Kurt Fowler and his wife, Trina, were celebrating their 18th wedding anniversary at a country music festival when the shooting started. Fowler, 41, knew he’d been hit in the ankle and couldn’t run. He hid under the stage until the gunfire ended.

“I knew my foot was completely useless,” said Fowler, a firefighter from Lake Havasu City, Arizona, and a father of three. He underwent surgery, spent nearly two weeks in the hospital and still may need another operation. He also will need rehabilitation and follow-up visits with a specialist.

Fowler has a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO through his job, but he said he doesn’t know how much he will have to pay out of his own pocket for the care he is receiving. In an era of higher deductibles and limited choice of in-network doctors, however, he knows he could face significant medical bills.

His insurance card says his individual deductible is $5,000 and his coinsurance 20%. He said he didn’t know how much his health plan would cover for out-of-state care.

“Medical expenses are astronomical these days,” Fowler said from his bed at Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center in Las Vegas. “It’s a mountain that just doesn’t seem like it’s gonna be climbable, but we are gonna do our best.”

As hundreds of survivors struggle to recover emotionally and physically from the Oct. 1 attack, they are beginning to come to terms with the financial toll of the violence perpetrated against them. Even those who are insured could face untold costs in a city they were only visiting.

The total costs of medical care alone could reach into the tens of millions of dollars, said Garen Wintemute, who researches gun violence at the University of California-Davis.

And that is just the beginning. Many survivors will be out of work for months, if they are able to return at all.

“We really don’t have a good handle on the intangible costs of something like this … the ripple effects on family and friends and neighborhoods when a large number of people have been shot,” Wintemute said.

More than 100,000 people are shot every year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That generates about $2.8 billion per year in emergency room and inpatient charges alone, according to a recent study in Health Affairs. The average emergency room bill for an individual gunshot victim is $5,254 and the average inpatient charge is $95,887, according to the study.

Related: Patients pay the price when hospital giants hire your private practitioner

The U.S. senators representing Nevada, Dean Heller and Catherine Cortez Masto, wrote a letter to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, and Scott Serota, CEO of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, requesting help with out-of-network bills, copayments and deductibles for the Las Vegas shooting victims. Many of the people who were shot had traveled from other states, including California, Iowa and Tennessee.

California and some states protect consumers from such bills, but Nevada is not one of them, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. But Corlette said most insurers allow patients to request exceptions based on the circumstances.

“In this situation, I imagine most insurers are going to want to be compassionate and work something out,” she said.

The victims and their families aren’t the only ones who will be affected financially by the mass shooting. Taxpayers, too, pick up much of the tab for the health care costs associated with gun violence because many patients are covered by Medicaid and Medicare, two government insurance programs.

Related: Zappos offers to help cover funeral costs of every Las Vegas shooting victim

And hospitals will also be on the hook for some of the care for patients who don’t have insurance. Hospitals in Las Vegas quickly mobilized to treat the hundreds of victims who were streaming in that night, and they don’t know yet how much of the care will be reimbursed.

At Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, staff treated more than 200 patients. Sunrise plans to file insurance claims and will “be extremely sensitive to the financial status” of patients when considering their out-of-pocket portions, a spokeswoman said.

Valley Hospital Medical Center is encouraging patients to complete paperwork for a state program called Nevada Victims of Violent Crime, which would pay their balances. And Dignity Health’s St. Rose Dominican said it will bill insurers and accept donations but will not require payment from victims.

California victims can also get help with medical expenses and income loss from the California Victim Compensation Board.

In addition, a GoFundMe account started by a Clark County commissioner has raised $11 million thus far. And many survivors have individual GoFundMe accounts.

Related: Doctors in Puerto Rico: ‘Reality here is post-apocalyptic’

Fowler’s GoFundMe page has raised about $39,000. Fowler said he doesn’t have disability insurance so he will rely on the funds to help cover his expenses while he is recovering and missing work.

Michael Caster, 41, who lives in Indio, California, has a GoFundMe account that has raised about $26,000 so far. He’s paralyzed from the waist down after a bullet lodged in his spine.

At Sunrise Hospital, doctors drained the blood from Caster’s lungs and removed some of the bullet fragments. Sitting in a hospital bed 11 days after the shooting, Caster said he didn’t know how much of his care would be covered by his health insurance.

He works in human resources at a California hospital and has a job-sponsored policy with Anthem Blue Cross. “I’ve never really dealt with injury,” he said. “I don’t want to be stuck with a bunch of bills.”

His bills could rise further: That day, he was scheduled to be flown to a rehabilitation center in Colorado for people with spinal cord injuries.

Mary Moreland, whose daughter Tina Frost was shot during the country music festival, said that at first she didn’t understand why so many families were setting up fundraisers. Then, the severe financial strain the shooting would take started to dawn on her.

Now, Moreland said she’s grateful for the nearly $580,000 raised through GoFundMe.

Frost, a resident of San Diego, had emergency brain surgery the night of the shooting. A bullet had pierced her eye and exploded in her brain. As she lay in ICU earlier this month, her mother said small improvements were major milestones. “Today she squeezed my hands,” Moreland said.

Related: Actually Trump is raising health insurance premiums

The next night, Frost came out of a medically induced coma and was later flown to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, near her mother’s home. Over the next weeks and months, she will need multiple operations and a slew of specialists, including neurosurgeons, plastic surgeons, occupational therapists and mental health counselors.

