The bond market isn’t buying the Fed’s rate cuts

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

As the Federal Reserve continues on a path toward lower short-term interest rates, the bond market isn’t tagging along. Instead, yields on medium- and longer-term Treasurys have been increasing, not falling.

The Fed began its latest phase of rate-cutting on Sept. 17, 2025, and has now cut the federal funds rate by 75 basis points over the last four months. That has brought short-term rates down, but has had no effect in lowering longer-term rates:

Click on image for larger version.

Update: In a Thursday auction, one day after the Fed rate cut, the 4-week T-bill got an investment rate of 3.670%, down from 3.742% last week. That 3.67% is probably close to the new short-term T-bill benchmark. On the same day, a reopening auction of a 30-year Treasury bond got a high yield of 4.773%, up from 4.694% last month.

Here is a view of 10-year real and nominal Treasury yields over the last three years, during a time of 1) Fed rate increases, 2) then stability, 3) then cuts. Since September, both real and nominal 10-year real yields have remained relatively stable, even as the Federal Reserve was cutting short-term rates.

And this final chart shows that both 10-year nominal and real yields are up strongly since the Fed ended its rate-increasing cycle in mid-2023. The Federal Funds rate has fallen 150 basis points since May 2023, but both real and nominal 10-year yields are up, fairly dramatically.

Why is this important?

The market yield on the 10-year Treasury note is a key benchmark in the U.S. economy, forming the basis for mortgage rates and business loans. Normally, when the Fed cuts short-term rates, you’d expect to see longer-term yields move in that direction. That isn’t happening in 2025.

Why? One key reason is that the bond market sees U.S. deficits continuing to rise, possibly dramatically, over the next five years or longer. It’s a long-term trend, and it is escalating. When President Trump took office on Jan. 20, the U.S. government debt stood at $36.22 trillion. As of last week, that number was $38.39 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury’s “Debt to the Penny” reports.

Another factor is inflation expectations. The Federal Reserve yesterday projected PCE inflation (which generally runs lower than headline CPI) to continue at 2.5% through 2026 before falling to 2.1% in 2027 and 2.0% in 2028. That looks like an overly optimistic forecast to me and the bond market seems to agree. The 5-year inflation breakeven rate closed Wednesday at 2.32%.

From a Bloomberg report on Dec. 7:

The bond market’s reaction to the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate cuts has been highly unusual. By some measures, a disconnect like this, with Treasury yields climbing as the central bank lowers rates, hasn’t been seen since the 1990s. …

But one thing is clear: the bond market isn’t buying President Donald Trump’s idea that faster rate cuts will send bond yields sliding down and, in turn, slash the rates on mortgages, credit cards and other types of loans.

Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, told Bloomberg the higher yields are a signal that bond traders are worried the Fed is cutting rates even as inflation remains stubbornly above its 2% target and the economy keeps defying recession fears.

“The market is really concerned about the policy,” said Bianco. “The concern is that the Fed has gone too far.” If the Fed continues to cut rates, he said, mortgage rates will go “vertical.”

And of course there is the issue of the Fed’s independence, which hangs over the bond market. Chairman Jay Powell will be gone in May, most likely replaced by Trump’s chief economist, Kevin Hassett, who has advocated for Trump’s policies on tariffs and lower interest rates. At this point, it looks like the Fed’s Open Market Committee is deeply divided over future rate-setting. That looks likely to continue.

The bond market is sending a message: The Fed can control short-term interest rates, but the market determines longer-term rates, unless the Fed launches another round of aggressive quantitative easing. (Opinion: that must not happen.)

So I would expect mid- to longer-term real and nominal yields to remain attractive into 2026, even as yields on savings accounts and money markets begin to fall.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Cash alternatives, Federal Reserve, Inflation, Investing in TIPS, Tariffs, Treasury Bills | Tagged , , , , | 32 Comments

Morningstar says VTIP is having a ‘lousy’ year. It’s not true.

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

Morningstar.com published an article last week singling out three of its favorite ETFs as having “a lousy 2025.” I was surprised to see Vanguard’s Short-term Inflation-Protected Securities ETF (VTIP) listed as one of the three.

