3 Smart Money Moves To Build Wealth During Uncertain Times
Building wealth can be a challenging task, especially in challenging economic times. Recent economic uncertainties —including concerns about job security, rising tariffs, ant the significant increase in the cost of everyday food items like eggs, meat and fish —highlight the urgency of reassessing our financial habits. The current economic climate demands that we become more intentional about how we plan and manage our money to secure a better future and build wealth.
While most people would love to have solid finances and secure their long- term financial future, the reality is very different at the moment with 57% of Americans living to paycheck according to a recent MarketWatch report. And, according to a recent Gallop survey, 53% of Americans are now concerned about their financial future, - the highest level recorded since Gallop began tracking this data in 2001.
Here are three things that you can implement if you're looking to get a stronger hold on your finances and build wealth despite these challenging times.
Young family with cute little baby boy going over finances at home
Tracking your spending over the next 30 days can improve your financial health. It can also allow you to pinpoint areas where expenses can be reduced. Common budget drains include unused subscriptions, avoidable fees and charges such credit card interest, overpaying on utilities, cable, phone plans. Apps like Rocket Money and Trim can help you identify and manage unused subscriptions and negotiate bills. Additionally, apps like Empower, You Need a Budget (YNAB), and Monarch can help you take a close look at your expenses and identify where you can reduce your expenses and redirect those savings towards your wealth building goals. You can even take it a step further and budget every dollar to minimize unintentional spending and increase savings.
While aggressively paying off debt can contribute to your peace of mind, there are times when a dual approach— paying off debt while also investing in your future— makes better financial sense. If your debt carries an interest rate below 7%, it may be wiser to make regular required payments towards your debt while investing the difference.
Historically, the stock market has returned between 7 and 10 % annually and provides a way to build significant wealth over the long-term rather than simply being debt-free or having a zero net worth.
Also, prioritizing having an emergency fund of at least six months of living expenses can provide a financial cushion that is crucial in these challenging times. And passing up opportunities such as an employer 401K match or investment opportunities during market downturns to solely focus on getting out of debt can be detrimental to your financial future.
Additionally, it's important to start investing by using tax-advantages accounts like 401Ks, 403bs, IRAs to ensure that you are minimizing your tax burden, which will in turn give you more money to invest and provide a bigger opportunity to build wealth.
In many cases, investing the difference between your required low interest debt payments and any remaining funds can make a huge difference in your long-term wealth.
A couple of young businessmen are astounded by the profits coming in.
The S&P 500 dropped by 4.84% on April 3rd, 2025, and by another 5.97% on April 4th, 2025, This year, we witnessed the sharpest declines in the S&P 500 and NASDQ since the COVID-19 crash. Yet by mid-May 2025, the market had rebounded and had regained all its April losses.
This pattern shows why it is important to continue to invest even during market downturns, when the market can provide opportunities to buy quality investments at lower prices.
This year, we are likely to see more volatility in the market, but that doesn't mean you should step back. It's extremely difficult to time the market. That's why it's wise to dollar cost average into good companies, it will pay off in the long run.
Asset allocation dividing an investment portfolio among different asset categories.
Diversifying your investments is important in any economic environment, but it's even more important during periods of high market volatility like what we've experienced so far in 2025. For instance, if all your money was invested in Nvidia prior to March 31st, your portfolio would have experienced a drop of 14.7% during those same two highly volatile days of April 2025. In contrast, if your money was spread across a total market ETF like VTI or a VOO, your portfolio would have temporarily declined — by 10.3 and 10.7%, a less severe drop.
Diversifying your investments and including low-cost index funds as part of your investment strategy is always wise. If a recession were to hit, no one could predict which stock will thrive 15 years from now —but 100 year of history shows that the broader market tends to recover and grow over time by 7 to 10 % every year on average. By spreading your investments across the market, and into alternative assets like real estate, you can reduce risk, manage volatility, and build a solid path to long-term wealth.
Regardless of your current situation is, it's beneficial to closely examine your spending to reduce waste, implement a debt repayment strategy that also optimizes wealth building, and review your investment approach to put enough emphasis on diversification.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' stacks up against his 2017 tax bill
As Senate Republicans deliberate modifications to the reconciliation budget bill that the House of Representatives passed on May 22, one thing looks increasingly clear. Namely, the all-encompassing bill that President Trump favors will likely be enacted in July, despite protests from some Republican senators on various elements of the package. In that case, it would become the signature legislation of Donald Trump's second term, just as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was in his first term. So, how do the two bills compare? One of the major accomplishments of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was to make the U.S. corporate tax code competitive with the rest of the world by lowering the marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. According to economists Kevin Brady and Douglas Holz-Eakin, it did so by making the corporate rate cuts permanent, which proved to be highly successful. They point out that economic growth and business capital spending accelerated after the bill was enacted, and the U.S. did not lose a single multinational headquarters following a decade of large exoduses. The legislation currently being considered, by comparison, is focused on extending cuts in personal tax rates that are set to expire at the end of this year. Proponents claim that if the personal tax rates expire, most Americans will face tax increases that could weaken the economy. Democrats, however, argue that the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act primarily benefit the very wealthy rather than middle-class or lower-income families, and they favor boosting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Jeff Stein of the Washington Post observes that to counter this, Trump pivoted during the 2024 campaign by proposing new tax cuts that were easier to sell to specific groups of voters. The proposals included an end to taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, as well as a tax deduction on borrowing costs to buy American-made cars. