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

File just one property claim to your insurer and you can expect to see your premiums soar by hundreds of dollars in some states.

On average, filing a single claim — for anything ranging from a stolen bicycle to tornado damage — will result in your monthly premium being raised by 9%, according to a report released by InsuranceQuotes.com. File a second claim and premiums climb by an average of 20%.

“Winning a small claim could actually cost you money in the long run,” said Laura Adams, InsuranceQuotes.com’s senior analyst. “Homeowners need to be really careful. Even a denied claim can cause your premium to go up.”

Related: Which natural disaster will likely destroy your home?

And the size of the claim has little impact. Filing a small claim increases your rates by just about as much as filing a catastrophic one. “The insurers have found that people who make a claim are more likely to make another,” said Adams. “You’ve become a riskier customer.”

Yet, the type of claim does matter. Liability claims, such as from personal injuries, are the most expensive type of claim, with insurers raising premiums by an average of 14%, InsuranceQuotes.com found.

Other claims that lead to big premium increases are theft and vandalism, which often indicate that the home is in a neighborhood that is unstable or falling prey to blight. In bad neighborhoods, these crimes can recur, and the high premiums reflect that.

The premium increases also vary greatly by state. Homeowners in Wyoming saw the biggest increase in their premiums — an average of 32% — after a claim was filed. While the hikes are high, the state tends to charge fairly low premiums of about $770 a year, considerably lower than the $978 national average.

Policyholders in Connecticut, Arizona, New Mexico and California also saw large hikes of 18% or more.

Meanwhile, homeowners in Texas, where insurers are not allowed to raise premiums on the basis of a single claim, saw no increase. And homeowners in New York and Massachusetts paid very little more after filing claims.

Average premiums range from a low of $513 a year in Idaho to $1,933 in Florida, where frequent hurricanes drive insurance costs up.

Once your premiums are raised, it can be difficult to get them reduced.

Insurers keep a database called the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange, or CLUE, which tracks seven years’ worth of your auto and property insurance claims, as well as any inquiries you may have made about a claim. The database then compiles a report based on your claims history that is then used to determine whether to cover you and how much to charge.

The information is available to all insurers so even if you switch providers, your rate with the new carrier may be just as high.

Related: Damaged home? How to get an insurer to pay up

“You can’t escape your claim history,” said Adams.

But you are not completely without hope. Here are some ways to try and keep your homeowner’s insurance costs down:

Raise your deductible. But not so high that you can’t afford to pay out-of-pocket costs if damage occurs.

Don’t make small claims. Getting a few hundred dollars back if a tree limb falls on your shed may feel good but you could be paying that back to your insurer over the next few years — and then some.

Don’t use homeowners insurance as a maintenance tool. Don’t file a claim to pay for small repairs, such as when wind blows some old shingles off your roof. Use it for catastrophic repairs only.

Shop around often. Look for quotes once a year. There’s lots of competition in the industry and you may be able to buy equal coverage and service for a lower price.

CNNMoney (New York) First published October 19, 2014: 10:12 AM ET

Should young people in the United Kingdom be given £10,000 ($13,500) when they turn 25? A top think tank says yes.

The proposal from the Resolution Foundation is one of a number of suggestions for reducing inequality between the young and old.

British Millennials and their peers in other developed countries have fallen behind older generations when it comes to wealth, income and home ownership, a trend that politicians have been slow to address in the wake of the global financial crisis.

“We need not just some tinkering, but some big and dramatic solutions,” said Matt Whittaker, deputy director at the Resolution Foundation.

The £10,000 payment would come with strings attached: Young people would only be allowed to spend it on developing new skills, entrepreneurship, housing or pensions. The payments would cost an estimated £7 billion ($9.5 billion) per year and would be financed by an overhaul of the inheritance tax system.

The researchers suggested dozens of other changes to improve UK housing, education, health care and the employment market in a bid to give young people a boost. They would control rent levels, improve apprenticeship programs and dramatically lower taxes on home purchases.

“We built it as a package. The idea is that doing one of these without the other would be good, but not as good,” said Whittaker.

Brits born during the 1980s and 1990s have faced tough economic challenges since the Great Recession, including an unusual slowdown in wage growth and higher housing costs.

