Category: Moneywise

High interest rates have been battering consumers for years. And there’s been a lot of pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower its benchmark interest rate, since that should result in lower consumer borrowing costs across the board.

But in March, the Fed opted to keep its benchmark interest rate steady. The Fed hasn’t nudged interest rates downward since late 2024. Its last rate cut happened back in December.

That’s not sitting well with President Donald Trump, who has made it clear that he’s looking for the Fed to cut rates in short order.

“The Fed would be MUCH better off CUTTING RATES as U.S.Tariffs start to transition (ease!) their way into the economy,” Trump wrote in a post this past Wednesday on Truth Social.

“Do the right thing. April 2nd is Liberation Day in America!!!”

On April 2, Trump is expected to roll out a targeted tariff initiative that focuses on trade partners who are considered to have large imbalances with the U.S.

How interest rates and tariffs affect the economy

Both interest rates and tariffs can have a notable impact on the U.S. economy.

Interest rates dictate how much it costs consumers to borrow money. They also determine how much it costs companies to borrow money to finance operations.

When interest rates are higher, consumers tend to spend less. It’s for this reason that the Federal Reserve tends to raise interest rates during periods of higher-than-average inflation.

Inflation commonly comes as the result of a mismatch between supply and demand. When there’s not enough supply to meet demand, prices tend to rise.

By raising interest rates, the Fed can discourage consumers from spending. That, in turn, narrows the gap between supply and demand, causing prices to come down.

Tariffs, meanwhile, can lead to higher costs for imported goods. If it costs more for U.S. supermarkets and retailers to source the products they sell, those higher costs are generally going to be passed onto consumers, resulting in higher prices.

Of course, the hope is that U.S. companies will source more products domestically in light of tariffs. But that won’t necessarily result in lower prices.

Quite the contrary — domestic goods are commonly more expensive to produce, which could lead to higher prices. In fact, the whole reason the U.S. is so heavily dependent on foreign trade partners is that it’s historically been more economical to source certain products than produce them domestically.

In response to the expected impact of tariffs, the Fed raised its 2025 inflation forecast to 2.8% in mid-March.

The reason Trump is pressuring the Fed to lower its benchmark interest rate is to make borrowing less expensive for consumers. Lower borrowing rates could potentially offset some of the higher costs that may result from tariffs.

But lower borrowing rates could also fuel inflation by encouraging more spending. So, it’s easy to see why the Fed isn’t in a rush to go that route.

How to adjust your finances in today’s economy

It’s hard to know what actions the Fed will take in the coming months, and it’s hard to predict the exact impact of tariffs on the average consumer’s wallet. But, there are some steps you can take to protect your personal finances given current circumstances.

First, know that until interest rates come down, borrowing is going to be more expensive. So, 2025 may not be the best time to sign a new loan or refinance an existing one. You may instead want to focus on boosting your credit score so that if rates come down next year, you’ll be in a strong position to borrow.

On the other hand, you should know that while elevated interest rates are bad news for borrowers, they’re great news for savers. Now’s a good time to put extra money into a high-yield savings account. You can also open a certificate of deposit (CD) if you have cash on hand you don’t expect to need for a period of time, which guarantees you the same interest rate until its maturity date.

Given that there’s pressure on the Fed to cut rates, a CD could be a good bet. If interest rates fall, savings accounts are apt to start paying less. But if you lock in a CD at a given rate, your bank has to honor that rate.

You may also want to boost your emergency fund given that economic conditions could potentially fuel a recession or cause stock market volatility.

On March 13, the stock market entered correction territory for the first time in more than a year (meaning it fell at least 10% from a recent high, but less than 20%). Tariff policies, once implemented, could drive stock values down even more. So, now’s a good time to rebalance your portfolio as needed or potentially cash out some remaining gains if your emergency fund needs a boost.

A recent U.S. News & World Report survey found that 42% of Americans have no emergency fund. While J.P. Morgan’s chief economist puts the chance of a U.S. recession at 40% this year.

