Minggu, 31 Maret 2019

Investigators say Saudi Arabia accessed Jeff Bezos' phone - Engadget

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Jeff Bezos' accusations of blackmail and extortion extend beyond just the National Enquirer and its parent AMI. Bezos' investigation team has determined "with high confidence" that Saudi Arabia had access to the Amazon chief's phone. Team leader Gavin de Becker pointed to a number of factors leading to the conclusion. Most notably, he rejected the Enquirer's claims that Michael Sanchez (the brother of Bezos' lover Lauren) was the sole source for the info. Sanchez told Page Six that the Enquirer had already seen text messages when it contacted him to investigate Bezos' possible affair -- there was another source, and de Becker's group believes Saudi Arabia is the most likely culprit given its methods, motivations and connections to AMI.

The Saudi government reportedly relied extensively on covert phone surveillance as part of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to the New York Times and de Becker's expert consultants. And when the Post (owned by Bezos) started covering Khasoggi's murder in earnest starting October 2018, the Saudis started attacking Bezos and de Becker with organized social media attacks and threatened boycotts.

There's also a "close relationship" between Saudi regent Mohammad bin Salman and AMI chairman David Pecker, according to de Becker. The chairman brought bin Salman's intermediary Kacy Grine to a private meeting with President Trump, while the company also created a magazine to sell bin Salman to the US with Grine's help. The implication, as you might guess, is that Saudi Arabia intended to retaliate against Bezos and the Post using the Enquirer as a willing conduit.

AMI has insisted that it "acted lawfully" in reporting on Bezos, while the Saudis have denied both involvement in the Bezos incident and bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's murder. Not that this will necessarily help them much. De Becker has submitted the results to federal officials investigating AMI's actions, and it's up to them to decide whether or not Saudi Arabia and AMI were compromising Bezos' phone.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/31/jeff-bezos-investigation-accuses-saudi-arabia/

2019-03-31 17:36:57Z
CAIiEFRpi82M3CdQFmxgzTnbQh4qGAgEKg8IACoHCAowwOjjAjDp3xswicOyAw

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' phone hacked by Saudis, investigator says - CNET

US-ECONOMY-CYBER-BEZOS

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Jim Watson/ AFP/Getty Images

Saudi Arabia hacked into Jeff Bezos's phone and took private information, according to an investigator hired by the Amazon boss.

Gavin de Becker, who Bezos hired to investigate how private messages about a personal relationship were leaked to a tabloid, suggested in a Saturday post at The Daily Beast that the hack was linked to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi reporter who wrote for The Washington Post. Bezos owns The Post. 

"Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos' phone, and gained private information," de Becker wrote. He said he had provided US authorities with his findings. 

The Saudi embassy in Washington didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The allegations come roughly two months after Bezos accused American Media Inc., which owns The National Enquirer, of attempted extortion. In a lengthy Medium post, Bezos said AMI had threatened to publish intimate photos of him and Lauren Sanchez, an actress, unless he said the publisher wasn't "politically motivated or influenced by political forces." 

A month earlier, Bezos revealed that he and MacKenzie Bezos, his wife of 25 years, would be divorcing. His announcement came hours before The National Enquirer published a series of flirty texts between Bezos and Sanchez.

In his post, de Becker said it was unclear how much, if anything, AMI knew about the alleged Saudi hack.

In a statement, an American Media spokesperson called de Becker's claims "false and unsubstantiated," adding that Michael Sanchez, Lauren's brother, was the company's "single source" of information on the relationship. "There was no involvement by any other third party whatsoever."

CNET couldn't immediately reach Michael Sanchez for comment.

AMI has previously said it would investigate the claims Bezos made in his Medium post.

