favored the idea.

Still, Boccia warned that the policy could produce unintended effects. In some states, higher taxes could push the top marginal tax rate for high-income households above 60%. Some high earners could respond by retiring earlier rather than accepting a much larger tax burden.

Benefit Cuts Could Play a Role

Many Social Security policy experts expect that fixing the program will require more than one change. Options could include raising additional revenue and reducing future benefits.

Possible revenue measures include a modest payroll tax increase or a higher taxable wage cap. Benefit changes could involve gradually increasing the retirement age or limiting benefits for higher-income households.

Boccia argues that benefit reductions should receive more attention. She noted that Social Security was created 91 years ago, long before 401(k) plans, target-date funds and automatic enrollment became common parts of retirement planning.

Despite those changes, millions of Americans still approach retirement with limited savings.

“We need an approach that’s much heavier on the benefit reduction side because, if you look at how the program works, the key driver of the shortfall is that benefits are growing more generous over time,” Boccia said.

The Debate Over High Earners

Instagram | Kampus Production | Resolving Social Security’s funding gap will require Congress to either raise taxes, alter benefits, or blend both.

Higher earners can receive larger Social Security payments because benefits are tied partly to lifetime earnings. For people retiring in 2026, the maximum monthly benefit is $5,181, which equals more than $62,000 per year.

People who qualify for the maximum payment typically earned at or above the taxable income limit for many years.

Boccia has questioned whether these benefit levels make sense compared with public retirement systems in other countries.

“A dual high-earning household can collect $120,000 annually from Social Security, which is excessive in comparison to most other nations’ public retirement benefits,” she said.

Another proposal would link the retirement age to changes in life expectancy. Since Americans are living longer than previous generations, supporters argue that the normal retirement age could gradually rise as longevity increases.

That approach, however, could create problems for workers who cannot remain employed until a higher retirement age. The median U.S. retirement age is 62, according to the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies.

The organization has also found that many Americans retire earlier than expected. Layoffs, health problems and other financial or personal setbacks can force people out of the workforce before they are ready.

A Simpler Benefit Formula

Boccia favors another approach: a flat Social Security benefit that provides workers with a predictable amount they can plan around and supplement with personal savings.

The current benefit formula is complex. Workers may struggle to understand how their earnings, claiming age and other factors will affect their future payments.

“The current formula is so complex that most people have no idea what to expect, so they can’t reasonably plan for it either,” Boccia said.

A simpler system could make retirement planning easier, although changing the benefit structure would also create difficult political and financial decisions.

Social Security’s funding gap gives Congress several difficult options. Lawmakers could raise payroll taxes, increase or remove the taxable wage cap, adjust future benefits, or combine several changes. Each approach would affect different groups of Americans, so finding a workable solution will require careful consideration.

The projected 2032 trust fund depletion date makes the issue more pressing. If Congress does not act, benefits could face significant reductions. Any reform will need to protect the program’s long-term finances while keeping the costs manageable for workers, employers and retirees.

Mortgage rates, auto loans and credit cards each follow different parts of the interest-rate market.

The 10-year Treasury note gets particular attention because it acts as a benchmark for many longer-term borrowing costs. Investors watch it closely when setting prices for bonds and other financial products.

As of September 18, the 10-year Treasury yield stood at 4.93%, compared with 4.19% at the start of the year, according to U.S. Treasury data.

Higher oil prices, inflation concerns and increased government borrowing have added pressure to global bond markets. For consumers, the key question is how those changes could affect borrowing costs.

Mortgage Rates May Feel the Pressure

Freepik | Mortgage rates follow 10-year Treasury yields to offer investors competitive, risk-adjusted returns.

Mortgage rates often move in the same broad direction as the 10-year Treasury yield. The relationship exists because mortgage-backed securities usually need to offer investors a higher return than lower-risk Treasury securities.

That means mortgage rates can change even when the Federal Reserve leaves its benchmark rate unchanged. Bond investors constantly adjust their expectations for inflation, economic growth and future Fed decisions.

The Federal Reserve also raised its benchmark interest rate by 0.25 percentage point at its September meeting, bringing the target range to 3.75% to 4%. It was the first rate increase since 2023, with inflation still running at an elevated level. While the Fed does not directly set mortgage rates, its decisions can affect investor expectations and Treasury yields.

According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.95%, compared with 6.26% a year earlier.

Even a small rate change can affect a monthly payment. Consider a $400,000, 30-year fixed mortgage:

1. At 6.95%, principal and interest would be about $2,648 per month.
2. At 7.20%, the payment would rise to about $2,715.
3. At 7.45%, it would reach roughly $2,783.

Those figures exclude property taxes, homeowners insurance and homeowners association fees.

Car Loans Can Respond Differently

Auto loan rates do not track the 10-year Treasury yield as closely as mortgage rates do. Lenders consider factors such as vehicle type, loan term, borrower credit and the overall cost of funding.