A recession could lead to widespread layoffs, which is why it’s important to have a solid emergency fund — one with at least three months of living expenses. A fully loaded emergency fund could make it easier to leave your stock portfolio alone in the event of market meltdown, sparing you from locking in losses due to needing cash.

Of course, no one has a crystal ball, so it’s hard to know how things will shake out economically in the coming months. But, it’s best to prepare as best as you can by stockpiling some cash and being careful about taking on new debt. You should also make sure your investment portfolio is well diversified, to withstand potential turbulence.

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

If you’ve ever received overpayments from Social Security — even through no fault of your own — you’re on the hook for them. Now, a pair of U.S. senators are trying to protect seniors from some of the burden of reimbursing overpayment errors made by the government.

On March 14, Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the Social Security Overpayment Relief Act. It seeks to prevent the Social Security Administration (SSA) from clawing back benefit overpayments — due to errors on the agency’s part — that are more than 10 years old.

“Seniors shouldn’t have to pay for the government’s mistakes, especially not mistakes that happened decades ago,” Gallego said in a news release. He added that the bill would ensure seniors aren’t “blindsided by massive repayment amounts through no fault of their own.”

The bill’s introduction comes at a time when the government is getting tough on clawing back Social Security overpayments. Here’s what is going on.

Clawback tactics

The SSA under President Donald Trump has gotten more aggressive about collecting on overpayments.

As of March 27, the agency has returned to its 100% overpayment withholding policy, meaning the agency can keep your entire monthly benefit until reimbursement is complete. This applies only to new overpayments. Previously, the withholding rate was capped at 10% due to potential hardship of beneficiaries.

The SSA’s Office of the Inspector General reported last year nearly $72 billion in improper Social Security payments were made from fiscal years 2015 through 2022. Most of those were overpayments, and account for less than 1% of the benefits paid over that seven-year period. By the end of fiscal year 2023, the SSA had an uncollected overpayment balance of $23 billion.

Now, according to the SSA, the switch in policy is expected to increase overpayment recoveries by $7 billion over the next decade.

Overpayment tips

If you’re looking to avoid any surprises when it comes to paying back the SSA, you should be monitoring your Social Security account closely to track payments and earnings history. If you receive statements in the mail, make sure you don’t neglect them.

If you’re worried about an overpayment in the past, consider reaching out to a financial adviser to help you sift through these accounts and report any mistakes to the SSA.

An adviser can also help you understand how much you can expect in benefits every month or if there’s any changes to the way you’re paid so that you can prepare in advance. If your adviser can spot any underpayments from the SSA, it’s recommended you report this to the agency as well.

If the agency reaches out to you via mail to alert you about an overpayment, you have 30 days to pay the amount due before collection starts. You can also file an appeal if you don’t think you’ve been overpaid or believe the overpayment amount is incorrect.

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Rent prices in San Francisco’s Mission District have remained high above the national average for many years. On average, it costs $3,397 to rent a place to call home in San Francisco. And for business owners, rent prices have been a major strain for years.

But for some businesses, a recent rash of rent hikes represents the straw that broke the camel’s back. In particular, Aslam’s Rasoi on Valencia Street currently faces a 52% rent increase starting in May, according to a CBS News report.

The significant spike in the family-run restaurant’s operations costs has staff considering whether or not it’s possible to continue serving up the dishes that have been a staple in the community for almost 20 years.

Restaurants facing challenges on multiple fronts

Aslam’s Rasoi opened its doors in 2006. Although it’s survived many ups and downs in the economy over the last 20 years, operating a restaurant in a post-COVID world makes staying afloat more challenging than ever before.

CBS News reported that on top of the 52% rent hike the restaurant is facing as of May, co-owner Sonia Aslam says slower sales and higher ingredient costs influenced her family’s decision to close the restaurant in its current location.

Since the pandemic, Aslam told Mission Local, the restaurant started operating with a scaled-down crew of just a few family members.