Resolution Foundation research shows that Brits have typically earned more than generations that came before. But the trend stopped with Millennials, who are earning less than Generation X — those born between 1966 and 1980.

“This stalling of generational pay progress is unprecedented,” the researchers said.

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, which caused inflation to spike, won’t help matters. The Resolution Foundation said that when inflation is taken into account, it will take nearly two decades for pay to return to its peak from before the recession.

Related: Kate and William can afford 3 kids. Many Brits cannot

But would the changes, including the extra £10,000, be enough?

Kay Neufeld, an economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, said the payment would be “a massive leg up.”

“I think it would change a lot for a lot of people,” he said, adding that it could make home ownership feel within reach, or encourage someone to go to university.

A spokesperson for the government said it welcomed the report from the Resolution Foundation, and described the gap between generations as “one of the key challenges of our time.” The spokesperson declined to say whether proposals in the report would be considered.

Tom Selby, an analyst at stockbroker AJ Bell, said that politicians wouldn’t be attracted to the suggestions because they might hurt seniors.

“Many of the ideas aren’t new and face the same barrier as other reforms — namely the reality of politics,” he said.

Still, the policy suggestions would not address other structural problems in the UK economy, including slow productivity.

“If we could fix the productivity problem then it would make a lot of the problems that we highlight easier to deal with,” said Whittaker.

Yael Selfin, chief economist at KPMG, said the ultimate goal should be a more productive economy.

“The future lies in stronger growth and making sure that young workers are equipped to be more productive, and hopefully earnings will rise,” she said.

CNNMoney (London) First published May 8, 2018: 10:17 AM ET

While many Americans are falling short on savings, millennials are most at risk of being unable to afford essential retirement expenses — such as food, shelter and medical care, according to a Fidelity Investments survey released Wednesday.

Fidelity found that about 55% of people surveyed are at risk of being unable to cover these expenses.

Typical baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) are on track to reach 81% of their retirement income needs, according to the survey. Generation X-ers (born 1965 to 1977) are expected to reach only 71%, and Generation Y or millennials (born 1978-1988) have the largest projected income gap at 62%.

The retirement provider asked over 2,000 Americans a range of questions, from their health to retirement saving habits. It analyzed a variety of factors, including current income, savings rates, home equity and projected Social Security and pension benefits to predict how much money people will need in retirement and whether they are on track to meet that goal.

Related: How to be a 401(k) millionaire

Across generations, many people simply aren’t saving enough, Fidelity found, with 40% of those surveyed saving less than 6% of their salaries — far below the 10 to 15% recommended by financial planners. For millennials, that percentage jumps to 51%.

Also driving the disparity: Boomers are more likely to have some sort of pension benefit and plan to work longer, according to John Sweeney, Fidelity’s executive vice president of retirement and investing strategies.

Boomers had a median desired retirement age of 66, whereas millennials wanted to retire two years earlier than that. Yet today’s young people could live well into their 90s and will have to wait until they are 67 in order to claim full Social Security benefits.

“Some of the older folks had more realistic expectations,” he said.

Many young people are also playing it too safe with investments, he said. Of millennials surveyed, 50% said they had less than half of their investments in stocks. In contrast, common rules of thumb recommend that 30-year-olds should have up to 90% of their portfolio in stocks since they have decades of savings ahead of them.

Related: Will you have enough to retire?

It’s not all bad news though. Sweeney noted that while they have the farthest to go, millennials also have the most time to catch up. Here are some key ways savers of all ages can boost their savings;

Up your savings rate: For young people especially, the most effective move is to sock away more money each month, since money saved when young enjoys decades of compound returns.

Review your asset mix: While you can’t control the markets, you can make sure your investment strategy is age appropriate. Fixing a portfolio that is either too risky or too conservative could significantly help retirement readiness, Fidelity found.

Related: More retirement tips

Retire later: Working longer gives you more time to save, boosts your Social Security benefits and lets you use your retirement savings over a shorter time period.

More than 2,200 households earning at least $20,000 annually took part in the online survey, which used a nationally-representative panel of respondents.

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 4, 2013: 12:29 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

How can I get the benefit of real estate investments without becoming a landlord?

Real estate remains a strong investment, even with prices slowing.

But owning property can be a hassle. A huge amount of capital gets tied up in a handful of properties. And you have to deal with the logistics of holding and managing that home, office or condo.