Still, higher market rates can put upward pressure on financing costs. A borrower with strong credit may receive a different rate from someone with a lower credit score, even when both apply for the same type of vehicle loan.

For that reason, Treasury yields provide useful context but cannot predict the exact rate a car buyer will receive.

Credit Card Debt Has Another Link

Freepik | Credit card costs shift alongside short-term interest rates because most card APRs are variable.

Credit cards usually follow short-term interest rates more closely than the 10-year Treasury yield. Many credit cards use variable annual percentage rates, so their costs can change when benchmark short-term rates move.

That makes the Federal Reserve’s policy rate more relevant to credit card borrowers than the 10-year Treasury yield itself. Consumers carrying a balance may feel changes in short-term rates more directly than someone with a fixed-rate mortgage.

Rising Treasury yields do not automatically make every loan more expensive. Their impact depends on the type of debt, the lender and broader market conditions.

Rising Treasury yields can affect borrowing costs, but the impact depends on the type of debt. Mortgage rates tend to have a closer relationship with the 10-year Treasury yield, while auto loans depend on market conditions, loan terms and credit profiles.

Credit card rates are more closely linked to short-term interest rates. Keeping these differences in mind can help borrowers understand how changes in the broader interest-rate market may affect future loan costs.

Over the past several decades, the share of Americans living in middle-class households has also declined, making the term harder to define.

According to the Pew Research Center, the share of U.S. adults living in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021. That marked the smallest share recorded in five decades.

The shift does not mean fewer people sit in the mathematical middle of the income range. Instead, it reflects how income groups have changed over time. More households now fall into either lower- or upper-income categories.

A 2025 analysis from Brookings adds another concern. The study found that about one-third of the middle class, defined as the middle 60% of earners, cannot afford the cost of living where they reside. That gap shows why income alone may not explain how financially secure a household feels.

What Counts as Middle Class?

There is no single definition that applies to every American household. A common measure looks at income compared with the national median, while other measures consider household size and local costs.

The Pew Research Center uses a range of two-thirds to twice the U.S. median household income when defining the middle class. Its calculator also adjusts income based on household size and location.

Pexels | Defining the American middle class requires adjusting household income for local cost-of-living differences and family size.

The adjustment matters because $100,000 can provide a very different standard of living in different parts of the country. Housing, food, transportation, taxes, and other expenses can vary widely by location.

Pew’s calculation converts household income into an amount comparable to the income of a three-person household. Smaller households receive an upward adjustment, while larger households receive a downward adjustment.

Pew’s Income Ranges

The Pew calculator uses data from 2022. Therefore, it does not fully reflect inflation that occurred in later years. Still, the figures can provide a general comparison of household income.

In 2022, the estimated middle-class income range was about $56,600 to $169,800.

Households earning below about $56,600 fell into the lower-income group under this measure. Those earning above $169,800 fell into the upper-income group.

The calculator can also compare a household with adults who share similar characteristics, including education, age, race, ethnicity, and marital status.

Location Changes the Picture

Income can look very different when local living costs enter the calculation. A recent SmartAsset study found that people earning more than $200,000 a year could still fall within the middle class in at least five states.

That finding highlights a simple point: a salary that appears high on paper does not automatically create the same lifestyle everywhere.

Housing costs can make a major difference. A household may have enough income to fall within the middle-class range but still have less money available for savings, family expenses, travel, or other financial goals.

A Brookings analysis found that between 23% and 57% of middle-income earners could not afford basic expenses, depending on the location examined. For some households, meeting everyday costs can leave little room for longer-term goals.

How the Middle Class Has Changed

Gemini AI | Decades of data show a shrinking U.S. middle class as more households move into lower- or higher-income tiers.

The decline in the middle class has happened alongside growth in both lower- and upper-income groups. Pew Research Center data shows that from 1971 to 2023, the share of Americans living in lower-income households rose from 27% to 30%.

During the same period, the share living in upper-income households increased from 11% to 19%.

Household incomes have increased across all three income groups since 1970. However, the increases have not been equal. Upper-income households saw larger gains than middle- and lower-income households.

Between 1970 and 2022, the median income of middle-class households rose by 60%. The median income of upper-income households increased by 78%, while the median income of lower-income households grew by 55%.

What the Numbers Mean

The middle class is not defined by one salary that works for every household. Income, household size, and location all affect the calculation.

For that reason, a household earning $80,000, $150,000, or even more than $200,000 may fall into a different income group depending on its circumstances. The numbers also show why a household can meet a statistical definition of middle class while still feeling financial pressure.

The American middle class has changed significantly over the past five decades. Pew Research Center data shows a smaller share of adults now live in middle-class households, while the lower- and upper-income groups have grown.