On top of higher operations costs, Aslam Rasoi has seen foot traffic decline. Of course, some of this decline is related to the shifts in diner habits after 2020. But nearby traffic on Valencia Street has decimated foot traffic for Aslam Rasoi and other businesses in the neighborhood.

In recent months, the restaurant has remained open with financial support from family members. When the lease is up, the owners must decide whether to close for good or find another location.

“It’s just sad seeing the business struggling to this extent,” said Aslam. “We’ve tried to keep the restaurant going for all these years. We sacrificed all our time. We put our love into the business.”

Aslam, whose father-in-law opened the business in 2006, says the restaurant’s best hope would be an uptick in business over the next month or two. A bit more business would help the family feel more confident about moving to another, more affordable location.

And if they do reopen, they’ll likely join the many restaurants offering limited hours and a pared-down menu to maintain profitability during a tough climate.

Shifting dining and consumer trends impact business

The restaurant industry has always been a competitive business. But since the pandemic, dining habits have shifted dramatically. Consumer habits show people are generally opting for more take-out, drive-through and online ordering over in-person dining experiences.

“In the food service industry, the ways people order has shifted mostly to non-human contact or untact methods, such as online orders and drive-through orders,” according to a 2021 study.

Restaurant owners trying to keep up with the trend of less contact might choose to offer an easier way to order food online. Additionally, they might put more staffing behind takeout orders to keep pace with demand.

In addition to changing preferences, inflation and a [rising cost of living]( put pressure on household budgets. As diners face financial stress, many may cut back on discretionary purchases, like dining out.

To keep diners engaged, restaurants might focus on providing unique dining experiences that people want to share online and investing in customer loyalty programs to keep regular customers coming back for more in spite of rising costs.

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Could misinformation about Social Security be paving the way for privatization? That’s how Bernie Sanders sees it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont told CNN that lying about Social Security “is a prelude not only to cutting benefits, but to privatizing Social Security itself.” By making the system appear dysfunctional, then “why would anybody want to support it?”

DOGE aims to cut 12% of the Social Security Administration (SSA) workforce, reducing staff from 57,000 to 50,000. It’s also consolidating 10 regional offices down to four and closing 45 field offices across the country, according to Government Executive.

A leaked email from SSA’s acting commissioner Leland Dudek, published by The Bulwark, sparked fresh fears about privatization. The March 1 email to staff stated they need to “revitalize SSA operations by streamlining activities” and “outsource nonessential functions to industry experts.”

Why lawmakers are talking about privatizing Social Security

This wouldn’t be the first time politicians have attempted to privatize Social Security. Back in 2005, former president George W. Bush floated the idea of creating privatization accounts, in which workers could divert a third of their payroll taxes into a private account. It did not go over well.

What’s different this time? A false narrative that the current program is rife with waste and fraud.

Elon Musk, who spearheads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), told Fox News that Social Security was “a mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants by essentially paying them to come here and then turning them into voters.”

In late February, Musk told podcaster Joe Rogan that Social Security is the “biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” and accused the program of fraud and abuse.

President Donald Trump has reiterated Musk’s false assertion that millions of dead people are receiving Social Security checks.

Under the Biden administration, the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General conducted Social Security audits of payments from 2015 and 2022 and found that most improper payments were overpayments — not payments to dead Americans.

The office uncovered $72 billion in improper payments, but while that sounds like a lot, it’s less than 1% of the total benefits distributed over seven years.

“So why do you lie so much about Social Security? Why do you make it look like it’s a broken, dysfunctional system?” Sanders asked in the CNN interview. “The reason is to get people to lose faith in the system, and then you can give it over to Wall Street.”

Pros and cons of privatization

Social Security has been under the microscope for years, thanks to a long-term funding shortfall. If nothing is done, it will run short of funds by 2034, with only enough to pay beneficiaries 79% of their scheduled benefits.

The program is funded by employers and employees through payroll taxes (each paying 6.2% of the employee’s earnings, while self-employed workers pay the full amount).