Moreland said she cannot even begin to imagine what her daughter’s care will cost. Frost has Blue Cross insurance through her job at Ernst & Young in San Diego, but Moreland said she doesn’t know what the deductible and copayments are.

“Being realistic, knowing what I know about costs of health care, it’s scary,” Moreland said. “But she’s alive. She’s not one of the 58 other people.”

Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit health newsroom whose stories appear in news outlets nationwide, is an editorially independent part of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

CNNMoney (New York) First published October 25, 2017: 6:01 AM ET

One collector car auction in California this month could potentially set three separate auto auction records: The most valuable car ever auctioned, the most valuable British car and, just possibly, the most valuable American car ever auctioned.

The days leading up to the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance classic car show in Monterey, California, are filled with events for high-end car collectors, including auctions at which record prices are frequently paid for the most desirable cars.

On August 25, the day before the Concours, a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO estimated to be worth between $45 million and $60 million will be auctioned at RM Sotheby’s annual Monterey sale. If the selling price even approaches this estimate, it will set a record for any car ever sold at auction.

Another 1962-63 Ferrari GTO sold for $38 million at a Bonhams auction at Pebble Beach Car Week in 2014. (The car had two model years because it was nearly destroyed in a fatal crash and was rebuilt by Ferrari.) For now, that remains the current record holder for a car sold at auction.

Cars have sold for far more in private transactions rather than at public auctions. The vast majority of collector cars are sold privately. Another Ferrari 250 GTO, a 1963 model, was recently privately sold for the widely reported price of $70 million.

Related: The classic car industry could be hurt by tariffs

Classic Ferrari GTOs are extraordinarily valuable for a number of reasons. First, they were, and are, simply very beautiful cars. Second, these were some of Ferrari’s most successful racing cars. There have been more successful models, such as the 250 LM, which has its engine mounted behind the driver, but the front-engined GTO is more popular because it’s easier to live with and drive.

“The 250 GTO, you open the door like you do on your car, you get in and you go,” said RM Sotheby’s car specialist Jake Auerbach. “It really is that simple.”

All 36 of the 250 GTOs ever made are still running and their ownership has created a very exclusive club. Ferrari 250 owners know one another and sometimes get together for road rallies.

“The GTO tours are, as far as that level of net worth goes, the ultimate event and there really is only one way to get in and that’s to own one of the 36 cars,” said Aurbach.

The GTO being sold at the RM Sotheby’s auction on August 25 won the 1962 Italian GT championship, and had over 15 race victories from 1962 to 1965. Among its drivers were Phil Hill, who is most famous as the first American to be a Formula 1 World Champion. He drove this Ferrari as his practice car before the Targa Florio race in 1962. Gianni Bulgari, later president of his family’s jewelry company, raced the car in 1963.

Another car being sold at the RM Sotheby’s auction, a 1963 Aston Martin DP215 Grand Touring Competition Prototype, is expected to be the most valuable British car ever sold at auction. It’s estimated to be worth $18 million to $20 million. In its brief racing career, it never won a race but it did set a speed record on the track at Le Mans. It still stands as an important part of British automotive history.

Related: Firm that designed Ferraris will make 250 mph electric supercar

The current record holder for the most valuable British car ever auctioned was also an Aston Martin, a 1956 DBR1 that was sold at RM Sotheby’s Monterey auction last year.

The American car that will also cross the auction block, a 1966 Ford GT40, would have to sell for more than its estimated value to set a record but, given the car and its history, that’s possible.

The gold-colored race car finished third at the 24-hour Le Mans in France in 1966, one of the most famous car races in history. After being rebuffed in an attempt to buy Ferrari years before, Ford CEO Henry Ford II had demanded the company beat Ferrari on the track. This was Ford’s moment of triumph.

“It doesn’t really get any better in American racing, full stop, than 1966 Le Mans,” Aurbach said.

A movie about that race, “Ford vs. Ferrari” starring Matt Damon and Christian Bale, is slated for release next year.

The cars that finished first and second at that race are unlikely to ever come up for sale, Aurbach said. The availability of this car represents “a generational opportunity,” he said.

The race car’s value is estimated to be $9 million to $12 million. To date, the most valuable American car ever auctioned was the very first Shelby Cobra built by Carroll Shelby in 1962. That car sold for $13.8 million at RM Sotheby’s Monterey auction in 2016.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 4, 2018: 8:14 AM ET

A sharp decline in the number of international student visas has many of America’s colleges and universities on edge — and some say the Trump administration’s tough stance on immigration might be partly to blame.

The number of F-1 visas issued to foreign students seeking to attend college and other types of academic institutions in the United States decreased by 17% in the year that ended September 30, 2017, according to recent State Department data.

“The current administration’s ‘America First’ mantra is causing [international students] a great deal of anxiety and fear,” said Earl Johnson, vice president of enrollment and student services at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma. “Also, the cost of college tuition, on average, has gone up 40% in the last 10 years. It’s weighing on them.”

That’s bad news for schools that have large international student populations. Nearly 20% of the University of Tulsa’s 4,400 enrolled students hail from overseas.

Johnson said his school has experienced declines in international enrollment for a few years now and it is starting to hurt revenue. The university has even placed a school official in China to recruit more students from overseas.