At the same time, rising living costs can make a middle-class income feel very different from one household or state to another. Looking at income alongside household size and local costs gives a clearer picture of where a household stands financially.

Nearly 22% of lawyers reported moderate to severe symptoms of depression, according to a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs and lawyer mental health advisory firm Krill Strategies.

The study collected responses from more than 37,000 lawyers, making it the largest study of lawyer wellness to date, according to its authors.

More than 20% of respondents reported moderate to severe anxiety, while nearly 19% reported similar levels of stress. More than 41% said their time in the legal profession had been “detrimental” to their mental health.

Pexels | Despite ongoing wellness efforts, U.S. lawyers continue to suffer from severe mental health issues and burnout.

Patrick Krill, a study co-author, said law firms, bar associations, and other legal employers had increased mental health efforts since an earlier study raised concerns in 2016. However, he said the latest findings show those efforts have not gone far enough.

“It shows that the issues were worse than we thought,” Krill told Reuters. “The levels of distress were higher than we knew.”

Drinking Remains a Concern

The survey also found a significant level of problematic alcohol use among lawyers. Nearly 42% screened positive for hazardous drinking, while 26% of those respondents reported an even higher level of drinking on an international assessment tool used to measure alcohol use.

The rate of hazardous drinking has declined since the 2016 study. Still, the figures remain notable alongside the high rates of stress, anxiety, and depression.

Earlier research has also found that lawyers experience mental health problems at higher rates than the general U.S. population. The latest study did not make a direct comparison with the broader population.

Younger Lawyers Face Added Pressure

Pexels | Long workweeks heavily impact legal professionals, with 71+ hours tripling the likelihood of severe stress.

Age played a role in reported mental health challenges. Younger lawyers showed higher rates of distress than older attorneys. The study authors suggested several possible reasons, including the pressure of starting a demanding career, limited professional support, and educational debt.

Work setting also made a difference. Lawyers working in-house at companies or in judicial chambers reported lower levels of distress and burnout than solo practitioners and lawyers in private practice.

Law firm attorneys reported higher rates of hazardous drinking. Litigation lawyers also recorded higher levels of burnout and hazardous drinking. Researchers linked those results in part to the “adversarial exposure” of litigation and long working hours.

Long Hours Raise Burnout Risk

Working hours showed one of the clearest links to stress. Lawyers who worked more than 71 hours per week were about three times as likely to screen positive for moderate to severe stress as lawyers working between 31 and 40 hours.

Even with growing awareness of lawyer wellness, many attorneys remain reluctant to seek help. Concerns about confidentiality and possible damage to their professional reputation were the leading barriers reported by respondents.

The survey points to a persistent problem within the legal profession. Mental health concerns remain widespread across different practice settings, with younger attorneys, heavily overworked lawyers, and those in high-pressure legal roles facing notable risks.

The findings also suggest that workplace wellness efforts need to address the conditions that contribute to distress, including excessive workloads, professional pressure, limited support, and concerns about seeking confidential help.

Her approach showed that owning assets could matter just as much as earning money from a hit record.

In a 1984 interview with Interview magazine, Parton, then 38, revealed that her outside investments were already bringing in more money than her record royalties.

She said, “I make more money on my outside heartfelt investments like farm equipment, garden centers, than I do even from record royalties.” She also mentioned investing in “farms, cows, hardware stores, hogs and macadamia trees.”

That early focus on ownership later became a major part of her financial success.

Publishing Came First

Instagram | dollyparton | Dolly Parton’s most valued investment was her publishing company, securing revenues from both writing and ownership.

Parton identified her publishing company as the investment she was most proud of during the same 1984 interview. She understood that writing a song and owning its publishing rights could create two separate income streams.

Explaining the idea, she said, “You not only write songs you get your royalties from, but you own your publishing — you have it all.”

She used the 1984 movie “Rhinestone” as an example. Parton had written 20 songs for the film and could earn money from their use while also retaining the publishing rights.

That decision became even more valuable through her songwriting catalog, which includes more than 3,000 songs. Forbes estimated the catalog at about $120 million in 2025. Among its best-known works are “9 to 5” and “I Will Always Love You.”

The Song She Refused to Give Away

“I Will Always Love You” became one of the clearest examples of why Parton guarded her copyrights. Whitney Houston recorded the song for the 1992 soundtrack to “The Bodyguard.” Houston’s version spent 14 weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and became a Grammy-winning hit.

Parton remained the sole songwriter and publisher. That meant she continued to receive royalties as the song generated income through sales and later streaming.

Years earlier, Elvis Presley’s management had reportedly asked Parton to give up part of the publishing rights as a condition for Presley recording the song. Parton refused, even though she wanted to hear Presley perform it.

In a 2021 interview with W Magazine, she recalled, “I wanted to hear Elvis sing it, and it broke my heart — I cried all night.” Still, she kept the copyright, adding, “You have to take care of your business! These are my songs — they’re like my children.”