But with fewer working-age Americans and a record number of baby boomers retiring, , those payroll taxes aren’t producing enough revenue to keep pace with demand.

There are a number of options for making up this shortfall, such as raising the retirement age, eliminating the taxable income cap or raising payroll tax rates.

A vast majority (85%) of Americans polled in a National Academy of Social Insurance survey (NASI) want their Social Security benefits to remain intact — even if it means raising taxes.

Advocates of privatization believe the private sector could do a better job managing the program. Privatization would involve diverting payroll tax contributions into self-directed private accounts.

Proponents say this would give workers more options and allow them to make better investment decisions. For example, they could increase their contributions so they could build up their retirement funds faster.

Advocates say it could result in better investment returns. Currently, Social Security funds are invested in low-risk government bonds, which are guaranteed by the U.S. government.

Critics of privatization say it carries more risk. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn), pointed out in an interview with CNBC that people’s 401(k) plans dropped in value alongside the stock market crash of 2008 — but Social Security never missed a payment.

Another consideration is the cost of the transition.

“Social Security has accumulated trillions of dollars in liabilities to workers who are already retired or who will retire soon,” according to Brookings research. “To make room for a new private system, policymakers must find funds to pay for these liabilities while still leaving young workers enough money to deposit in new private accounts.”

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

While the Bank of Canada interest rate has dipped over the past few months, home affordability slipped further in January, as rising prices raised the income needed for a mortgage in 12 of 13 major markets, according to a report by Ratehub.

This marks the second month in a row where affordability declined. Prior to the November over December 2024 statistics, affordability was trending positively for a solid five months.

Hamilton led the steepest decline with its average home price rising $20,900 to $819,500 between December and January. As a result, a buyer would now need to earn an additional $4,050 to afford a mortgage on a home at that price. This would result in a steep monthly mortgage increase of $110 — making the monthly average home price around $1,320 per month in January 2025.

In the last few months, this situation hasn’t improved. According to March 2025 data from the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), Hamilton’s average home price in February 2025 was $828,000, up $8,600 from January 2025. This means homebuyers will need to budget even when shopping for a mortgage (or buying a home).

What other real estate markets are seeing price hikes?

Major markets like Toronto and Vancouver saw modest increases in home pricing.

Throughout Toronto, prices surged $8,200 to an average cost of $1,070,100 between December 2024 qand January 2025. This raised the required annual income to afford an average priced home by $1,640 (or monthly payments of $43).

In February and March things didn’t get better. According to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB), Toronto’s average home price in February 2025 was $1,075,800 — an month-over-month increase in the average home price of $5,700.

Meanwhile in Vancouver, the average home price ticked upwards in January 2025 to $1,173,000, an increase of $1,500, as the income needed to purchase a home at this price rose $300 and monthly mortgage payments experienced an uptick of $8.

According to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV), Vancouver’s average home price in February 2025 was $1,184,100 — an month-over-month increase in the average home price of $11,100.

In contrast, Fredericton was the only market to show improvement in affordability, with home prices dropping by $2,300 to $338,800, as the required income was reduced by $450 and monthly payments by $12.

According to CREA, the ongoing affordability of Fredericton’s housing market continued with housing prices dropping an additional $2,800 in February 2025.

Mortgage rates were mostly consistent

As a sign of relief, mortgage rates remained largely uninterrupted in January.

While the Bank of Canada cut its benchmark rate by a quarter-point on Jan. 29, fixed mortgage rates held steady with bond yields in the 2.8% to 2.9% range before a brief dip due to bond investor reaction to tariff threats from the US.

As of March 2025, 5-year fixed mortgage rates range between 5.14% and 5.64% (depending on the lender and the borrower), while bond yields are now closer to 3.2%.

It appears variable rates will remain unchanged in the next month, as the Consumer Price Index sat at 1.9% in January, a 0.1% increase. This was in large part due to the federal tax holiday that took place from mid-December to mid-February; If this had not been implemented, inflation would have resulted in a year-over-year increase of 2.6%.