Originally published March 31, 9:59 a.m. PT.
Updates, 10:30 a.m. PT
: Adds AMI comment.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-phone-hacked-by-saudis-investigator-says/

2019-03-31 17:30:00Z
52780255188841

Jeff Bezos’ investigators believe ‘with high confidence’ that Saudi Arabia accessed his phone - The Verge

Following the revelation that the The National Enquirer had obtained intimate texts and images between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanches, Bezos ordered an investigation into who was behind the data breach. In a post on The Daily Beast, Bezos’ security consultant Gavin De Becker says that his team of investigators have “concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone,” although he says that they haven’t been able to to link that access with the data that the Enquirer claimed to have.

In February, Bezos released a remarkable post on Medium, saying that Enquirer and its parent company, AMI, had attempted to extort and blackmail him with images that he had texted to a woman with which he was having an affair. The story is part of a much larger one that feeds into the rivalry between Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, and President Donald Trump, who has described the publication as a “lobbyist newspaper,” and includes an international angle involving Saudi Arabia, which reportedly sees Bezos and the Post as a threat.

After Bezos published his post, he directed de Becker to figure out how the tabloid had gained access to his images and texts. Word quickly emerged that it was Sanchez’s brother, Michael who provided the publication with the texts, but other theories have since emerged: that Bezos was hacked, that an intelligence agency leaked the images to the Trump Administration, or that it was from a foreign government agency, like Saudi Arabia or the UAE.

In his post for The Daily Beast, de Becker pointed to details that indicates that Michael Sanchez might not have been the source of the texts: saying that the Enquirer had contacted Michael Sanchez after already seeing text exchanges between Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, which “would mean, clearly and obviously, that the initial information came from other channels—another source or method.”

He goes on to say that his investigation concluded “with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information.” He says that they “did not reach our conclusions lightly,” and have since passed on their findings to federal officials. But, he also says that while they believe that Saudi Arabia might have accessed Bezo’s phone, it’s unclear if they passed that information on to AMI.

de Becker points to the Enquirer’s history and connections with the Kingdom, and paints a picture that the country is using AMI and its publications to put pressure on people it deems enemies, such as Bezos and The Washington Post.

Bezos alluded to Saudi Arabia in his post, saying that AMI had been investigated for “various actions they’ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government,” pointed to The Washington Post’s coverage of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, and that “the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.” AMI has since released a statement, denying that Saudi Arabia was involved.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/31/18289296/jeff-bezos-gavin-de-becker-saudi-arabia-accessed-phone-data-national-enquirer

2019-03-31 16:20:36Z
52780255188841

Jeff Bezos' security consultant accuses the Saudi government of hacking Amazon CEO's phone, linking them to extortion attempt - Business Insider

jeff bezosAlex Wong/Getty Images

  • Jeff Bezos' chief security consultant has said the Saudi government hacked the Amazon chief's phone and accessed his private information.
  • Gavin de Becker wrote in a column published Saturday that he could conclude that his investigation found that Saudis had gained access to Bezos' private information. 
  • The investigation was launched after the National Enquirer published an exposé into Bezos' relationship and the paper threatened to publish Bezos' intimate photos and text messages. 

Jeff Bezos' security chief Gavin de Becker said in a column published Saturday that the Saudi government had access to the Amazon chief's phone and gained private information from it.

De Becker wrote in The Daily Beast that he could confirm the connection after an extensive investigation into the publication, which was sparked by reports targeting Bezos in tabloids owned by American Media Inc.

"Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos' phone, and gained private information," de Becker wrote. "As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details."

In February, Bezos alleged in a widely-read Medium post that the National Enquirer tried to blackmail him by threatening to publish intimate text messages and photos. He also revealed that he had launched an investigation after a January exposé on his relationship with Sanchez to find out how the paper obtained the private information in the piece. 

Read more: These are the main players in the explosive saga of Jeff Bezos' love life and his war with the National Enquirer

Bezos drew a connection in the letter between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and American Media Inc., specifically accusing owner David Pecker of trying to blackmail him unless he publicly declared that the tabloid's reporting on him had no political motivation.

Days after Bezos' post, AMI attorney Elkhan Ambramowitz doubled down on the paper's commitment to their explanation that Sanchez's brother had been the only source, flatly denying any connection to the Trump administration and the media company's ties to Saudi Arabia.