Dollywood Investment

Instagram | dollyparton | Parton’s half-ownership of Tennessee’s Dollywood, founded in 1986, is now valued at approximately $165 million.

Parton made another major investment in 1986 when she became involved with a theme park in Tennessee’s Smoky Mountain foothills. The property was revived and renamed Dollywood.

Over time, Dollywood became a much larger business. Forbes reported that Parton owned half of the Dollywood Company and valued her stake in the theme park at about $165 million. The park recorded 4 million visitors in 2025.

The Dollywood Company also expanded beyond the theme park. Its operations came to include a water park, several resort hotels, and HeartSong Lodge & Resort. The 302-room resort opened in November 2023.

A Portfolio Built on Ownership

Parton’s business strategy had a clear thread. She did not rely on one source of income. Instead, she combined intellectual property, real estate, operating businesses, and entertainment assets.

She also kept decision-making authority while relying on professionals for specialized advice. In 1984, she explained, “I have good management and good accountants, but I go outside of all of them to make my own decisions.”

Her philosophy was also tied to personal satisfaction. Parton said, “I don’t have to work; I love to work … What’s a million dollars or three or 10 or 15 if you’re not happy doing what you’re doing?”

Parton died Aug. 25, at 80, after a brief battle with cancer, leaving an estimated $450 million fortune, according to Forbes. Her financial story began decades earlier, when she was already thinking beyond record sales.

From farm equipment and hogs to publishing rights and Dollywood, Parton built wealth by retaining ownership and spreading her investments across different industries. Her career shows how creative work can become a lasting financial asset when the underlying rights and businesses remain under the creator’s control.

The idea can be as simple as moving money to a higher-interest savings account, cutting an unused subscription, or asking a service provider for a lower bill. While the term comes from social media, the habits behind it are familiar financial basics.

What Is Moneymaxxing?

“Moneymaxxing” describes the practice of optimizing different parts of personal finances. The trend follows the internet’s growing use of “-maxxing” to describe efforts to improve something as much as possible. Similar terms include “looksmaxxing,” “sleepmaxxing,” and “proteinmaxxing.”

With moneymaxxing, the focus shifts to financial decisions. People may compare savings rates, search for discounts, use cash-back programs, negotiate bills, or look for bank account bonuses.

Pexels | Moneymaxxing is basically gamifying your personal finances to get the best possible return on every dollar.

The central idea is straightforward: make each dollar work harder without necessarily earning more money.

Someone who compares savings accounts before opening one is already using a moneymaxxing habit. The same applies to checking for a coupon before making a planned purchase or canceling a subscription that no longer gets used.

Why Is It Gaining Attention?

Higher living costs have made everyday financial decisions more important for many households.

As of July 2026, inflation increased 3.4% from a year earlier. The annual inflation rate had remained above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for 65 consecutive months. Continued price increases have pushed more consumers to look for practical ways to stretch their income.

The Federal Reserve’s 2025 Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households found that 28% of adults felt financially worse off than they had been a year earlier. Another 53% identified price increases as a major concern. Lower-income and younger adults showed greater concern about rising prices overall.

Corey Bates, a financial and investment advisor at Solomon Financial in Carmel, Indiana, linked the trend to younger consumers becoming more deliberate about their finances.

“It has likely risen in popularity as young people are searching for ways to get ahead financially,” Bates said. “They are becoming mindful of the threats of inflation and costs of living, and how important it is to be intentional with money, especially in the early years while trying to build a foundation.”

Social media has also changed how people learn about personal finance. A 2025 Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia report found that younger generations increasingly use social platforms to learn about budgeting, saving, and investing.

That shift has also made frugal financial habits more visible. Moneymaxxing sits alongside trends such as “loud budgeting,” which encourages people to be open about financial limits rather than spend simply to match other people’s lifestyles.

How to Start

Moneymaxxing does not require a complete financial overhaul. Small adjustments can be enough to improve the way money is saved, spent, or managed.

Elizabeth Herzog Lambertson, a financial advisor at Northwestern Mutual, recommends starting with a personal “financial snapshot.” That means reviewing income, spending, savings, and debt before deciding where changes could have the greatest impact.

Several simple areas deserve attention:

1. Check savings rates – Compare APYs on high-yield savings accounts, money market accounts, and CDs. Cash sitting in a low-interest account may earn significantly less than it could elsewhere.
2. Review recurring expenses – Cancel subscriptions, memberships, or services that no longer provide enough value.
3. Use rewards strategically – Loyalty programs, discounts, and cash-back offers can reduce the cost of purchases that were already planned.
4. Negotiate bills – Ask cell phone, internet, and other service providers whether lower rates or better plans are available.
5. Target expensive debt – Prioritize balances with high interest rates because they can grow quickly and consume money that could otherwise support savings.