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Republicans in his chamber expect to deliver on these campaign promises, according to Bloomberg. Stein points out that, in the process, there has been a significant change in the way the Republican leadership views tax policy since Trump's first term. Most of the policies in the 2017 law were developed over the course of many years by think tanks in Washington, with former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and former Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) serving as the principal architects. Their overriding goal was to simplify the code and lessen distortions without adding to budget deficits. In comparison, the current Republican approach to tax policy is more populist-oriented and designed to provide tax relief to select groups of voters. Politico reports that Republicans are piling on new tax breaks in hopes of boosting tax refunds ahead of next year's midterm elections. The provisions include a larger child tax credit, a larger state and local tax deduction and others that would be made retroactively. One challenge is that the extension of the 2017 tax cuts and the new initiatives are estimated to cost the federal government about $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Accordingly, there is little chance that the budget deficit will be brought under control, with spending cuts of only $1.5 trillion below current projections contemplated over that period. Another concern is that the tax cuts in the bill passed by the House are less oriented to promote long-term growth than the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was. The Tax Foundation estimates that it would increase long-term GDP by only 0.8 percent (not annualized). It states that, 'by introducing narrowly targeted new provisions and sunsetting pro-growth provisions like bonus depreciation and [research and development] expensing, it leaves economic growth on the table.' Senate Republicans are trying to address this by including more permanent business tax cuts and full expensing for equipment and research and development in their version of the bill. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board argues that one of the most constructive changes in the 2017 bill was letting businesses immediately deduct the full cost of capital outlays rather than spread them out. It boosted capital spending until full expensing was phased out in 2022. Another critique relates to fairness. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contends that the House bill is skewed to the wealthy, costs more than extending the 2017 tax law and fails to deliver for families. It concludes that instead of changing course and prioritizing people with low and moderate incomes, the tax bill only offers more of the same. When the impact of proposed Medicaid cuts is factored into the equation, the Republican bill is unpopular with the public at large. For example, recent polls undertaken by Quinnipiac, the Washington Post-Ipsos and KFF all show that a plurality of voters oppose the House bill, with many citing the attempt to pare back Medicaid funding. Finally, my take is that Trump is making the same mistake Joe Biden did by believing that all-encompassing legislation is better than more targeted bills that spell out clear policy objectives. The principal difference is that Trump favors a grab-bag of tax cuts and spending cuts, whereas Biden was enamored with massive spending bills. In my book about Trump's economic policies in his first term, my assessment was that investors would respond enthusiastically to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which they did as the stock market rose steadily leading up to its passage. In comparison, the market's response this time is more ambiguous amid confusion about the objectives of the 'big, beautiful bill' and uncertainty about the global trade conflict. Nicholas Sargen, Ph.D., is an economic consultant for Fort Washington Investment Advisors and is affiliated with the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business. He has written three books, including 'Investing in the Trump Era: How Economic Policies Impact Financial Markets.'
Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
RESA Encourages U.S. Energy Consumers to Shop on National Energy Shopping Day
HARRISBURG, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA), the national trade association representing competitive retail energy suppliers, is marking the sixth annual National Energy Shopping Day by encouraging Americans to take advantage of their power to choose. Today is National Energy Shopping Day, which serves as an annual reminder to review your current energy plan, compare available offers, explore clean energy options and choose a gas and electric supplier that meets your individual needs. Share Recognized every year on the first day of summer and included in Chase's Calendar of Events, National Energy Shopping Day promotes consumer awareness and engagement in competitive energy markets. The day serves as a reminder for individuals and businesses in states with retail choice to shop for energy plans that reflect their personal preferences, whether that means seeking renewable options, locking in fixed rates or finding budget-friendly pricing. 'Shopping for energy is one of the most overlooked ways consumers can make a real impact on their energy bills, their sustainability goals and take control of their energy choices,' said Tracy McCormick, executive director of RESA. 'We believe that every consumer deserves more than one monopoly option. They deserve the right to choose.' Currently, 14 states and the District of Columbia allow consumers to select their own electricity and/or natural gas supplier. However, a national survey by Ragnar Research Partners reveals a significant disconnect: 74% of Americans want to choose their energy provider, while only 28% currently have the option. RESA offers free, easy-to-use tools at to help consumers: Determine if energy choice is available in their state Where to compare energy providers and plans How to shop for energy Understand key contract terms and rate structures Energy choice isn't just about shopping—it's about empowerment, competition and innovation. RESA remains committed to educating consumers, supporting transparent marketplaces and expanding access to energy choice nationwide. ABOUT NATIONAL ENERGY SHOPPING DAY National Energy Shopping Day is an initiative created by RESA to encourage individuals residing in states that offer retail energy choice in electric and natural gas suppliers to find the best provider tailored to their specific requirements. Consumers can select a plan that offers clean energy products or benefits, such as smart home integration or energy efficiency programs, for their homes or businesses. For more information, visit ABOUT RESA The Retail Energy Supply Association is a broad and diverse group of retail energy suppliers who share the common vision that competitive retail electricity and natural gas markets deliver a more efficient, customer-oriented outcome than a regulated utility structure. RESA is devoted to working with all stakeholders to promote vibrant and sustainable competitive retail energy markets for residential and industrial consumers. For more information, visit Follow RESA on LinkedIn and X (Twitter).
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges — from Trump
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: 'Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them.' The reports say nothing about an 'immediate' cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear 'how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs.' The budget bill 'would do just that,' he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund — actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one — more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. 'Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund,' Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. 'The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing.' Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because 'benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers,' notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, 'more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances.' In the U.S., he writes, 'immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals.' The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will 'increase the funding shortfall.' All told, 'the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook.' A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers — so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or 'going broke' in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income — the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans — at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that?
