Remarks by Chairman Ben S. BernankeAt the Fifteenth Congressional District of Texas’ Fifth Regional Issues Conference, Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.,June 13, 2006 Increasing Economic Opportunity: Challenges and Strategies I am pleased to be here to discuss some strategies for helping families, particularly lower-income families, improve their economic and financial well-being. Families today face a financial marketplace that is increasingly complex, with numerous products and service providers from which to choose. Today I will touch on several approaches for helping people of modest means take advantage of these financial opportunities while managing the risks and avoiding possible pitfalls. Today’s Financial Marketplace Technological advances have dramatically transformed the provision of financial products and services in recent years. To cite just one example, the expanded use of computerized credit-scoring models, by reducing the costs of making loans and by increasing the range of assets that lenders can sell on the secondary market, has made possible the extension of credit to a larger group of borrowers. Indeed, we have seen an increasingly wide array of products being offered to consumers across a range of incomes, leading to what has been called the democratization of credit. Likewise, technological innovation has enhanced financial services, such as banking services, and increased the variety of financial products available to savers.The range of providers in consumer financial markets has also increased, with the number of nonbank entities offering credit and other financial services having risen particularly quickly. For example, a recent study of alternative providers of financial services found the number of nonbank check-cashing establishments doubled in the United States between 1996 and 2001.1 Payday lending outlets, a source of credit that was almost non-existent a decade ago, now number more than 10,000. And data from the Survey of Consumers Finances, a triennial survey sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board, indicate that the share of households with a loan from a finance company increased from 13 percent in 1992 to 25 percent in 2004. Financial Challenges of Lower-Income FamiliesDespite the increased complexity of financial products and the wider availability of credit in many forms, U.S. households overall have been managing their personal finances well. On average, debt burdens appear to be at manageable levels, and delinquency rates on consumer loans and home mortgages have been low. Measured relative to disposable income, household net worth is at a fairly high level, although still below the peak reached earlier this decade. Families with low to moderate incomes, however, face special financial challenges. These families generally have less of a cushion to absorb unanticipated expenses or to deal with adverse circumstances, such as the loss of employment or a serious health problem. Results from the Survey of Consumer Finances show that the median net worth for households in the lowest income quintile--those whose income placed them in the bottom fifth of the population--was only $7,500 in 2004, well below the median for all survey respondents of $93,000.2 The Survey data also indicate that households in the lowest quintile were significantly less likely than the average respondent to maintain a checking or savings account; almost 25 percent of those families were "unbanked," compared to less than 10 percent of families in the other income quintiles. The reasons given for not having an account varied: Some respondents said they would not write enough checks to make having an account worthwhile, but others were dissuaded by minimum balance requirements or said that they did not have enough money to justify opening an account. In some cases, a lack of knowledge about the services that banks offer or even a distrust of banks is likely a factor. The Survey also found that lower-income households are less able than others to manage their debts. A greater fraction of these households had debt-to-income ratios of 40 percent or more or had a payment past due at least sixty days. The data also reveal that only 40 percent of families in the lowest quintile own a home, compared with a homeownership rate of 69 percent among all families surveyed. Finally, the data on retirement account ownership show an even larger gap, with only 10 percent of lowest-quintile families holding a retirement account, whereas 50 percent of all families responding to the survey reported participation in some type of retirement savings plan. How can these disparities be addressed? Some general approaches to helping families of modest means build assets and improve their economic well-being include community economic development, financial education, and programs that encourage saving and investment. In the remainder of my remarks, I will discuss each of these approaches briefly and offer some insights into their effectiveness based on research and experience.Community Economic Development In my time with the Federal Reserve, I have had a number of opportunities to meet with community economic development leaders--representatives of groups working to assist lower-income families become homeowners, start small businesses, better manage their finances, and save for the future. In fact, my first trip as a Federal Reserve Board member was to Brownsville, Texas, where I saw how a grassroots nonprofit organization is helping to build communities and to provide residents with the chance to build wealth through homeownership. The Community Development Corporation (CDC) of Brownsville works with multiple funding partners--governments at all levels, financial institutions, foundations, and corporations--to construct housing and to design innovative loan products that enable low-income families to qualify for mortgage