“Small optimization strategies like these can add up over time and help people make steady financial progress,” Lambertson said.

Where Moneymaxxing Can Go Wrong

Pexels | Social media highlights financial wins while ignoring the risks that make them unsuited for most people.

The biggest risk is focusing on tiny savings while ignoring larger financial priorities.

For example, earning a slightly higher return on savings may have limited value when high-interest credit card debt continues to accumulate. Likewise, chasing a better savings rate may not make sense if a worker has not contributed enough to a 401(k) to receive the full employer match.

Social media creates another challenge. Financial creators often highlight strategies that produced impressive results, but posts may leave out the risks, time commitment, taxes, fees, or personal circumstances involved.

A strategy that works well for one household may not suit another. Bank bonuses can have eligibility requirements, investment strategies can carry losses, and switching financial products can involve fees or restrictions.

That makes financial priorities more important than internet trends.

Start With the Basics

Before searching for small financial wins, households should address the fundamentals. Building an emergency fund can provide a cushion for unexpected expenses. Paying down high-interest debt can reduce costly interest charges. Retirement contributions can help support long-term financial goals, especially when an employer offers a matching contribution.

After those areas receive attention, smaller optimizations can become useful. Comparing account rates, reducing unnecessary expenses, and finding legitimate discounts can then supplement a broader financial plan.

Online financial advice also deserves careful checking. Reputable sources, financial institutions, government agencies, and qualified professionals can provide more context than a short social media post.

Moneymaxxing can be useful when it leads to smarter everyday financial decisions. Small changes, such as earning more interest on savings, lowering monthly bills, or paying less interest on debt, can improve a household’s finances over time.

However, these tactics should come after major priorities such as building emergency savings, reducing high-interest debt, and contributing enough to a 401(k) to receive the full employer match. Used this way, moneymaxxing becomes a practical habit rather than another social media trend.

That shift has raised concerns among financial professionals because betting and investing serve very different purposes. Betterment CEO Sarah Levy told Yahoo Finance, “When a prediction market or sportsbook starts to feel like a retirement strategy, we have a problem.”

Betting as a Strategy

The Betterment survey found that about 26% of Gen Z investors view sports betting as a “deliberate, ongoing part of their long-term financial strategy.” The share was much lower among older generations: about 14% of millennials, 6% of Gen X, and 1% of baby boomers.

Gemini AI | Most Gen Z investors view sports betting as casual entertainment rather than a serious financial strategy.

Still, sports betting is not a financial habit for every young investor. More than three in 10 Gen Z adults said they completely avoid using it as an investment strategy. Among those who participate, roughly one-quarter described the money as “fun money.”

Levy said betting products are not designed to help people build wealth over the next decade. She also said the financial industry has a responsibility to make the difference clear between following a trend and building long-term wealth.

Betterment Vice President of Behavioral Investing Dan Egan also urged young investors to create boundaries between speculative activities and long-term financial goals.

Why Risk Appeals to Gen Z

The trend is tied to wider concerns about financial security. A Northwestern Mutual study published in March found that Gen Z and millennials represent a large share of Americans interested in high-risk assets, including cryptocurrency, prediction markets, sports betting, options, and meme stocks.

Nearly one-third of investors ages 18 to 29 said they were either investing in or considering investing in crypto, sports betting, or prediction markets. That figure was similar to millennials but considerably higher than among baby boomers.

For many younger adults, speed is part of the appeal. Eight in 10 Gen Z investors said they believe riskier financial vehicles can help them reach their goals faster than traditional approaches. Among millennials who felt financially behind, two-thirds shared that view.

Young Adults Under Pressure

Young adults are dealing with several financial pressures at once, including a difficult job market, high housing costs, and student loan payments. Northwestern Mutual found that three-quarters of U.S. adults attracted to high-risk assets said they felt “financially behind.”

Only about half said they felt financially secure and viewed themselves as disciplined financial planners.

Freepik | garetsvisual | Overwhelmed by living costs and debt, many young adults resort to high-risk investments to catch up financially.

Northwestern Mutual wealth management adviser Ashley Russo warned that time plays a major role in investing. She told Yahoo Finance, “Time is our most powerful asset in finance, and aggressive bets can erode that advantage faster than you can recover.”

The Sports Betting Alliance, which represents legal online operators such as FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, and Fanatics Sportsbook, also stressed the distinction.

SBA President Joe Maloney said sports betting is entertainment rather than an investment or wealth-building strategy. He advised adults who choose to bet to use a set entertainment budget and avoid money needed for savings or essential expenses.

Legal sportsbooks also offer tools that allow customers to set spending limits, monitor activity, and seek support when needed.

What the Trend Means

Sports betting may feel financially similar to investing when apps, odds, market movements, and potential returns appear side by side. The underlying risks are different, though. Retirement investing generally relies on long-term growth, while betting depends on individual outcomes and can quickly reduce money set aside for future needs.