The three ETFs were:

  • iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (QUAL)
  • Avantis US Small Cap Value ETF (AVUV)
  • Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities ETF (VTIP)

I don’t know anything about the first two ETFs, except that they make bets in the equities market. QUAL (expense ratio of 0.15%) aims for large-cap winners, with top three holdings of Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia. AVUV (expense ratio 0.25%) is a play on small-cap value, with top holdings of Macy’s, Five Below and Air Lease Corp.

VTIP (expense ratio of 0.03%) is an entirely different kind of investment, very low risk with only 10 holdings, concentrated on TIPS of maturities up to five years. Its effective duration is 2.5 years, much lower than full-spectrum TIPS ETFs like TIP (6.5 years) and SCHP (6.6 years).

Vanguard describes the fund this way:

Designed to generate returns more closely correlated with realized inflation over the near term, and to offer investors the potential for less volatility of returns relative to a longer-duration TIPS fund.

Given its shorter duration, the fund can be expected to have less real interest rate risk, but also lower total returns relative to a longer-duration TIPS fund.

The key point is that VTIP is a low-volatility fund with near-zero credit risk and lower interest-rate risk. By design, it will perform “better than average” during a bond-market downturn, and “worse than average” when bonds are booming. Overall, as Vanguard notes, it should come close to tracking trends in U.S. inflation.

I have invested in VTIP in the past, but no longer have any holdings in this ETF or any other TIPS ETF.

Was 2025 a lousy year for VTIP?

No, it was not, and this is the reason I was surprised by the Morningstar article. Year to date, VTIP has had a total return of 6.08%, its highest return in a decade. That’s well above the U.S. inflation rate of 3.1%. Mission accomplished.

Here is a chart comparing VTIP’s performance versus well-known bond ETFs over the last five years:

Click on image for larger version.

It is worth noting that none of these ETFs produced a return exceeding the average rate of U.S. inflation over the last 5 years, at 4.6%. In VTIP’s case, the under-performance reflects the fact that the 5-year real yield increased from -1.20% in October 2020 to 1.38% today, a phenomenal 258 basis points. That created a drag on performance, even for this low-volatility fund, which still returned 3.68% on average over that period.

But let’s look at 2025. It’s true that VTIP’s 2025 return of 6.08% slightly lags the other bond funds with longer durations, which have benefited from falling interest rates. But VTIP does that with a much less risky portfolio, as shown in returns for 2022, a disastrous year for the bond market.

From the Morningstar article:

The ETF’s low level of credit and duration risk was not rewarded during recent markets. Yield had been trending down for most of 2025, and credit spreads plunged after the initial bust in the first quarter, favoring riskier bonds over the ETF’s high-quality, low-duration portfolio.

And then it adds:

But this ETF has and should continue to offer protection when it matters, during stress markets. … Thanks to its downside protection in major market shocks, the ETF beat its category average since its 2012 inception through October 2025, with lower volatility and better risk-adjusted return.

Thoughts

Any investor in VTIP should be quite happy with its 6.08% return year to date. This is a low-risk, low-volatility fund that is designed to closely track trends in U.S. inflation. It is not making bets in the bond market, like you would see in a more-risky high-yield corporate fund. It has had only one year (2022) of negative total returns over the last decade.

VTIP has a stellar expense ratio of 0.03% and a long history of good performance. I like this fund and it is the one I recommend for investors looking for a simpler way to invest in TIPS.

VTIP isn’t designed to “out-perform.” It is designed to “perform,” and it has performed well so far in 2025.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in ETFs, Inflation, Investing in TIPS | Tagged , , | 30 Comments

Car-buying in the age of tariffs

Pricing can get a bit tricky.

My choice: 2025 Subaru Crosstrek Limited. (This one is in Argentina.)

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

In 2026, for the first time, I will be forced by law to take a Required Minimum Distribution from my traditional IRA. That’s bad news, but the good news is: I can buy a new car!

This has been my long-time plan, to replace my 10-year old Honda HR-V with a new car in January 2026. Do I really need a new car? No. The Honda has been flawless over a decade of driving and will last many more years. So I am selling it to my niece, who will enjoy it greatly.

After lots of research (reading one issue of Consumer Reports) I decided my car of choice was a Subaru Crosstrek Limited, specifically the one with heated leather seats, a moonroof, upgraded Harmon Kardon sound system and loads of driving safety features. Plus, my preferred color was stealthy Magnetite Gray Metallic.