Investing in real estate is a great way to diversify a portfolio says Jeff Rose, a certified financial planner based in Nashville.

“But you’ll only want to have 5% of your portfolio in real estate,” he says. “Up to 10%, that would be on the higher side.”

Investing in real estate equity through ETFs, mutual funds or real estate investment funds provides exposure to the upside of real estate appreciation.

But that kind of volatility isn’t a good fit for everyone. Another option is investing in real estate risk, which comes with more fixed returns.

Real estate investment trusts, or REITs, are a common way to diversify into real estate equity. REITs are publicly-traded companies that own income-producing properties — office buildings, hotels, apartment complexes, shopping malls — that give people the chance to invest in the real estate portfolios.

REITs are a way to hold a variety of real estate properties as easily as buying a stock, and provide dividend-based income. But they come with a higher level of risk than say, an index fund.

“Any time you’re looking at a publicly traded REIT, which is basically a stock, there is more risk,” says Rose. “They focus on one area. It may be one type of real estate or it could be one geographic area, and if that sector or area takes a hit, you feel it.”

Rose suggests taking advantage of the upside of REITs by investing in them through ETFs or mutual funds to further diversify your exposure.

“The simplest way to invest in real estate is through a mutual fund or an ETF,” says Rose.

A real estate ETF, like Vanguard’s VNQ, offers investors publicly traded equity REITS and other real estate investments. Similarly, iShares’ IYR offers domestic real estate stocks and REITs.

Mutual funds are another way to diversify a long term investment strategy with real estate. The T. Rowe Price Real Estate Fund (TRREX), with $5.3 billion in assets, is a giant among actively managed real estate mutual funds.

Newer online platforms, like Fundrise, Rich Uncles or Realty Mogul allow investors to get into diversified real estate portfolios for a lot less than the large funds.

Rich Uncles allows you to invest in its own REITs for as little as $500, or its new student housing REIT, for example, with a $5 minimum investment. At Fundrise, another platform with its own REITs, the minimum investment is $500.

Realty Mogul offers access to private investment deals or you can invest in its REITs, which have a minimum investment of $1,000.

While these can provide solid investment returns and dividends, they’re illiquid and investors should not expect to sell quickly. But online platforms can provide greater visibility into what you’re purchasing.

“I enjoy investing in the online platforms because I can see the properties that I am investing in,” says Rose. “Typically if you’re buying an ETF or mutual fund or REIT it can be harder to see what you’re buying.”

And no matter how you’re investing, he says, “you have to know what kind of real estate you’re investing in.”

Another way to earn steady passive income through real estate is to invest in someone’s mortgage. Using a platform called PeerStreet, investors can back high-interest loans that offer regular fixed-income payouts.

“A lot of people want exposure to real estate without that equity-style risk,” says Brett Crosby, co-founder and chief operating officer of PeerStreet. “We made it accessible and some people are much more comfortable with this level of risk.”

Here’s how it works: PeerStreet buys first-lien mortgages from a network of private lenders. Investors can search the site for investments and select investments based on criteria like term, yield and the loan-to-value ratio of the home. The options are updated daily.

Alternatively you can choose automated investing by pre-selecting details that place you in investments matching your criteria. Investments carry returns ranging from 6% to 9% and the typical deal on the site is between 6 to 36 months.

Other platforms for investing in real estate debt, like AlphaFlow, offer a portfolio of real estate loans rather than investments in individual loans.

While investments backed by mortgages are nothing new, it was previously very difficult for individuals to invest. “If it does go bad, you need a team in place, if you have to foreclose,” says Crosby. “We handle all that. We have taken an active investment and made it passive.”

While the company is working to expand its offerings to all investors, Securities and Exchange Commission regulations currently limit investments with PeerStreet to accredited investors. For an individual to qualify as an accredited investor you need to earn an annual income over $200,000 ($300,000 annually with a spouse) for the past two years, with a reasonable expectation of the same level of income going forward. Also, an individual with a net worth exceeding $1 million, excluding the value of a primary residence, qualifies.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 13, 2018: 1:37 PM ET

When you’re struggling just to pay the bills each month, retirement may seem like an impossible dream. If you’re not saving much (or at all) for retirement, you’re not alone: Roughly one-third of Americans have nothing at all saved for retirement, according to a 2016 study from GOBankingRates, and another 23% have less than $10,000 in their retirement funds.