F-1 visa approvals were trending higher for nearly a decade when they peaked at more than 600,000 in 2015. But they have dropped off dramatically since.

The United States issued a total of 393,573 F-1 visas in fiscal 2017, down from 471,728 in 2016. The government did not release the total number of F-1 visa applications it receives in a given year or how many applications were rejected.

The biggest decline in visa approvals in 2017 was seen among students from Asian countries, particularly those from China and India which typically account for the largest number of F-1 visas.

Related: College tuition is still getting more expensive

A number of factors could be driving the declines, said Allan Goodman, president of the nonprofit Institute of International Education.

While students are evaluating the cost of studying in the US versus somewhere else, they are also tuning in to the political rhetoric on immigration. “Inevitably, it does lead them to ask, ‘Will I be welcome here?” said Goodman.

But there are other factors that are also playing a role, he said. In China specifically, a 2014 change in visa policy allows Chinese students to obtain an F-1 visa for a five-year period instead of one, freeing them from having to renew their visa each year. That change alone could contribute to the recent declines, said Goodman.

Worldwide competition for international students is also heating up, he said. The United States used to account for almost half of all international students worldwide. Now about 24% of all international students come here, said Goodman.

Instead, they are going to countries like Canada, Germany and Australia, which are making it easier for international students to stay in the country after they graduate and become part of the workforce.

Related: Despite DACA uncertainty, these Dreamers are still determined to go to college

Meanwhile in the United States, the government’s tougher stance on its popular H-1B foreign work visa, a common visa pathway for highly-skilled foreign workers, is making it harder for new graduates to remain in the country and could be deterring overseas students from applying to American colleges.

While neither the law nor any regulations regarding foreign student visas have changed, the State Department said it has revised its guidance to US consulates that review and approve the applications. The agency said it now emphasizes that the consulates “must refuse” any applicants if they are “not satisfied that the applicant’s present intent is to depart the United States at the conclusion of his or her study.”

“We believe that studying in the U.S. continues to provide the best educational opportunities in the world, introduces international students to networks that provide benefits and advantages well after their studies conclude, and gives graduates a life-long connection to the U.S,” a State Department official said.

“Having international students benefits the United States in many areas, in science and technology, even the number of Nobel laureates we produce,” said Goodman.

And international students add diversity to the classroom, he added. “Most Americans don’t study abroad. At the very least, they get a sense of the outside world from the eight to 10 different nationalities in their classroom,” he said.

“It’s a fairly uncertain time for all higher education institutions in the US,” Johnson said. “Right now we feel the glass is half full. We are seeing a greater number of started applications from students overseas, but we have to wait and see how many complete their applications for the fall.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published March 12, 2018: 7:33 PM ET

I’m in my mid 60s and have about $1.2 million I would like to invest for the maximum income possible for the rest of my life. I don’t care for stocks or bonds because I hate the idea of seeing the value of my savings drop if the market has a correction. And I don’t understand annuities. Any suggestions?—M.B.

You’ve got a number of conflicting wants and needs that you’d do well to sort out if you hope to come up with a sensible plan to convert your nest egg into income that can support you the rest of your life.

You say, for example, that you want “the maximum income possible,” yet you seem bent on ruling out stocks and bonds, investments that, in combination, have a solid record of being able to deliver the size returns you need to generate a high level of income for the long term.

You also express concern about the value of your savings dropping during market downturns. That’s understandable. No one enjoys seeing his nest egg take a hit, especially the gut punch of a severe bear market. But this aversion to seeing even a temporary decline is incompatible with your desire for maximum income. The more you dampen up-and-down swings in the value of your retirement portfolio, the more you reduce your return potential, which makes it tougher to get the higher retirement income you seek. You can’t have it both ways, a shot at maximum income and total stability.

Finally, you say you want this income to last for life. But you then seem to suggest that annuities — a type of investment specifically designed to create a payout you can’t outlive — are a no-go. I agree that annuities can be difficult, sometimes almost impossible, to understand. And I don’t want to suggest that you must own an annuity. Still, if you really want retirement income you can count on for the rest of your life, I think it’s at least worth considering whether an annuity might make sense.

All of which is to say that I think you need to consider setting a more realistic goal when it comes to retirement income — namely, creating a plan that can get you a reasonable amount of sustainable income given your resources, while limiting volatility to a manageable level rather than trying to do away with it altogether.

Related: 4 steps you should take when buying an annuity

The first step toward creating such a plan is to get a handle on how much income you’ll need to cover your retirement expenses. You can do that by going to an online budgeting tool like BlackRock’s Retirement Expense Worksheet, which has room for you to enter dozens of retirement expenses ranging from essential outlays for housing, food, health care and transportation to more discretionary expenditures for travel, entertainment and charitable donations.

Once you’ve toted up your expenses, you can then see how much of those costs you’ll be able to pay for with assured income from sources like Social Security and any pensions. If you haven’t already begun drawing Social Security, you can see what size monthly check you might receive by going to the Social Security Administration’s Retirement Estimator tool.

More likely than not, there will be a gap — i.e., your expenses will exceed the amount you’ll collect from Social Security and any pensions. The simplest way to fill that gap is to draw enough from savings each year to cover the expenses that Social Security and any pensions can’t. Question is, how do you do this without running through your savings too quickly?