Crosstrek? It’s Subaru’s best-selling model, and in this Limited configuration it compares favorably with more expensive small SUVs, like the Lexus UX. And it is highly reliable. From Consumer Reports:

I was hoping to buy an end-of-the-year 2025 to avoid price increases that seemed likely for the 2026 models. But I was willing to buy a 2026, if necessary. This ended up being a tricky decision, which caused me to buy in late November instead of January.

The effect of tariffs

After “Liberation Day” on April 2, I began tracking sticker prices for the Crosstrek Limited to see how tariffs could effect the purchase price. The current U.S. tariff on Japanese car imports is 15%, but this Limited model is assembled in Lafayette, Indiana, so the effect of tariffs could be somewhat muted. Here is a sticker price comparison, May to November 2025:

These two cars are identically equipped. The November 2025 version ends up with a Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of $36,723, an increase of 1.9% over the May sticker price. Conclusion: Tariffs alone did not have a major effect on prices for this model of Subaru in 2025.

2026 pricing gets tricky

If I couldn’t find a 2025 Crosstrek I liked, I was willing to purchase a 2026 Limited. But for the 2026 model year, Subaru introduced a hybrid version of the car, and it was the only Limited version with options for a moonroof and upgraded sound system. The “base” 2026 Limited — the top-of-line trim — had no version with a moonroof. Huh? Even more aggravating was that the mid-level Premium trim still had a moonroof option.

So in theory, Subaru cut the price of the non-hybrid 2026 Limited. But in reality, it was a price increase. If you added in the cost of the unavailable moonroof and upgraded sound system, the sticker price would increase from $35,830 to $37,625, about 2.5%.

Moving up to the 2026 hybrid Limited with a moonroof and similar equipment (except now with “vegan” leather seats!) would increase the sticker price to around $39,000, and these models were unlikely to be discounted. And because I don’t drive many miles a year, a hybrid model didn’t make economic sense.

So my decision was made: I was going after a 2025 Limited with moonroof and upgraded sound and in Magnetite Gray. I hoped to pay about $34,000.

My ‘out-the-door’ price

While still traveling in Japan, I was communicating with two dealers in Charlotte with a total of four gray 2025 Crosstrek Limiteds in stock. I was asking for an “out-the-door” price. In this Internet age, getting detailed price information out of dealers is somewhat easier, but still a time-consuming game of cat-and-mouse.

And, of course, MSRP is a “pseudo price” that might or might not end up being discounted before the final sale. Plus, in Charlotte, every single car dealer adds a “processing/document fee” of $798, which is in effect the dealer’s base profit margin. And in North Carolina, you can’t avoid the 3% sales tax on a new-car purchase.

Eventually, one dealer came through with a true out-the-door price. This is what my bottom line looked like:

After a grueling 30-hour travel day back from Japan, I checked the dealer inventories and only two of my preferred color Limiteds were still available. So I called the dealer who gave me an accurate price and said I would buy the car on Friday. And I did, at the price listed above.

Did I get the best possible price? Probably not. But as of today, 10 days later, there are no longer any gray 2025 Crosstrek Limiteds available in Charlotte, and only three of any color.

The point is: I got what I wanted to “celebrate” my new era of Required Minimum Distributions.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Inflation, Retirement, Tariffs, Taxes | 28 Comments

‘Synthetic’ calculation results in 0.25% inflation for October

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

The U.S. Treasury today finally announced a calculated CPI index for October – 325.604 – which equates to monthly inflation of 0.25%. The presumed annual rate ticked higher from 3.0% in September to 3.1% in October.

This unprecedented calculation was necessary because no inflation data were collected in October during the 43-day government shutdown. Without that data, Treasury had to determine a number so that daily inflation indexes could be set for Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities during the month of December.

For nerds: That 0.25% number (actually 0.248% before rounding) reflects an estimate of non-seasonally-adjusted inflation. It is not the seasonally-adjusted number the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports each month, which gets rounded to the tenth-decimal point. In this case that would be 0.2%, but … not relevant.

The calculation procedure is set out in the Treasury’s Uniform Offering Circular (Appendix B to 31 CFR Part 356), which says:

If the CPI for a particular month is not reported by the last day of the following month, we will announce an index number based on the last available twelve-month change in the CPI. We will base our calculations of our payment obligations that rely on that month’s CPI on the index number we announce.