For younger adults already worried about falling behind financially, using retirement funds for short-term bets can create another setback.

The Betterment and Northwestern Mutual findings point to a clear concern: some Gen Z investors are turning to speculative activities because traditional financial progress can seem too slow. Sports betting can remain entertainment when it stays within a defined budget, but money reserved for retirement serves a different purpose.

Keeping those two goals separate can help young investors protect long-term savings while still making room for controlled discretionary spending.

The company behind Truth Social is returning its attention to its original media operation while adding a paid service designed to give customers faster access to posts from President Donald Trump.

The move could bring in significant revenue, but it also raises questions about ethics, the company’s finances and what happens to the platform after Trump leaves office.

A Shift Back to Truth Social

Trump launched Truth Social after he was removed from Twitter and Facebook. Both platforms later restored his accounts, leaving Truth Social to find a stronger reason for users to stay.

Over time, the platform developed into a place where Trump and other high-profile figures can publish statements before they spread across traditional news outlets.

That role has become especially important during Trump’s presidency. His posts have addressed major issues, including the Iran war, tariffs and the future of the U.S. central bank. As a result, Truth Social has increasingly functioned like a direct channel for presidential statements.

Instagram | fluxcharts | Truth Social established itself as the primary publishing spot for high-profile political figures.

Trump Media, however, has struggled to turn that attention into consistent financial growth. The company expanded into several unrelated areas, including online betting, financial services, investment funds, bitcoin and nuclear energy. Those efforts have not produced the turnaround investors expected.

Now, the company is cutting back on much of that expansion and focusing more heavily on Truth Social.

A New Paid Data Service

The biggest change is a service called Truth API. It provides customers with faster access to posts published on Truth Social. The service targets businesses that may benefit from receiving information quickly, including high-speed trading firms, news organizations, data center companies and developers working with large language models.

During a Monday conference call with investors, Trump Media’s new chief executive, Kevin McGurn, said several high-speed trading firms had already signed up. Each customer is paying between $60,000 and $100,000 per month.

McGurn said the company was still in the early stages of building the service and was speaking with potential customers across several industries.

The numbers are significant for a company of Trump Media’s size. Ten customers signing up within the first week could generate between $600,000 and $1 million per month. On an annual basis, that works out to roughly $7.2 million to $12 million if those customers remain active.

That amount could equal two to three times the revenue Trump Media generated across all of its businesses during the previous year.

The service has also attracted criticism. Democrats and government watchdog groups have questioned whether selling faster access to presidential statements creates an ethical problem, especially when those statements can influence financial markets.

McGurn has rejected that characterization. He has argued that other social media companies sell comparable data services. The White House has also denied that Trump’s government responsibilities create conflicts with his private business interests.

Trump Media Faces Heavy Losses

The new revenue opportunity comes as the company deals with substantial financial losses.

Trump Media has lost more than $1 billion since the beginning of last year. Its latest earnings report, covering the three months that ended June 30, showed another $238 million loss. Much of that figure came from paper losses tied to the falling value of the company’s bitcoin holdings.

The financial pressure makes the new data service particularly important. Yet the company still faces larger questions about whether its business model can produce stable income over time.

Trump Media also relies on outside financing. The company raised $1 billion from lenders through an agreement involving convertible notes. Those lenders have the right to demand early repayment on Nov. 30, which is 18 months before the loans reach maturity.

That deadline comes shortly after the November midterm elections. A change in control of Congress could create additional pressure for the company. Several Democrats, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have said they would pursue formal investigations into Trump’s businesses, including Trump Media, if Democrats regain control of Congress.

What Happens After Trump Leaves Office?

The biggest long-term question may be Trump himself.

Trump remains the dominant figure on Truth Social, with about 13 million followers. His son, Donald Trump Jr., is the platform’s second-most-followed major poster, with about 7.5 million followers.

Other prominent accounts include FBI Director Kash Patel and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Their visibility, however, could change if they leave government positions.

Instagram | donaldjtrumpjr | Donald Trump and his son lead Truth Social, boasting 13 million and 7.5 million followers respectively.

JD Vance presents a different possibility. The vice president has about 5 million followers on Truth Social. Although his current term runs through 2028, a future presidential campaign could keep him highly relevant to the platform. If Vance were elected president and continued using Truth Social, the company could retain a major political figure after Trump leaves office.

That possibility matters because the value of Truth API depends partly on the importance of the people posting on the platform. Traders may pay high fees for immediate access to information from a sitting president.

The business case becomes less obvious if the platform loses that source of market-moving announcements.

Nuclear Fusion Remains on the Table

Trump Media is not abandoning every venture outside social media. McGurn said the company still plans to pursue nuclear fusion.