De Becker points to an appearance by Abramowitz on ABC as perhaps the most concerted effort to throw blame on Sanchez's brother for the revealing materials in the January story, when he insisted that the source was "not Saudi Arabia" but a "person that was known to both Bezos and Ms. Sanchez." 

This statement was marred by reports from the Wall Street Journal and Page Six that said the Enquirer came to Sanchez after it knew about the relationship, de Becker said, which suggests there were other sources. 

Numerous outlets suggested that Saudi Arabia's alleged role in AMI's pursuit of Bezos was motivated by Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post, which created diplomatic issues for the country through its dogged reporting on the killing of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, last October.

Bezos acknowledged in his February post that his ownership of the Post was a "complexifier," and De Becker wrote in the Beast that the Saudi government had been threatening Bezos since October. 

The kingdom reportedly denies any connection, as well as any responsibility for Khashoggi's death. 

De Becker also points to owner Pecker as a central figure in the paper's Saudi connections, ushering in glowing coverage for Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, including an advanced copy of a magazine that the prince and his aides had a chance to edit. 

De Becker's investigation reportedly relied on interviews with "current and former AMI executives and sources," "top Middle East experts in the intelligence community," "leading cybersecurity experts who have tracked Saudi spyware," "discussions with current and former advisers to President Trump," "Saudi whistleblowers," and "people who personally know the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman." 

De Becker also wrote that he has turned over his investigation's findings to US federal officials and will be releasing no further details. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-saudi-government-hacked-amazon-ceos-phone-national-enquirer-gavin-de-becker-2019-3

2019-03-31 15:40:12Z
CAIiEE-4X60JgrLKGG4B-S4oa28qLggEKiUIACIbd3d3LmJ1c2luZXNzaW5zaWRlci5jb20vc2FpKgQICjAMMJzw5wE

Jeff Bezos' security consultant accuses the Saudi government of hacking Amazon CEO's phone, linking them extortion attempt - Business Insider

jeff bezosAlex Wong/Getty Images

  • Jeff Bezos' chief security consultant has said the Saudi government hacked the Amazon chief's phone and accessed his private information.
  • Gavin de Becker wrote in a column published Saturday that he could conclude that his investigation found that Saudis had gained access to Bezos' private information. 
  • The investigation was launched after the National Enquirer published an exposé into Bezos' relationship and the paper threatened to publish Bezos' intimate photos and text messages. 

Jeff Bezos' security chief Gavin de Becker said in a column published Saturday that the Saudi government had access to the Amazon chief's phone and gained private information from it.

De Becker wrote in The Daily Beast that he could confirm the connection after an extensive investigation into the publication, which was sparked by reports targeting Bezos in tabloids owned by American Media Inc.

"Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos' phone, and gained private information," de Becker wrote. "As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details."

In February, Bezos alleged in a widely-read Medium post that the National Enquirer tried to blackmail him by threatening to publish intimate text messages and photos. He also revealed that he had launched an investigation after a January exposé on his relationship with Sanchez to find out how the paper obtained the private information in the piece. 

Read more: These are the main players in the explosive saga of Jeff Bezos' love life and his war with the National Enquirer

Bezos drew a connection in the letter between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and American Media Inc., specifically accusing owner David Pecker of trying to blackmail him unless he publicly declared that the tabloid's reporting on him had no political motivation.

Days after Bezos' post, AMI attorney Elkhan Ambramowitz doubled down on the paper's commitment to their explanation that Sanchez's brother had been the only source, flatly denying any connection to the Trump administration and the media company's ties to Saudi Arabia.

De Becker points to an appearance by Abramowitz on ABC as perhaps the most concerted effort to throw blame on Sanchez's brother for the revealing materials in the January story, when he insisted that the source was "not Saudi Arabia" but a "person that was known to both Bezos and Ms. Sanchez." 