Start by being judicious about withdrawals. If you want your nest egg to last 30 or more years — a reasonable assumption given today’s long life spans — you should probably limit yourself to an initial withdrawal of no more than 3% to 4% of the value of your savings. You can then increase that amount each year by the inflation rate to maintain your purchasing power.

Assuming an initial withdrawal of 4% and annual inflation of 2% would, in your case, translate to withdrawing $48,000 the first year of retirement (4% of $1.2 million), about $49,000 the second year ($48,000 plus 2% inflation), roughly $50,000 the third year ($49,000 plus 2% inflation), etc. You can always withdraw more, but the more you pull out, the greater the chance you may exhaust your savings too soon.

How you invest your retirement savings also plays a role in determining how long your nest egg might last. I get that you have an aversion to seeing the value of your savings decline during periods of market turmoil. To totally avoid that possibility, however, you would pretty much need to invest all your savings in cash equivalents like money-market accounts and CDs. Problem is, these investments generate such low returns that, even if you limit yourself to a withdrawal rate of 3% to 4%, you would still run a not insignificant risk of outliving your savings.

So unless you’re willing to cut back on the amount you withdraw each year — or accept a higher risk of running out of money before you run out of time — you need the more generous returns that a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds (or, more likely stock and bond funds) can deliver.

Related: Should I move half of my savings into an annuity?

That doesn’t mean you have to invest all, or even most, of your savings in stocks. Even a small dollop of stocks, as little as 30% or so, can provide enough return potential to substantially reduce the risk of outliving your savings compared with an all-cash equivalents portfolio. Which means you should have plenty of leeway for finding a mix of stocks and bonds that can get you the retirement income you need without subjecting your nest egg to wild swings in value.

You can get an idea of what stocks-bonds mix might be right for you (and how different mixes have fared in the past) by completing this risk tolerance-asset allocation questionnaire. To see how long your nest egg might last at different withdrawal rates and with various combinations of stocks and bonds, check out this retirement income calculator.

Up to this point, we’ve been talking probabilities of how long you might be able to draw a given amount of income from savings, not certainties. But there is a way to create income that’s guaranteed to last as long as you do: buy an annuity. Granted, annuities can be complex and confounding. But there is one type that, relative to other annuities at least, is fairly easy to understand: an immediate annuity.

You turn over a lump sum of savings to an insurer and in return get monthly payments for life. Today, for example, a 65-year-old man who invests $100,000 in an immediate annuity would receive about $550 a month for life; a 65-year-old woman would get $530 a month; and a 65-year-old couple (man and woman) would receive about $470 a month as long as either is alive. (This annuity calculator can show you how much income you’d receive based on your age, sex and amount invested.)

But even this relatively straightforward annuity comes with conditions you need to understand, one of the most significant being that in return for guaranteed income for life you typically give up all or most access to the money you’ve invested. Which is one reason I think anyone who feels they might want more guaranteed income than Social Security alone will provide should consider this two-pronged strategy: Invest enough of your savings in an annuity so that the annuity’s payments along with income from Social Security and any pensions will cover all or most essential expenses; then invest the rest in an appropriate mix of stocks, bonds and cash you can draw on as needed to pay any additional expenses. If such a strategy appeals to you, be sure to check out these tips for choosing an annuity before committing to one.

Given the wariness expressed in your question, you may very well decide that even a relatively conservative mix of stocks and bonds — in conjunction with an annuity or not — isn’t right for you. And that’s fine. I’m sure you won’t have trouble finding advisers suggesting plenty of other ways to go. Remember, though, that any realistic strategy to convert savings to sustainable retirement income will necessarily involve trade offs and compromises, not mention varying levels of fees. Just make sure that before you sign on, you know exactly what those trade offs, compromises and fees are.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 23, 2018: 10:17 AM ET

Dreaming of handing in your notice at work and joining the ranks of the retired?

Retirement can be wonderful — if you’re prepared for it. So before you put an end to your career, it’s essential to make sure you’re 100% ready.

Not sure how to do that? Taking these five steps can put you on the path to a happy and secure retirement.

If you’re part of a twosome, retirement doesn’t just affect you; it’s a profound lifestyle change for your entire family. Before you take the leap, get on the same page as your spouse.

Will you both be retiring, or will your spouse work longer? If your spouse is planning to maintain a career, will you end up being responsible for more household tasks — and are you OK with that? These questions need to be answered.

You’ll also have to think through how your decision will affect your family finances — especially when it comes to Social Security benefits. If you’re claiming Social Security benefits early, you’ll reduce the monthly benefits you receive for the rest of your life — as well as any survivors benefits your spouse could receive if he or she were to outlive you.

Devise a Social Security claiming strategy with your spouse before you file for benefits that maximizes your combined income, as you can’t easily change your plans once benefits have begun.

When you no longer have a paycheck coming in, you’ll need funds from other sources.

For most people, retirement income comes from Social Security and savings. A lucky few — mostly government workers — have a defined benefit pension plan to provide guaranteed income. For the rest of us, having enough money invested to supplement Social Security is essential.

To make sure you won’t come up short, add up all your potential sources of retirement funds — from pensions, Social Security, and withdrawals from retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs — and figure out what your total monthly income will be.