It’s easy to tell yourself that you’ll put off saving until you start making more money. But that’s an easy trap to fall into, and before you know it, you could be just a few years away from retirement with little to no savings.

Even if you’re barely making enough to cover your expenses, it’s better to start saving for retirement earlier rather than later. That may seem like a tough task, but the earlier you start saving, the easier it will be. Just a few dollars a week can amount to thousands over time thanks to the power of compound interest, so you don’t need to save a lot to see a significant impact.

The best time to start saving is when you still have a few decades before you plan to retire, as that gives your money more time to accumulate interest. And the earlier you start, the less you’ll need to contribute each month to see major gains down the road.

For example, say you can contribute $60 per month toward retirement — just $15 a week — and you’re earning a 7% annual rate of return on your investments. After 35 years, that $60 per month will have turned into $100,000.

On the other hand, if you put off saving for a few years, it will be harder to catch up. If you want to save $100,000 but only have 10 years before you plan to retire, for instance, you’ll need to contribute a staggering $600 per month, assuming the same 7% return on investment.

Retirement planning isn’t an all-or-nothing game, so rather than putting off saving entirely until you’re earning more money, it’s wiser to save whatever you can now (no matter how little that is), then increase your contributions when you start earning more.

Say, for example, that you can only contribute $25 per month to your retirement fund now, but five years from now, you get a raise and can start contributing $50 per month. Another five years down the road, you can save $75, and you maintain that rate for 25 years more. Assuming you’re earning a 7% annual rate of return on those contributions, you’ll have a total of about $88,800. Meanwhile, if you had never increased your $25 monthly contribution throughout those 35 years, you’d have just $41,500 in the end.

Understanding the importance of saving what you can is one thing, but actually finding cash to invest is another. While you can always cut back in some areas — perhaps by skipping the morning latte or cooking at home rather than dining out — there are other, highly effective ways to make the most of your money.

For example, if your employer offers matching 401(k) contributions, take full advantage of them, because they can potentially double your savings. Say, for instance, your employer will match 100% of your contributions up to 3% of your salary, and you’re earning $50,000 per year. That means your company will match contributions of up to $1,500 per year, or $125 per month. If you contribute that amount to your 401(k), you’ll bring your total monthly savings to $250. Earn 7% return on your investments — which will likely require you to invest primarily or entirely in stocks and/or stock-focused mutual funds — and you’ll have over $280,000 in 30 years.

Even if you don’t contribute enough to earn the full employer match, it’s best to invest whatever you can; otherwise you’re leaving free money on the table.

If you don’t have access to a 401(k), then your next best option is an individual retirement account, or IRA. These tax-advantaged retirement accounts come with the same major tax benefits as 401(k)s, though they won’t come with an employer match. IRAs also have lower contribution limits of $5,500 per year (or $6,500 if you’re aged 50 or older). However, if you save diligently and invest aggressively, that’s plenty to achieve a six-figure retirement fund over the course of a couple of decades.

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

Saving for retirement is hard enough as it is, but it’s even more challenging when you’re strapped for cash. Fortunately, you don’t need a ton of money to be able to pad your retirement fund — you just need to be strategic about saving.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 31, 2018: 10:01 AM ET

The tax overhaul bills passed by the Senate and House would likely to change your tax return in ways large and small — which credits you can take, what you can deduct, how much you pay.

But they differ on key points. You’ll be hearing a lot about those differences in the days ahead. The Senate and House must reconcile the two bills into one, which would then go before each chamber for a final vote.

Here’s a look at some of the notable ways they diverge in how they treat individual tax filers.

Senate: Most expire in 2025.

House: Most are permanent.

Senate: Eliminates it by reducing the penalty to $0.

House: Preserves it.

Senate: Keeps seven tax brackets but changes, and — in most instances — lowers the rates. The new rates would be: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, 38.5%.

House: Calls for four brackets: 12%, 25%, 35% and 39.6%.

Senate: Raises it to $12,000 from $6,350 for single filers; to $18,000 from $9,350 for heads of household; to $24,000 from $12,700 for joint filers.

House: Raises it to $12,200 for single filers; to $18,300 for heads of household; to $24,400 for joint filers.