This statement was marred by reports from the Wall Street Journal and Page Six that said the Enquirer came to Sanchez after it knew about the relationship, de Becker said, which suggests there were other sources. 

Numerous outlets suggested that Saudi Arabia's alleged role in AMI's pursuit of Bezos was motivated by Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post, which created diplomatic issues for the country through its dogged reporting on the killing of its columnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, last October.

Bezos acknowledged in his February post that his ownership of the Post was a "complexifier," and De Becker wrote in the Beast that the Saudi government had been threatening Bezos since October. 

The kingdom reportedly denies any connection, as well as any responsibility for Khashoggi's death. 

De Becker also points to owner Pecker as a central figure in the paper's Saudi connections, ushering in glowing coverage for Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman, including an advanced copy of a magazine that the prince and his aides had a chance to edit. 

De Becker's investigation reportedly relied on interviews with "current and former AMI executives and sources," "top Middle East experts in the intelligence community," "leading cybersecurity experts who have tracked Saudi spyware," "discussions with current and former advisers to President Trump," "Saudi whistleblowers," and "people who personally know the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman." 

De Becker also wrote that he has turned over his investigation's findings to US federal officials and will be releasing no further details. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-saudi-government-hacked-amazon-ceos-phone-national-enquirer-gavin-de-becker-2019-3

2019-03-31 15:05:23Z
CAIiEE-4X60JgrLKGG4B-S4oa28qLggEKiUIACIbd3d3LmJ1c2luZXNzaW5zaWRlci5jb20vc2FpKgQICjAMMJzw5wE

5 Social Security Mistakes You Probably Don't Even Realize You're Making - The Motley Fool

We all make mistakes. We make non-financial ones, such as brewing caffeinated coffee in the evening when we meant to brew some decaf, and financial ones, such as not saving and investing enough to build a sufficient war chest for retirement.

Another kind of mistake that shortchanges our comfort in retirement is a mistake we make related to Social Security. That's dangerous, since fully 48% of married elderly Social Security beneficiaries and 69% of unmarried ones get 50% or more of their income from it, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA).

The foot of a man in a suit about to step on a banana peel.

Image source: Getty Images.

Here are five Social Security mistakes many people make. You may be making one or more without even knowing it.

No. 1: Not setting up a "my Social Security" account

If you haven't yet set up a "my Social Security" account at the SSA website, you should -- for several reasons. First, it's where you can look up estimates of your future benefits at any time and see the SSA's record of your income and taxes paid into the Social Security system.

It's also good to set up this account as soon as possible because if you don't, an identity thief might. That's one way that crooks are causing massive headaches for many Americans -- posing as them online and trying to get their Social Security benefits.

No. 2: Not checking your earnings history

While you're at your my Social Security account, look over that record of your income over your entire working life and see if it looks correct. If you keep good records, you may actually be able to check it closely.

It's smart to review the record every now and then so that you can spot any possible errors and have them fixed. If the record doesn't reflect all your earnings, when it comes time to calculate (and pay!) your benefits, you'll get shortchanged.

No. 3: Not knowing your "full retirement age"

You should also find out your "full" retirement age. That's the age at which you can start collecting the full benefits to which you're entitled. It's important to know that age because it's likely to be a key part of any Social Security strategizing you may do. The full retirement age was formerly age 65 for everyone, but it's now 66, 67, or somewhere in between for most folks:

Birth Year

Full Retirement Age

1937 or earlier

65

1938

65 and 2 months

1939

65 and 4 months

1940

65 and 6 months

1941

65 and 8 months

1942

65 and 10 months

1943-1954

66

1955

66 and 2 months

1956

66 and 4 months

1957

66 and 6 months

1958

66 and 8 months

1959

66 and 10 months

1960 and later

67

Source: Social Security Administration. 

No. 4: Planning to start collecting benefits at a suboptimal time

You can make your Social Security benefit checks bigger or smaller than what you'd get if you started collecting at your full retirement age -- by starting to collect earlier or later. For every year beyond your full retirement age that you delay starting to receive benefits, you'll increase their value by about 8% -- until age 70. So delaying from age 67 to 70 can leave you with checks about 24% fatter.