Estimate your Social Security income by visiting mySocial Security to find your benefit amount at full retirement age. Once you’re logged in, there’s a free retirement estimator to help you determine what your benefits will be based on the age you retire. If you’re not ready to create an account, the SSA also has a quick calculator available to estimate benefits by inputting your current year’s earnings, your birth date, and your future retirement date.

To determine the income you’ll receive from investments, you could use the 4% rule, which allows you to withdraw 4% of your account balance in your first year of retirement and then adjust that withdrawal amount each year based on inflation. However, there’s a chance you’ll run out of money by following the 4% rule, so you may want to take another tactic, such as following the advice of experts from the Center for Retirement Research to determine what percentage of your account balance to withdraw annually.

When you add up Social Security income, income from investments, and any other money you’ll have coming, you can make an informed choice about whether it’s feasible to live on the funds available.

So how do you know if the total income you’ll have will be sufficient to support you?

The best way to tell is to actually make a budget. Factor in all of your fixed costs, such as housing, taxes, and insurance. Add up other expenditures such as traveling, clothing, personal care items, transportation, food, and entertainment. And don’t forget to include saving: Just because you’re no longer investing for retirement doesn’t mean you don’t need to put aside money for other purposes, such as home repairs or emergencies.

Your budget will reveal how much money you’d actually need. If it shows you’ll have plenty of income to cover everything, you’re good to go and can hand in your notice.

If it doesn’t, decide between scaling down your expectations for retirement or increasing your retirement income by working longer, saving more, and earning delayed-retirement credits to boost Social Security benefits.

One of the big line items in your budget will be healthcare costs.

Seniors often suffer from serious medical conditions, and Medicare doesn’t provide the comprehensive coverage most people believe it does. You’ll have to pick up a lot of prescription costs on your own; you’ll pay premiums and coinsurance expenses; and you’ll need to pay out of pocket entirely for care that isn’t covered, such as nursing home services.

Recent estimates suggest a senior couple in the top percentile for prescription drug use would need $370,000 to be reasonably certain of covering their healthcare needs in retirement. If you don’t have that much, explore options such as working longer and investing in a health savings account or purchasing the most comprehensive Medicare Advantage and long-term care insurance available.

Finally, you need to think about what you’ll actually do during retirement. Some seniors suffer health issues, including depression, when they lose their sense of community and purpose. Have a plan to reduce the risk of becoming lonely and disconnected from the world after retirement.

Depending upon your interests, this plan could include volunteering with local organizations, joining a senior center, babysitting your grandkids, joining a travel group, or taking exercise classes (seniors can often join a gym for free through Medicare’s SilverSneakers program). You could also do some part-time consulting work, either for pay or through volunteer organizations such as SCORE.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

If you’ve gone through these five steps and still feel ready to retire, congrats! You should hopefully have the savings you need to enjoy your golden years.

If you’ve found you’re not quite ready yet, take heart — you’ve taken the important step of identifying the tasks to accomplish and can start checking things off your to-do list.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 20, 2018: 10:19 AM ET

Republicans crossed another major hurdle in their effort to get a tax bill to President Trump’s desk by Christmas.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Senate passed a sweeping tax overhaul bill in largely party-line vote.

Just one Republican, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, voted against it on deficit concerns. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.47 trillion over a decade. Many Republicans continue to say the bill will pay for itself through greater economic growth, despite all analyses to the contrary.

The final Senate bill differs from the tax bill passed by the House in mid-November. Those differences now must be reconciled and a final piece of legislation voted on by both chambers.

Stay tuned for that. Meantime, here are key ways the Senate bill would affect individuals and businesses, and how it differs from the House legislation.

FOR INDIVIDUALS

Changes individual income tax brackets: There are seven brackets in today’s individual tax code: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%.

The Senate bill also calls for seven brackets but changes the rates on taxable income to:

– 10% (income up to $9,525 for individuals; up to $19,050 for married couples filing jointly)
– 12% (over $9,525 to $38,700; over $19,050 to $77,400 for couples)
– 22% (over $38,700 to $70,000; over $77,400 to $140,000 for couples)
– 24% (over $70,000 to $160,000; over $140,000 to $320,000 for couples)
– 32% (over $160,000 to $200,000; over $320,000 to $400,000 for couples)
– 35% (over $200,000 to $500,000; over $400,000 to $1 million for couples
– 38.5% (over $500,000; over $1 million for couples)

The House bill, by contrast, only calls for four brackets: 12%, 25%, 35% and 39.6%.

Nearly doubles the standard deduction: The House and Senate bills nearly double the standard deduction. For single filers the Senate bill increases it to $12,000 from $6,350 currently; and it raises it for married couples filing jointly to $24,000 from $12,700.

That would drastically reduce the number of people who opt to itemize their deductions, since the only reason to do so is if your individual deductions combined exceed the standard deduction amount.

Eliminates personal exemptions: Today you’re allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents. Both the Senate and House bills eliminate that option.

Related: Even with growth, the Senate tax bill still adds $1 trillion to deficits

For families with three or more kids, that could mute if not negate any tax relief they might enjoy as a result of other provisions in the bill.

Kills state and local income tax deduction, limits property tax break: Today itemizers may deduct their property taxes as well as their state and local income or sales taxes.

The original Senate bill called for a full repeal of the SALT deduction. But it was amended to preserve an itemized deduction for property taxes but only up to $10,000, which is identical to the House measure.