Fusion is not yet commercially available at scale, but the industry has received stronger support from the federal government. In June, the U.S. Department of Energy released a roadmap that called for government funding to speed up fusion development and encouraged public-private partnerships.

That support gives Trump Media another potential avenue for future growth, although fusion remains a long-term technology rather than an immediate source of meaningful revenue.

Investors have remained skeptical despite the company’s new plans. Trump Media shares traded near $62 shortly after the company went public in 2024. Since then, the stock has fallen into the single digits, wiping out billions of dollars in market value.

On Tuesday, shares dropped about 3.3% to close at $9.08.

The company therefore faces several deadlines at once: improving its financial results, managing its debt obligations and proving that Truth Social can remain valuable beyond Trump’s current presidency.

Trump Media is shifting its focus back to Truth Social as it scales down several side ventures. Its Truth API service creates a new revenue stream by giving businesses faster access to posts from President Donald Trump.

The company’s outlook will depend on whether enough customers continue paying for that access and whether Truth Social can retain its audience after Trump leaves office.

The busy season has also given Dickerson plenty of reasons to reflect on family, his fans, home life and the simple summer traditions that have stayed with him over the years.

The Fetty Wap Collaboration

Few country music fans would have predicted a Russell Dickerson and Fetty Wap collaboration in 2026. The connection started with a casual social media video posted by Kailey.

She shared a clip of Dickerson performing his version of Fetty Wap’s 2015 hit “Trap Queen,” which he had described as one of his party tricks. The video quickly passed 35 million views, with viewers repeatedly tagging Fetty Wap in the comments.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Kailey Dickerson (@kaileydickerson)

The rapper eventually saw the attention. That led to conversations between the artists’ teams and, soon after, a feature on Dickerson’s song “Boots.”

Dickerson recalled how quickly the idea became real. “When he got out, I was like, ‘We need a song with Fetty Wap.’” He sent the idea to his managers, who initially responded with “LOL, really?” Dickerson, however, was serious.

The teams sent Fetty Wap the existing track. The next day, he returned his vocal.

Dickerson described the moment simply: “It’s happening! We’re really doing it.”

The collaboration reached another level at CMA Fest, where the two performed together before tens of thousands of fans. Months later, Dickerson still viewed the experience as “mind-blowing.” He even joked that whenever he feels down, he can remind himself, “You have a song with Fetty Wap. How could you be sad right now?”

RussellMania Brings Fans Closer

Dickerson’s RussellMania Tour has also brought him closer to fans across the country. He describes his audience as “the best fans in the world” and appreciates how naturally families have become part of his shows.

He said the people attending his concerts often feel like the kind of people he would spend time with away from the stage. That connection has grown as more children began attending his performances.

The response even influenced the tour merchandise. With so many young fans showing up, Dickerson added kids’ merchandise to the lineup.

For him, that detail carries real meaning. He explained that there are only a few concerts he would feel comfortable taking his own children to, making it especially meaningful that families choose his shows.

A Growing Family and a New Home

Family life remains just as important as the tour. Dickerson and Kailey already have two sons, Remington, 5, and Radford, 2. The children join their father on the road whenever possible.

Touring with young children can be demanding, but Dickerson said the time together makes it worthwhile. He prefers seeing his family every day rather than waiting until he returns home between shows.

With school about to begin, the singer has been making the most of the final stretch of summer.

Instagram | russelldickerson | Even with packed schedules, Russell Dickerson keeps his family close—both on tour and at home.

The family is also renovating its home before baby number three arrives. Kailey has been overseeing much of the project while writing a book, creating a packed schedule of her own.

Dickerson said the renovation is moving along, with the cabinets already installed. The family hopes to move into the completed home before the end of the year.

There is also one familiar household item that may soon receive an upgrade: Dickerson’s inflatable Costco hot tub. After years of using it, he admitted, “It’s time to put on my big-boy pants and get a real hot tub.”

A Summer Tradition Built Around S’mores

Even with touring, renovations and a growing family, Dickerson still has room for one classic summer ritual: s’mores.

National S’mores Day falls on August 10, and the singer has connected the treat with one of his favorite summer movies, “The Sandlot.” The 1993 film includes the memorable scene where Ham teaches Scotty how to make a s’more before delivering the famous line, “You’re killing me, Smalls.”

Dickerson considers himself a s’mores purist, although he sometimes adds chocolate to both sides of the marshmallow. His preference is clear: he is “Camp Gooey.”

For Dickerson, the ideal s’more has melted chocolate on both sides with a soft, fully heated center. His enthusiasm for the snack reflects the same nostalgia he associates with “The Sandlot,” which he considers the ultimate summer movie.

Russell Dickerson’s current season combines several parts of his life at once: a surprising musical partnership, a demanding national tour, a growing family, and a home renovation.