That works in reverse if you start collecting early. For every year before your full retirement age that you start collecting, your benefits will shrink by about 7%. So if your full retirement age is 67 and you start collecting benefits at age 62, your checks will be about 30% smaller.

Many people aim to delay as long as they can for those fatter checks but they're not appreciating that while the checks will be bigger, there will be far fewer of them. The program is designed so that total benefits received are about the same no matter when you start collecting, if you have an average life span. Given that, and the fact that few of us know just how long we'll live, it makes plenty of sense for most people to start collecting at 62.

On the other hand, if your family has featured many people who lived well into their 90s and you can afford to delay starting to collect, it can make sense to do so.

It can also be a mistake to start collecting while you're still working -- or to take on a job with significant income while you're collecting benefits. Why? If you earn too much, you can have some of your benefits withheld. (That may be annoying, but you get that money later, so it's not a fatal error.) You may even end up with your benefits taxed.

No. 5: Not coordinating with your spouse

Finally, if you're married, be sure to coordinate when you'll start collecting benefits with your spouse. For example, you might start to collect the benefits of the spouse with the lower lifetime earnings record on time or early, while delaying starting to collect the benefits of the higher-earning spouse. That way, both of you get some income earlier, and when the higher earner hits 70, they can collect extra-large checks.

Also, should that higher-earning spouse die first, the spouse with the smaller earnings history can collect those bigger benefit checks -- as widows and widowers can choose to receive 100% of their late spouse's benefit instead of their own. (The survivor benefit is not available to those who remarry before age 60, but it is if you're at least 60 and were married for at least 10 years.)

It's worth learning more about Social Security so that you make smart decisions in order to get as much as you can out of the program. After all, you have probably been paying Social Security taxes (that "FICA" deduction on your pay stub) for your entire working life.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/03/31/5-social-security-mistakes-you-probably-dont-even.aspx

2019-03-31 12:03:00Z
52780255080319

Social Security is a lifesaver but far from perfect. Here are 3 rules we hate - USA TODAY

For better or worse, Social Security is our nation's most prized social program.

Each month, 63 million benefit checks go out, with more than a third of these recipients lifted out of poverty as a result of this guaranteed monthly payout.

While Social Security was crafted to be a financial foundation for retired workers in the mid-1930s, it's evolved into so much more, with the program also providing long-term disability insurance benefits and survivor benefits to the immediate families of deceased workers.

But for as much of a financial lifesaver as the program has been, Social Security is far from perfect. There are certain "rules" within the program that I'm fairly sure we can all agree we hate and would prefer to see gone.

Even if you're years from retirement: You need to know these Social Security tips now

When you should delay filing: Why waiting 3 more years for Social Security benefits will help this 66-year-old

Here are three such rules.

1. Taxing Social Security benefits (over certain income thresholds)

Not that I'm ranking these in any particular order, but if there were some aspect of Social Security that was more hated than any other part of the program, it would almost certainly be the taxation of Social Security benefits. In fact, a survey from Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization The Seniors Center, released in March 2017, found that an overwhelming 91 percent of retired Americans want the taxation of benefits shelved.

The taxation of paid benefits applies at the federal level when an individual's modified adjusted gross income plus one-half of their benefits exceeds $25,000 (or $32,000 for a couple filing jointly). Instituted in 1984, following the passage of the Amendments of 1983, this measure allowed up to 50 percent of a person's or couple's benefits to be taxed. In 1993, a second tier was introduced, allowing up to 85 percent of benefits to be taxed if a single taxpayer or couple filing jointly exceeds $34,000 or $44,000 in earned income, respectively. Although this isn't a case of double taxation, it sure as heck seems like it to a number of Social Security recipients.