Expands the child tax credit: The Senate GOP bill increases the child tax credit to $2,000 per child, up from $1,000 today, and above the $1,600 proposed in the House bill.

Senate GOP tax writers would make the credit available for any children under 18, up from today’s under-17 age limit. But it reverts to under 17 again in 2025, a year before the increase is set to expire under the bill.

But the $1,000 increase won’t be available to the lowest income families if they don’t end up owing federal income taxes. That’s because unlike the first $1,000, the additional $1,000 wouldn’t be refundable. When a credit is refundable, it means you still can get money from the government because of the credit, even when your federal income tax bill is zero.

The Senate bill also greatly expands who is eligible for the credit by raising the roof on the income thresholds where the credit starts to phase out: To $500,000 for married tax filers, up from $110,000 today.

Meanwhile, filers with dependents who are not qualified children may be able to claim a new $500 nonrefundable credit per dependent. Under the House bill, there would be a new $300 per person credit for parents and dependents over 17.

Keeps mortgage interest deduction as is: The Senate bill would still let you claim a deduction for the interest you pay on mortgage debt up to $1 million.

The House wants to cap the loan limit at $500,000 for new mortgages.

Since the House and Senate bills sharply increase the standard deduction, the percent of filers who claim the mortgage deduction would drop sharply.

The Senate bill does make two changes on home-related financing. It disallows interest deductions for home equity loans. And it lengthens the time you must live in a home to get the full tax-free exclusion on your gains when you sell it.

Preserves the Alternative Minimum Tax: The original Senate bill, like the House-passed bill, would repeal the AMT. But to help offset the cost of other late amendments, the final revision of the Senate bill now keeps the AMT in place but raises the amount of income exempt from it.

The AMT, originally intended to ensure the richest tax filers pay at least some tax by disallowing many tax breaks, most typically hits filers making between $200,000 and $1 million today.

Those who make more usually find they owe more tax under the regular income tax code, so must pay that tab instead.

Preserves the estate tax, but exempts almost everybody: Unlike the House GOP bill, Senate Republicans have not proposed repealing the estate tax.

But they are proposing to double the exemption levels — which are currently set at $5.49 million for individuals, and $10.98 million for married couples. Even at today’s levels, only 0.2% of all estates ever end up being subject to the estate tax.

Increases teacher deduction: Teachers who buy their own supplies for the classroom may deduct up to $250 today. The Senate bill doubles that amount to $500.

The House bill, by contrast, eliminates the deduction.

Expands the medical expense deduction: Today itemizers may deduct their medical and dental expenses that exceed 10% of their adjusted gross income.

While the House bill gets rid of that deduction, the Senate bill not only keeps it but temporarily lowers that 10% threshold to 7.5% for tax years 2017 and 2018.

Repeals the individual mandate to buy health insurance: The repeal is intended as a way to offset the cost of the tax bill. It is estimated to save money because it would reduce how much the federal government spends on insurance subsidies, since the assumption is fewer people who qualify for subsidies would purchase insurance if they’re not subject to a penalty.

But policy experts also note it could raise premiums because more healthy people might decide to skip buying insurance.

FOR BUSINESSES

Cut the corporate rate … in a year: Like the House bill, the Senate bill would cut the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35% today. But the 20% rate would not take effect until 2019 under the Senate proposal. The delay would reduce the cost of the measure in the first 10 years.

Make expensing rules more generous: Senate Republicans want to make it possible for businesses to immediately and fully expense new equipment for five years, then phases the provision out by 20 percentage points per year thereafter. A House provision limits it to five years.

Lower taxes on pass-through business income: Most U.S. businesses are set up as pass-throughs, not corporations. That means their profits are passed through to the owners, shareholders and partners, who pay tax on them on their personal returns under ordinary income tax rates.

Both the House and Senate bills lower taxes on the business portion of a filer’s passthrough income.

The House bill dropped the top income tax rate to 25% from 39.6%, while prohibiting anyone providing professional services (e.g., lawyers and accountants) from taking advantage of the lower rate. It also phases in a lower rate of 9% for businesses that earn less than $75,000.

The Senate bill lowers taxes on filers in pass-throughs by letting them deduct 23% of their income, up from 17.4% originally.

The 23% deduction would be prohibited for anyone in a service business — except those with taxable incomes under $500,000 if married ($250,000 if single).

Prevent abuse of pass-through tax break: If the owner or partner in a pass-through also draws a salary from the business, that money would be subject to ordinary income tax rates.

But to prevent people from recharacterizing their wage income as business profits to get the benefit of the pass-through deduction, the Senate bill would automatically limit the deduction to half of the W-2 wages of the pass-through entity or its share to the individual taxpayer. The W-2 rule would not apply, however, if the filer’s taxable income is under $500,000 if married, $250,000 if single.

Change how U.S. multinationals are taxed: Today U.S. companies owe Uncle Sam tax on all their profits, regardless of where the income is earned. They’re allowed to defer paying U.S. tax on their foreign profits until they bring the money home.

Many argue that this “worldwide” tax system puts American businesses at a disadvantage. That’s because most foreign competitors come from countries with territorial tax systems, meaning they don’t owe tax to their own governments on income they make offshore.

The Senate bill proposes changes to move the U.S. to a territorial system. It also includes a number of anti-abuse provisions to prevent corporations with foreign profits from gaming the system.