For example, if the CPI for month M is not reported timely, the formula for calculating the index number to be used is:

If it is necessary to use these formulas to calculate an index number, we will use that number for all subsequent calculations that rely on the month’s index number. We will not replace it with the actual CPI when it is reported, except for use in the above formulas. If it becomes necessary to use the above formulas to derive an index number, we will use the last CPI that has been reported to calculate CPI numbers for months for which the CPI has not been reported timely.

What this all means, basically, is that the Treasury looked back at the average inflation rate of the last 12 months (September 2024 to September 2025) and used the formula to remove any effect of compounding. That calculation resulted in an inflation index of 325.604 and a monthly increase of 0.25%.

October’s inflation index will forever be 325.604, whether right or wrong. I’d guess the 0.25% monthly increase was close, but we will never know for sure. The November inflation report will arrive on December 18.

This calculation was crucial because inflation in October sets inflation indexes for TIPS in the month of December. Here are the December Inflation Ratios for all TIPS, which were released immediately after the calculated October CPI was announced.

As future inflation data are collected, the missing October data will become less crucial as new reports reflect price reality. There won’t be any meaningful effect on I Bonds, because the October number is the first of a 6-month string that will determine the I Bonds next variable rate, to be reset May 1. That will autocorrect.

One interesting factor for TIPS held in a traditional retirement account, however, is that the December numbers are highly likely slightly off, but required minimum distributions will be set by the value of TIPS on December 31. I’d contend this isn’t a huge deal, but some of my more OCD readers will be disturbed.

I am glad this saga is over so I can stop checking the Treasury website five times a day to see if the official October number was released.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving everyone!

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in I Bond, Inflation, Investing in TIPS, Taxes, TreasuryDirect | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

Bad news: Medicare costs for 2026 are surging at triple the rate of inflation

Part B costs, deductibles and IRMAA surcharges will all increase at least 9.7% next year.

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

It was bad enough when we learned on Oct. 24 that Social Security benefits would increase 2.8% for beneficiaries in 2026, less than the U.S. rate of inflation at 3.0%.

And now, the really bad news: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in mid-November that monthly costs for Medicare Part B premiums, annual deductible and IRMAA surcharges will rise by a much higher amount, about 9.7% for 2026.

The Social Security Administration has already started posting 2026 benefits and cost summaries on its site. Just log in to SSA.gov and navigate to the messages area where you can find your full .pdf summary.

If you planned poorly for tax year 2024, you may be meeting up with IRMAA, the Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount. These surcharges can be lofty, so it’s smart to plan ahead to limit these costs.

See the fact sheet prepared by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for more detail. Here is a summary of the price and income-level changes for 2026:

  • The Part B deductible is rising 10.1% to $283.00.
  • The Part B base monthly premium is rising 9.7% to $202.90.
  • The IRMAA surcharge costs for Part B are rising 9.7%.
  • The IRMAA surcharge costs for Part D (drug plans) are rising about 6%.
  • The IRMAA income tiers that trigger the surcharges are increasing at a lower rate, all below the inflation rate of 3.0%.

Let’s dive into the key Medicare changes for 2025.

Part A premium and deductible

Most people who reach age 65 go on Medicare Part A, even if they are still working. Medicare Part A covers inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility and some home health care services. About 99% of Medicare beneficiaries do not have a Part A premium since they have at least 40 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

Although coverage is generally free, Part A has some sizable deductibles and coinsurance costs, and those will be rising about 3.6% in 2026.

Keep in mind that most people on Medicare have a Medigap or Medicare Advantage plan that will cover all or most of the Part A deductible and coinsurance amounts. For example, all standardized Medicare Supplement (Medigap) plans, A through N, provide coverage for Part A coinsurance, and most also cover all or most of the Part A deductible costs.

Part B: Medical insurance

Medicare Part B can be described as covering “outpatient services,” things like doctor visits, some lab tests, an annual wellness exam, diabetes screenings, etc. Medicare Part B generally pays 80% of approved costs of covered services, and you pay the other 20%. Some services, like flu shots, COVID vaccines and a wellness visit, may cost you nothing.

Part B deductible. Before Medicare pays anything, you have to meet your Part B deductible each year. The annual deductible for all Medicare Part B beneficiaries will be $283 in 2026, an increase of $26 from the annual deductible of $257 in 2025. Once the deductible is met, Medicare and Medigap plans will cover some or all of your Part B costs.