Given the Bank of Canada’s rate cut in March, due to tariff pressures, most economists predict further reductions in variable rates throughout 2025.

— with files from Romana King

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Americans now believe they’ll need more money to retire comfortably than they did even a few years ago.

The “magic number” for retirement savings has grown by more than 50% since 2020 to roughly $1.5 million, according to Northwestern Mutual’s Planning & Progress Study 2024.

But, according to a recent analysis, how much you’ll need to live comfortably in retirement is highly dependent on which state you choose to live out your golden years.

The ‘magic number’ keeps getting higher

The ‘magic number’ for retirement savings has jumped 50% since 2020 — driven in large part by fears of inflation eating away at people’s retirement savings. Consider the dramatic inflation rates we saw from 2021 to 2023, which reached as high as 9.1% in June 2022.

Those inflation fears aren’t behind us, though. Consumer confidence has fallen to a 12-year low, according to the latest Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, which received write-in responses showing that “inflation is still a major concern for consumers and that worries about the impact of trade policies and tariffs in particular are on the rise.”

Another factor bumping up that magic number is the belief that Americans will spend more time in retirement than previous generations. Three in 10 millennials and Generation Z Americans “believe it’s likely or highly likely that they will live to age 100,” according to Northwestern Mutual’s study.

While millennials expect to retire at 64, Gen Z plans to retire earlier, at age 60. This is much earlier than baby boomers, who plan to enter their golden years at age 72, and Generation X, who expects to retire at 67.

That means Gen Z may need their retirement savings to last 40 years. But those expectations may be far from the current reality.

According to the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies, the median retirement age is 62, while the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the average life expectancy in America at 74.8 years for men and 80.2 years for women.

Determining your retirement income

Retirees need to carefully plan how much to withdraw each year to live comfortably in retirement while ensuring their money will last as long as possible. A common rule of thumb is known as the 4% rule that, when followed, should allow your portfolio to last at least 30 years.

This rule stipulates that in the first year, a retiree withdraws 4% of their portfolio, followed by inflation-adjusted amounts in the following years. With a portfolio of $1.5 million, this will provide $60,000 in the first year.

Most Americans won’t have to rely solely on their nest egg to fund their retirement since they’ll also receive Social Security benefits (and possibly a pension). In February 2025, the average monthly benefit paid to retired workers was $1,980, which is about $23,760 per year.

With a portfolio of $1.5 million — supplemented with an average monthly Social Security benefit — a retiree could reasonably expect to live on $83,760 per year. Still, life happens, so you may need to withdraw more (or less) than 4%, which will dictate how long your nest egg will last.

But withdrawals aren’t the only factor to consider.

Where your nest egg will and won’t last

A recent analysis looked at how long $1.5 million would last, by state, based on the cost of living after Social Security. According to the study, your retirement nest egg will last longest in West Virginia, where the annual cost of living after Social Security is $27,803 and your $1.5 million portfolio will last 54 years.

It’s followed by:

• Kansas, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $28,945 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 52 years)
• Mississippi, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $29,426 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 51 years)
• Oklahoma, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $29,666 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 51 years)

Meanwhile, you’ll whittle down your nest egg fastest in Hawaii, where the annual cost of living after Social Security is $87,770 and your $1.5 million portfolio will last just 17 years. That’s a far cry from West Virginia, where your portfolio will last more than three times longer, at 54 years.

Hawaii is followed by:

• Massachusetts, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $65,117 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 23 years)
• California, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $63,795 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 24 years)
• New York, with an annual cost of living after Social Security of $50,997 (a $1.5 million portfolio will last 29 years)

Of course, there are several factors you’ll need to consider when choosing where to retire (like being close to your grandkids). But given that your money will last an extra 37 years in West Virginia than in Hawaii, where you choose to live in retirement is something to seriously consider — particularly if you don’t have a $1.5 million nest egg.