Senate: Increases it to $2,000 from $1,000, but the additional $1,000 would not be refundable — meaning many low- and middle-income tax filers likely wouldn’t receive the increased portion of the credit.

Allows it for children under 18, up from 17 today, but only until 2025.

Makes the full credit available to higher income families.

House: Increases it to $1,600 from $1,000, but the additional $600 would not be refundable.

Makes it available to higher income families.

Senate: Creates a temporary $500 credit for dependents who aren’t children.

House: Creates temporary $300 personal credit for parents and their non-child dependents.

Senate: Keeps it as is.

House: Lowers the amount of mortgage debt on which interest may be deducted to $500,000 from $1 million.

Senate: Keeps it in place and temporarily lowers the adjusted gross income threshold that must be met to qualify for it. Today you may deduct medical expenses that exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income — that would be lowered to 7.5%.

House: Eliminates it.

Senate: Doubles it to $500 from $250.

House: Eliminates it.

Senate: Keeps it in place.

House: Eliminates it.

Senate: Keeps it in place.

House: Eliminates it.

Senate: Keeps it but raises amount of money exempt from it through 2025. Then income exemption levels revert to present law.

House: Repeals it.

Senate: Shields more people from it by doubling the exemption levels to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples.

House: Doubles the exemption levels for six years then repeals the estate tax in 2024.

CNNMoney (New York) First published December 3, 2017: 3:48 PM ET

In an effort to make owning a home more affordable, the Federal Housing Administration will dramatically cut the costs associated with the mortgages it backs.

Premiums for FHA mortgage insurance, which is designed to protect the agency in case a borrower defaults on a loan, will be cut from 1.35% of a loan’s value to about 0.85%, the White House said in a statement Thursday.

Related: Return of the first time home buyer

As a result, a typical first-time homebuyer will save $900 a year on their mortgage payments. Existing homeowners who refinance into an FHA loan will see similar savings.

“Too many creditworthy families who can afford — and want to purchase — a home are shut out of homeownership opportunities due to today’s tight lending market,” the White House said.

The White House estimates that the lower premiums will enable up to 250,000 new buyers to purchase a home.

Related: Five biggest threats to the housing recovery

In the wake of the financial meltdown and ensuing foreclosure crisis, FHA raised its mortgage insurance premiums to shore up its finances. But now home values are on the rise, the jobs picture is improving and foreclosures have fallen to their lowest level since 2006.

Last March, the FHA announced it would not need another bailout due to improving financial conditions. The White House said that even after lowering premiums, reserves in the fund are projected to grow by $7 billion to $10 billion annually.

Related: Fannie, Freddie to offer 3% down payment mortgages

FHA loans have been an important lifeline for low-income and higher risk borrowers in the wake of the financial crisis. As private lenders tightened their lending standards, FHA-backed loans became the only mortgages available to many of those buyers, given their tiny down-payment requirements and easier credit-score hurdles.

CNNMoney (New York) First published January 7, 2015: 3:39 PM ET

There should be a lot more job openings for the college class of 2018, but starting salaries won’t be much higher than last year.

Graduates with a bachelor’s degree can expect to earn an average of $50,390 annually in their first jobs, according to a new survey by consulting firm Korn Ferry, little changed from the previous year.

“With the 2018 US inflation rate hovering just over 2%, real wages for this year’s grads are virtually flat,” said Maryam Morse, Korn Ferry Senior Client Partner.

But it should be easier to find a job than in previous years. The unemployment rate recently dropped below 4% for the first time since 2000.

Related: 4 steps to paying off student loans

Pay will vary by industry. Those in science, technology, engineering and math-related fields earn significantly more than average.

For example, the survey found that average pay for entry-level software developers is $67,236, while customer service reps start at just $35,360. It analyzed salaries across 310,000 entry-level positions from about 1,000 organizations across the country.

Related: What employers look for in new college grads

Another big variable is where you live. Here are the average starting salaries in 10 major US cities.

San Francisco $63,995
New York $60,972
Boston $59,460
Los Angeles $56,386
Chicago $55,177
Philadelphia $54,169
Minneapolis $53,766
Denver $53,010
Dallas $50,743
Atlanta $49,584

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 14, 2018: 2:51 PM ET