And it would require companies to pay a one-time low tax rate on their existing overseas profits — 14.5% on cash assets and 7.5% on non-cash assets (e.g., equipment abroad in which profits were invested), slightly higher than the 14% and 7% rates in the House bill.

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 2, 2017: 8:14 AM ET

Some pension plans have overpaid retirees for years — now they’re demanding their money back.

For retirees, it can mean owing tens of thousands of dollars. And with little warning, their pension checks are being slashed to cover their debt.

In April 2011, New Jersey resident Carol Montague received a letter from American Water Works Co.’s pension plan saying it had overpaid her for more than five years and wanted its money back — plus interest. Montague, now 67, was told she owed roughly $45,000.

Two weeks later, Montague’s pension benefits dropped from $1,246 to around $325 a month, or half what she should have been paid all along. The plan takes out roughly $300 a month in order to pay itself back.

Once Montague’s health care premium is deducted, her monthly pension check shrinks to less than $25. She gets another $1,200 a month from Social Security, but it’s not enough. So, in addition to her part-time job as a school crossing guard, she is working as a salesperson at Macy’s.

So far, Montague has repaid almost $9,000 — calculations show that she won’t repay her debt in full until 2024.

Share your story: Are you worried about your pension?

American Water said Montague signed a document verifying the correct pension amount and that they are legally allowed to collect any overpayment, with interest, to protect the viability of the pension fund. Montague acknowledges she made a mistake, but didn’t think she needed to confirm that her benefits matched the amount in the letter she had signed almost a year before she retired.

“I put it away in a steel box. I never looked at it again. It was stupid on my part,” she said. “But it took (almost) six years for them to find out they overpaid me?”

With the help of the Mid-Atlantic Pension Counseling Project, a government-sponsored program, she has appealed to the pension plan to waive the interest, as well as ease some of the overpayment burden. But the plan has refused.

As pensions face increased financial scrutiny — and shrinking funds — pension counseling programs are seeing even more cases like Montague’s.

This year, nearly 600 retired metal workers and their spouses are facing these so-called recoupment demands from the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 73 Pension Fund, based outside of Chicago.

Related: Will your congressman retire richer than you?

In a letter sent to the pension recipients in May, the fund said a 2010 audit found that certain pensions were calculated incorrectly from 1974 to 2004, resulting in more than $5 million in overpayments, according to an IRS filing. The fund is now demanding that the retirees pay back decades worth of mistakes, including interest based on the plan’s rates of return.

In July, the pension fund reduced hundreds of checks to the proper payment amount and then again, to make up for the overpayments, often by as much as 25%.

Since the pension fund is forecasting that many of the retirees will die before their debts are repaid, it is asking many of them to make large upfront payments.

It’s unclear why the pension fund, which did not respond to requests for comment, waited several years to make the adjustments.

Carole Grant, 75, was told by the sheet metal worker’s plan that she owed almost $61,000 (roughly half of which was interest) for nearly 20 years of overpayments on the spousal benefits she received from her deceased husband’s pension. Her monthly benefit of $394 should have actually been $249, the pension fund said.

Related: Are you saving enough for retirement?

As a result, she’s been asked to make an upfront payment of $54,000 and her check has been reduced to $187 a month. While she has other sources of income, she doesn’t think she should have to turn over her retirement savings.

“I don’t feel that I should be penalized for the mistakes that they made,” she said.

Karen Ferguson, director of the Pension Rights Center, a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group, said that, in most cases, retirees have no idea they are being overpaid since “the way a benefit is figured in a typical pension plan is impossible for an ordinary person to fathom.”

She called the sheet metal workers case the “most egregious” she’s seen, underscoring the need for federal regulations, such as imposing a statute of limitations and limiting how dramatically a pension check can be reduced. She also said many retirees don’t realize that plans rarely take legal actions to recover the lump sums.

Money 101: Planning for retirement

While some of the retired sheet metal workers have been able to get their debts forgiven or reduced by filing “hardship waivers,” many have had appeals denied, said Tim Kelly, an attorney representing some of the retirees.

One of his clients, 63-year-old Ed Cochran, has received a disability pension since 1995 and was told he owes the fund nearly $100,000, $42,464 of which is interest. His monthly checks had included an excess $262 a month.

Cochran paid years’ worth of income taxes and child support based on the amounts he received. And he’s heard of many retirees in worse financial shape than him.

“There are so many other older retirees who didn’t plan for rainy days,” Cochran said. “This is all they have.”

Have you received a recoupment demand? Visit the Pension Rights Center website for advice or for pension counseling referrals.

CNNMoney (New York) First published October 24, 2013: 6:59 AM ET

It’s rare that we get a female CEO.

But it’s even rarer to see another woman follow her into the C-suite.

In the history of the Fortune 500, a female-to-female CEO succession has only happened three times: in 2009, when Ursula Burns followed Anne Mulcahy at Xerox; in 2011, when Sheri McCoy took over Avon Products from Andrea Jung; and in 2017, when Debra Crew became CEO at Reynolds American, taking over from Susan Cameron.

So why is it so rare to see a woman promoted to the role after another female CEO’s departure?

Part of this, says Christy Glass, professor of sociology at Utah State University, can be blamed on the high visibility — and accompanying scrutiny — that follows women into the C-suite.