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Many people spend years contributing to their retirement savings in the hopes of building a sizable nest egg for later in life. You may have worked hard to grow your retirement account balance, too.

If you’re planning to retire next year, now is a good time to review your portfolio and ensure your assets are appropriately allocated for your age. But what does that mean in practical terms?

Your portfolio likely includes a mix of stocks (equities) and bonds (fixed income), and you may be wondering what the right balance is. Here’s how to figure out the optimal mix.

The benefits of stocks vs. bonds in retirement

Having both stocks and bonds in your retirement portfolio offers distinct advantages. While stocks carry more risk, they also tend to deliver stronger returns.

Since 1926, U.S. stocks have averaged an annual return of around 10%, whereas bonds have typically returned 5% to 6%.

Maintaining stocks in your portfolio is important because you want your money to continue growing during retirement. However, bonds play a role in protecting a portion of your assets from stock market volatility.

Unlike stocks, bond values don’t fluctuate wildly, providing stability — a necessity when you’re living off your investments. Bonds also offer to generate fixed income since they’re contractually obligated to pay interest.

Stocks can provide income as well if you invest in dividend-paying companies. However, unlike bonds, companies’ stocks are not required to pay dividends, and even those with a solid history of doing so may opt to cut or eliminate those payments as they see fit.

How to build the right investment mix

How you allocate your assets before retirement may not be the same strategy you use during retirement — and for good reason.

While you’re working, you have time to ride out stock market downturns because you won’t need to withdraw that money for many years. Once you’re retired, however, you may need to tap into your portfolio regularly for income, requiring a more cautious investment approach.

For this reason, it’s a good idea to keep the bulk of your portfolio in stocks during your wealth accumulation years. But as you transition into retirement, shifting a greater percentage into bonds can help manage risk and provide stability.

Your specific allocation will depend on factors like life expectancy, risk tolerance and income needs. Some retirees prefer a 50/50 split between stocks and bonds, while others opt for a 40/60 split in either direction.

A common guideline is the rule of 110, which suggests subtracting your age from 110 to determine the percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks.

• At age 40, this rule suggests keeping 70% of your assets in stocks.
• At age 65, a 45% stock allocation may be more appropriate.

Another popular strategy is the bucket strategy, which divides your portfolio based on different time horizons:

• Short-term bucket: Holds conservative investments like bonds for near-term expenses.
• Medium-term bucket: Includes a mix of stocks and bonds.
• Long-term bucket: Primarily stocks for long-term growth.

It’s also important to maintain a cash reserve. Rather than allocating a fixed percentage to cash, a good rule of thumb is to keep enough to cover one to two years of living expenses. This allows you to avoid selling investments during a market downturn.

Finally, your retirement portfolio doesn’t have to be limited to stocks and bonds. Depending on your income goals and risk tolerance, you might consider diversifying with real estate, such as a rental property.

Consulting a financial adviser can help you develop a strategy that balances risk and reward — ensuring your portfolio meets your retirement needs.

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

The relentless push of hustle culture and the grind mentality dominates social media, but at the end of the day, we’re only human— and an unbalanced work-life dynamic can take a serious toll.

A new survey from Robert Half suggests that many Canadians are feeling the strain, with nearly half reporting symptoms of burnout.

"In addition to being an increasingly worrying issue for professionals, burnout is a major challenge for employers as well," Koula Vasilopoulos, Robert Half Canada’s senior managing director, said in a statement.

"When employees are burned out due to heavy workloads and understaffed teams, businesses risk decreased productivity and morale, losing valued team members, and revenue loss due to falling behind on key timelines for critical projects."

Specifically, 47% report feeling burned out and 31% indicate they are more burned out now than they were the year prior.

Canadians are getting tired

Burnout among Canadian workers is on the rise. In 2023, just 33% of employees reported feeling burned out, but by 2024, that number had climbed to 42%, according to Robert Half.