The Fetty Wap collaboration shows how a simple social media clip can lead somewhere unexpected, while the tour reflects Dickerson’s continuing connection with family audiences. At home, the arrival of a third child and a larger living space mark another important chapter. Even with those changes, familiar summer rituals such as watching “The Sandlot” and making gooey s’mores remain part of the picture.

For Dickerson, the summer stands out not because of one event, but because music, family, and familiar traditions are all happening at the same time.

New research shows that rising food prices, tighter household budgets, and changes to federal food assistance programs are pushing families to finance everyday meals with borrowed money.

While this may provide short-term relief, it often creates a much larger financial burden that can last for years.

The Rise of Grocery Debt

A recent Urban Institute survey on family well-being and basic needs found that grocery costs have become difficult to manage for many working-age adults across the United States. During the past year, more than one in three working-age adults (34.9%) used a credit card to buy groceries.

Freepik | pch.vector | Over one-third of US working-age adults now use credit cards to afford groceries amid rising costs.

The findings also reveal that many households struggled to repay those balances:

1. 34.9% paid their credit card bill in full.
2. 19.6% paid less than the full balance while making at least the minimum payment.
3. 8.7% did not consistently make the minimum payment.
4. Nearly 1 in 10 borrowers used Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services to purchase food.

These numbers suggest that grocery shopping has shifted from a routine household expense to one that increasingly relies on borrowed money.

Rising Costs Are Stretching Budgets

Food prices continue to climb, making it harder for many families to keep up with everyday expenses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, grocery prices increased 2.7% between June 2025 and June 2026.

Several major food categories recorded noticeable increases over the same period:

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs: up 2.6%
Fruits and vegetables: up 5.3%

As food prices outpace many household budgets, families often exhaust their available cash before the month ends. Instead of reducing grocery purchases, many turn to credit simply to keep food on the table.

The Urban Institute report shows that repayment challenges are not limited to lower-income households. Even high-income working-age adults who used credit cards for grocery purchases reported difficulty paying off those balances.

Kassandra Martinchek, senior research associate at the Urban Institute and one of the report’s authors, explained the growing concern.

“There is a substantial portion of people all around us who are having trouble being able to afford groceries and meet their basic needs.”

The findings suggest that higher grocery costs are affecting households across a broad range of income levels rather than one specific financial group.

Using Savings and High-Cost Loans

Credit cards are only one way households cover grocery expenses.

The Urban Institute found that during 2025, 19.6% of working-age adults withdrew money from non-daily savings to pay for groceries. Another 5.2% relied on payday loans.

Payday loans may appear manageable because lenders often charge fees such as $15 for every $100 borrowed. Once converted into an annual percentage rate, however, borrowing costs can climb into the triple digits. Many borrowers end up taking another payday loan simply to repay the first, creating a difficult cycle to escape.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve data shows that credit card accounts carrying a balance averaged approximately 22.15% interest as of May, making revolving debt increasingly expensive.

SNAP Changes Add Pressure

Freepik | Relying on high-interest debt for daily groceries drains monthly budgets and ruins long-term financial security.

Many households are also adjusting to changes in federal food assistance.

Signed into law in July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act significantly revised the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The legislation introduced stricter work requirements, narrowed eligibility, and shifted a greater share of program costs to individual states.

The effects are already visible.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 4.5 million people were removed from SNAP rolls between July 2025 and April 2026. The organization also reported that in 19 states with available data, more than 1 million children have lost SNAP food assistance since the law took effect.

As fewer households qualify for food assistance, many have little choice but to rely on personal savings or borrowed money to cover grocery bills.

The Long-Term Cost of Financing Food

Using credit for groceries creates a financial challenge that extends well beyond the checkout line.

Martinchek warned that revolving debt can keep families under financial pressure long after the groceries have been consumed.

“They can have even more trouble achieving financial stability in the future. This can have a long tail, especially if folks continue to not make minimum payments in ways that undermine their long-term creditworthiness.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, the average household spent $6,224 on food at home during 2024.

If a family charged half of that amount ($3,112) to a credit card with a 22% interest rate, the financial impact could be significant.

Under a standard minimum payment structure that combines interest plus 1% of the balance, the first monthly payment would be approximately $88.17. Of that amount, about $57.05 would cover interest, while only $31.12 would reduce the principal balance.

Using Bankrate.com’s minimum payment calculator, paying only the required minimum each month would keep the debt active for nearly 20 years and generate about $5,000 in interest charges—all for groceries that were purchased years earlier.

High-interest debt for everyday groceries creates financial strain that extends well beyond monthly budgets. Interest payments reduce the money available for savings, retirement, education, and other long-term goals.

Growing dependence on credit cards, Buy Now, Pay Later plans, and payday loans also reflects the difficulty many working households face in covering basic living expenses. Without improved affordability, more families could remain burdened by debt tied to everyday food purchases.