Making matters worse, the income thresholds associated with this tax have never been adjusted for inflation. Thus, as more years go by, more and more seniors are being taxed on their take-home from the program. At last check, The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) estimated that 51 percent of all senior households are paying some tax on their Social Security benefits.

The icing on the cake is that 13 states also tax Social Security benefits to some varied degree. Should you face state tax on your benefits, then you would indeed have a valid gripe about double taxation.

2. Using the CPI-W to calculate COLA

Another Social Security rule we'd love to give the heave-ho to is the use of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) as the program's inflationary tether for its cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). Think of COLA as the "raise" that beneficiaries receive each year in order to keep up the rising cost of goods and services (i.e., inflation).

The problem is simple: the CPI-W does a really bad job of measuring the costs that matter to retired workers – who, may I remind you, make up 70 percent of current beneficiaries. That's because the CPI-W, as the name implies, tracks the spending habits of urban and clerical workers, who, in nearly all instances, aren't Social Security beneficiaries. Just to recap for the skimmers: The program primarily provides benefits to seniors but has an inflationary tracking index that's pegged to working-age urban and clerical workers.

Since working-age Americans and seniors spend their money very differently, it results in seniors precipitously losing purchasing power on their Social Security dollars. Expenditures that matter more to retired workers, such as housing and medical care, are given less weighting, while less-important expenses, such as entertainment, transportation, education, and apparel, bear a higher weighting in the COLA calculation. Since the year 2000, TSCL finds that the purchasing power of Social Security dollars for seniors has dropped by 34 percent.

3. Subjecting early filers to the retirement earnings test

Being subjected to the retirement earnings test is another gripe that's common among early filers.

The retirement earnings test describes an earned income limit for retired workers who've chosen to take their benefit prior to reaching full retirement age. Your full retirement age is the age at which you become eligible to receive 100 percent of your monthly payout, as determined by your birth year. If an early filer surpasses this limit, their benefits can be partially or even fully withheld by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

In 2019, early filers who won't be hitting their full retirement age this year are only allowed to earn up to $17,640 annually ($1,470 a month) without any repercussions. For every $2 in earnings above this mark, $1 in benefits is withheld. If you will reach your full retirement age this year but have yet to do so, the earning threshold is $46,920, or $3,910 a month. In this instance, $1 in benefits can be withheld for every $3 in earned income above this mark.

Even though you'll get your withheld benefits back in the form of a higher monthly payout once you hit full retirement age, the retirement earnings test is a pest because it punishes early filers who are still working and might be looking to double-dip on their income streams. It may also inadvertently harm early filers who have no choice but to claim early.

Sorry, folks, but none of these rules is going away anytime soon

Unfortunately, even though we can all agree that these Social Security rules should be shelved, there's virtually no chance of changing any of them anytime soon.

Despite our loathing for the taxation of benefits, the program simply couldn't do without the revenue it's providing on an annual basis. According to the 2018 Social Security Trustees report, the taxation of benefits will generate $561.2 billion in revenue between 2018 and 2027. If this tax were simply stopped cold turkey, Social Security's already precarious financial situation would become even direr, potentially leading to steep benefits cuts in the future.

As for the CPI-W, switching to a perceived-to-be-more-accurate inflationary measure would require bipartisan cooperation in Congress – which, as we all know, is a fairy tale. OK, maybe that's a bit cynical, but both Democrats and Republicans have proposed a "fix" for Social Security's inflationary tether, and their suggestions couldn't be further apart. Without the required 60 votes in the Senate to amend Social Security, no changes to its inflationary measure will be made.

And the retirement earnings test isn't going away, either. That's because in order to avoid a rush on early benefit claims, the SSA wants to encourage folks to save more, invest for the future, and claim their benefit (ideally) at or after their full retirement age.

It's perfectly OK to hate these three Social Security rules. Just be aware that no amount of hate is going to make them go away.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

Offer from the Motley Fool: The $16,728 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $16,728 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2019/03/31/social-security-benefit-3-rules-program-everyone-hates/39240269/

2019-03-31 10:00:00Z
52780255080319