The leading causes of burnout include:

• Heavy workloads and long hours (39%)
• Emotional or mental fatigue from high-stress tasks (38%)
• Poor work-life balance (28%)
• Lack of support or recognition from management (28%)
• Limited opportunities for career growth (28%)

Those feeling the strain the most? Professionals in the legal and HR fields, working parents and millennials.

Burnout’s impact on businesses

The heavy workloads that are a top driver of burnout are in part a consequence of longer hiring cycles. According to a separate Robert Half survey, of more than 1,050 managers, nearly four in 10 said burnout among existing staff is a major challenge they face when they are unable to fill a necessary role. Other repercussions include decreased productivity, delayed project timelines, higher turnover and lost revenue.

To combat burnout culture, workers indicated the best ways their manager can help: Encouraging time off and/or mental health days, hiring permanent or contract professionals to ease the workload and helping to prioritize projects and manage timelines.

"As burnout continues to rise, managers need to be proactively mitigating it, by working to fill gaps on the team, embracing flexible staffing solutions, encouraging time off, prioritizing workloads and maintaining open communication about employee wellbeing,” Vasilopoulos said.

Survey methodology

The online surveys were developed by Robert Half and conducted by an independent research firm in December 2024 and March 2025. They include responses from 1,500 workers and 835 workers aged 18 and older across Canada, as well as 1,056 hiring managers at companies with more than 20 employees across Canada.

Sources

1. Cision: YNearly half of Canadian workers feel burned out, and more than 3 in 10 say burnout is rising (March 25, 2025)

This article Nearly half of Canadians are feeling burnt outoriginally appeared on Money.ca

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

Tax season is probably everyone’s least favorite time of year. But the experience can be a little more daunting for millions of Americans who receive Social Security benefits and live in a state that applies an additional tax on these payments.

To be clear, most states don’t tax Social Security payments — the federal government will already tax them, beyond a certain gross adjustment income threshold. So the vast majority of retirees don’t need to worry about this. However, Colorado, Connecticut, Vermont, Montana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Utah will collect some portion of your benefit payments.

If you live in any of these states, here are three ways you can prepare for this and potentially reduce your liabilities.

Check income thresholds

Most states that charge an additional tax on Social Security benefits do so only above certain income thresholds.

In Connecticut, for instance, married couples filing together would pay state tax on these benefits if their joint threshold exceeds $100,000. Those filing under any other status would owe taxes only if the adjusted gross income (AGI) is above $75,000. New Mexico and Rhode Island also have thresholds at varying levels, depending on your status.

At the federal level, if you’re single and your total income is above $25,000 or if you’re married and your combined income is above $32,000, a portion of your Social Security benefits could be taxable, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

With this in mind, it’s important to keep track of all your various income sources and try to forecast future earnings as well to see if you hit any of these thresholds and so you can plan ahead.

Look for tax credits or exemption rules

Some states do offer exemptions, credits and offsets to lower the burden of taxes on lower- or middle-income retirees.

In Colorado, for example, residents over the age of 65 are allowed to deduct the full amount of Social Security benefits included in their federal taxable income from their state taxable income.

For instance, if $7,000 of your Social Security benefits were taxed at the federal level, you can subtract that same $7,000 when filing your Colorado state tax return.

Meanwhile, Vermont offers exemptions to state taxes on Social Security and partial credits depending on your income.

You should check your state rules during tax season to ensure you’re taking advantage of all these deductions and credits. However, the best way to minimize your liability and maximize your credits is to simply hire a professional.

Speak to an expert

Most Americans expect to file their taxes themselves in 2025, according to a recent survey by Invoice Home.

Only 24% of respondents said they would hire a tax professional to assist them, while 39% said they would use third-party tools like TurboTax or H&R Block and 43% said they would trust AI more than an accountant.

However, given how complex the tax system is, even for retirees on a fixed income, hiring a professional to assist you could be worth the investment. Someone with the right experience could help you navigate this tax season with confidence.

If you’re worried about missing out on some credits or paying state taxes on your Social Security this year, consider reaching out to a tax planner or Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.