In addition to balancing so many different expectations and battling employees’ prejudices, some female leaders fear promoting women behind them could be seen as “bias” or “having a feminist agenda,” according to Glass.

“These women are extremely aware of the scrutiny they face,” Glass says. “To the extent that they become strong advocates for women, they face potential bias that they’re not as committed to the organization overall and that instead they have this equity agenda. I think it’s problematic.”

Research also shows that when a woman or minority CEO takes control of a company, white male managers may actually withhold their support from female employees, essentially weakening the pipeline of diverse talent that could one day take over.

“They face this perfection standard,” Glass says. “They have to be flawless because of the level of scrutiny, and any mistakes are not only blamed on them, but sometimes blamed on women generally … I think it’s really difficult for those high-profile women to really be vocal advocates of other women. I think they’re in a double bind.”

Asking the wrong question

People are approaching this problem from the wrong angle, says Heather Foust-Cummings, senior vice president of research at Catalyst, a non-profit studying women and work.

“I think it’s a far more compelling question — and it gets more to the root of what I think the real problem is — if we ask ‘Why is it that men are not developing succession planning and placing women in the CEO seat?'” she says.

And in many companies, female CEOs aren’t even the ones preparing succession plans. Instead, that work falls to the board of directors — many of which struggle with their own lack of diversity.

“One thing we heard from a lot of our respondents is that board diversity really matters,” Glass says. “It mattered for their promotion and it mattered for equity overall.”

In expecting female CEOs to be the only ones who tap women, Foust-Cummings says, we’re only perpetuating the stereotypes female CEOs already battle.

“It’s really difficult when a woman CEO is being held to all these standards that the men are held to, and then, on top of that, essentially we’re asking them to be responsible for carrying an entire gender with them,” she says. “They’re the ones who are supposed to promote and develop and have women succeed them — but we’re not asking the same of men.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 16, 2018: 11:45 AM ET

Joining a growing number of luxury auto makers, Audi unveiled a new all-electric SUV. Called the E-Tron, the SUV will be available in Europe later this year and in the United States next spring.

Audi said it is taking refundable $1,000 deposits for the E-Tron starting now. Prices will start at about $75,000 or $86,700 for well-equipped “First Edition” models.

It’s the first of three new electric vehicles Audi will introduce over the next few years. The German luxury automaker, which is part of the Volkswagen Group (VLKPF), also announced it is partnering with Amazon to handle installation of home charging stations for E-Tron buyers.

The E-Tron was revealed at an event on the San Francisco waterfront. Hundreds of drones formed Audi’s four ring logo over a former Ford factory turned event space.

The SUV was unveiled here because the E-Tron was designed with the US market especially on mind, Audi executives said.

While it might not generate the excitement of a Tesla unveiling — that company received hundreds of thousands of dollars in deposits for its Model 3 within hours of that car’s debut — the E-Tron increases the competitive pressure.

The E-Tron follows Jaguar’s I-Pace electric SUV. Mercedes and BMW also recently unveiled electric SUVs that will go on sale within the next couple of years.

These offerings are all SUVs mostly because the market, in general, has shifted heavily in that direction.

“We wanted to be in the SUV space because we saw the growth and we wanted to be in the sweet spot of the market,” said Filip Brabec, Audi’s vice president for product development.

Car shoppers considering an electric car today are no longer interested in their vehicle looking radically different from anything else on the road, said Brabec.

The E-Tron looks, quite clearly, like an Audi SUV. It even has Audi’s famous trapezoidal grill, a key branding feature, despite not needing a radiator. The grill allows air to pass through under the battery to provide some additional cooling.

There are some unique attributes, though. The E-Tron stands a little wider than Audi’s other SUVs. Slats running across the rear bumper draw attention to the car’s lack of tailpipes, while there are lights in the front that are designed to look like the bars of a charge status indicator.

In Europe, the E-Tron won’t have traditional side mirrors. Instead, it will have a camera on each side where mirrors would ordinarily be. The views from those cameras will be displayed on screens inside the vehicle.

That system will not be available in the United States because safety regulations here don’t allow for it. Audi executives said they are working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to bring this feature to the American market.

With two electric motors, the all-wheel-drive SUV can accelerate from zero to 60 miles an hour in 5.5 seconds and it has a top speed of 124 miles an hour. It will be able to tow as much as 4,000 pounds. Audi has not yet announced what its driving range will be on a full charge.

When the E-Tron is cruising, rather than accelerating, it is driven mostly by the rear motor. Engineers put a heavy emphasis on recuperating as much energy as possible while driving. That’s generally done as a vehicle brakes or slows by allowing the wheels to push the electric motors, which then act as generators.

In the E-Tron, the driver will be able to select how aggressively the car uses this system, allowing for “one pedal” driving in which taking pressure off the accelerator pedal will slow the car to a full stop using only the motors.

As with other Audi vehicles, the driver will also be able to select different driving modes, from comfortable to sporty, that will alter suspension stiffness, steering responsiveness and how aggressively the SUV accelerates. The SUVs ground clearance is also adjustable by as much as three inches.

Buyers will be able to purchase a home charging system and have it installed by Amazon Home Services. The installation can be ordered online. Pricing will vary depending on each homeowner’s needs.

Audi plans to release two more electric vehicles in the next two years and a total of 12 by 2025.

CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published September 18, 2018: 12:08 AM ET