Part B premium. The standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B enrollees will be $202.90 for 2026, an increase of $17.90 from $185 in 2025. This Part B premium is paid by all people on original Medicare and is incorporated into Medicare Advantage pricing, which may or may not result in a baseline monthly cost.

So, for most people on original Medicare, Medicare Part B is going to cost $202.90 a month for the premium, plus the cost of the $283 deductible. That’s a total cost of $2,717.80 a year for 2026, up about 9.7% from this year’s costs.

And then … IRMAA

Since 2007, a beneficiary’s Part B monthly premium is based on reported income, known as MAGI, or modified adjusted gross income. According to the Social Security Administration handbook, for Medicare’s purposes MAGI is adjusted gross income (line 11 of your 2024 federal income tax form) plus tax-exempt interest.

Note that I mentioned your 2024 income tax return. That’s the one you filed earlier this year and now, in November, CMS announced the IRMAA surcharge brackets applied to that 2024 return. In other words, you could not know the surcharge levels until after the fact. And this is a rather brutal surcharge, because going just $1 over any limit can trigger thousands of dollars of one-year costs.

CMS says about 8% of people paid the IRMAA surcharges in 2024, and the number is probably higher for 2025 and going into 2026. It’s important to note that people on Medicare Advantage plans continue to pay the Part B premium, and are also subject to the IRMAA surcharges. And keep in mind that for a couple, the costs are doubled because each person pays the surcharge.

Part B. Here are the 2026 Part B total premiums and surcharges for high-income beneficiaries, which apply to income reported on your 2024 tax return:

Annual income of $218,000+ for a couple may sound like a lot, but the lower IRMAA levels can easily be reached through Roth conversions, stock sales to fund a major purchase, a new pension starting up, etc. Be aware of the potential to trigger the IRMAA surcharges and plan around that possibility.

Part D. Medicare income-related surcharges also apply to Part D, the drug program which is offered by private insurers working with Medicare. Part D premiums vary by plan, but the Part D surcharges are deducted from Social Security benefit checks or paid directly to Medicare.

People in Medicare Advantage plans don’t pay a separate Part D premium, since those plans include Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) coverage. But Part D is built into Medicare Advantage, and the IRMAA surcharge still applies.

Be aware of IRMAA

If you are just a couple years away from going on Medicare, it’s a great idea to plan your total income for this year to avoid triggering IRMAA surcharges two years later. The surcharges last only one year and then get reset the next year. The costs can be substantial for people hitting the top IRMAA tiers.

And I repeat: When you filed your federal tax return in early 2025 for the 2024 tax year you could not know what these IRMAA brackets or surcharges would be. They were just announced Nov. 14. They are called the “2026 IRMAA levels” but apply to your 2024 tax return.

When you file your 2025 return next year, realize that you won’t know the relevant IRMAA levels until November 2026, many months after you have filed. Your only option is to use these ‘2026’ bracket levels as a guideline. It’s a crazy system.

You can appeal an IRMAA ruling

The Social Security Administration has very specific rules that will allow you to get a waiver of the IRMAA surcharge, if you meet certain criteria for a “life-changing event,” which include:

  • Work stoppage
  • Work reduction
  • Employer settlement payment
  • Death of spouse
  • Divorce
  • Loss of pension income

You’ll need to fill out IRS Form SSA-44 to request the waiver.

Final thoughts

Starting in January, the COLA increase will boost the average Social Security payment by about $56 to an average monthly benefit of $2,071. That’s an annual increase of about $672. Unfortunately, higher Medicare Part B costs will eat up about $241 of that increase for a beneficiary paying the base rates. And that doesn’t include potential increases in costs of Part D and supplemental pans.

We all hate the IRMAA surcharges, but I think it is fair for people with more wealth to carry a higher burden of Medicare costs in a system that is struggling. What isn’t fair is the ridiculous “cliff” structure of these surcharges, with just $1 in higher MAGI income potentially resulting in thousands of dollars of increased costs. And add to that the fact that the IRMAA levels aren’t announced until months after you file your tax return.

Sometimes I feel the need to remind younger people: “Medicare is not free.” There are expenses and for some people the costs can be lofty. I am fortunate to say — so far — my payments into Medicare have been higher than the services I have received. That means I am healthy. I’ll take that trade any day.

Original Medicare with a good supplement is very good insurance and worth the cost. But … don’t pay more than you need to. Keep an eye on IRMAA.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Inflation, Medicare, Retirement, Social Security, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | 32 Comments