credit. For example, because of the mix of funding sources, mortgage loans can be offered with features such as down‑payment assistance or a below-market interest rate. The CDC of Brownsville also offers a program that allows prospective homeowners to acquire "sweat equity" in a property by working on construction teams to help build their own new home and those of other participating families. As in the case of many community development organizations, the Brownsville CDC has also made financial education a critical element of its efforts to help lower-income residents improve their financial status. For example, participation in financial counseling or in an education program is typically required for a borrower to obtain a loan through the CDC or through one of its lending partners. However, the broader aim of these programs is to improve borrowers’ prospects for longer-term success in maintaining their credit and handling their overall finances. Since 1994, through this combination of leveraged financing arrangements and borrower education, the CDC of Brownsville has helped make homeownership possible for more than 2,500 low-income families. I cite the Brownsville example because of the opportunity that I had to learn about their work (and I recently had a similar opportunity to see some impressive community development efforts in the Anacostia neighborhood of the District of Columbia). But this localized approach to community development and wealth-building is playing out in neighborhoods throughout the country, in most cases through strategies tailored to the distinct needs of the particular community.Financial Education and Financial LiteracyFinancial education has not only been integral to community development but has also begun to play a larger role in the broader consumer market. Clearly, to choose wisely from the wide variety of financial products and providers available, consumers must have at least basic financial knowledge. People who understand the financial aspects of purchasing a home or starting a business, or who appreciate the importance of saving for children’s education or retirement, will almost certainly be economically better off than those without that vital information. Financial literacy can be acquired through many channels: in school, on the job, through community programs and counseling, or through self-education and experience.Studies generally find that people receiving financial education or counseling have better financial outcomes. For example, research that analyzed data on nearly 40,000 mortgage loans targeted to lower-income borrowers found that families that received individual financial counseling were less likely later to become delinquent on their mortgage payments.3 Similarly, another study found that borrowers who sought and received assistance from a credit counseling agency improved their credit management, in particular, by reducing the number of credit accounts on which they carried positive balances, cutting overall debt, and reducing delinquency rates.4 More broadly, the research shows that financial knowledge is correlated with good financial outcomes; for example, individuals familiar with basic financial concepts and products have been found to be more likely to balance their checkbook every month, budget for savings, and hold investment accounts.5 Studies that establish an association between financial knowledge and good financial outcomes are encouraging, but they do not necessarily prove that financial training and counseling are the causes of the better outcomes. It could be, for example, that counseling is associated with better financial outcomes because the consumers who choose to seek counseling are the ones who are already better informed or more motivated to make good financial decisions. In medicine and other fields, researchers gain a better understanding of what causes what by doing controlled studies, in which some subjects are randomly assigned a particular treatment while others do not receive it. To translate this idea to the analysis of the effects of financial counseling, the Federal Reserve Board’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs is collaborating with the Department of Defense to conduct a three-year study of the effects of financial education. This study will evaluate the impact of various educational programs on the financial decisions of soldiers and their families. It includes a treatment group of those receiving financial education, with the programs each family receives and when they receive it being determined randomly, and a control group of similar soldiers and their families who have not received this formal financial education. Because assignments of individuals to programs will be random, any observed changes in behavior can be more reliably attributed to the type and amount of counseling received. Among other things, the results of this study should help us better understand whether financial education leads to changes in behavior for participants in general or only for those at critical teaching moments, such as the period before making a major financial decision such as choosing a mortgage.I would like to say just a few words about the Federal Reserve’s broader role in promoting consumers’ understanding of financial products and services. Beyond conducting surveys of consumers and doing research, we work in a number of ways to support consumers in their financial decisionmaking. For example, through our consumer protection rule-writing authority, the Federal Reserve sets requirements that specify the information that must be disclosed to consumers about the terms and fees associated with credit and deposit accounts. These disclosures provide consumers with the essential information they need to assess the costs and benefits of financial services and compare products among different providers. We are currently reviewing many of our disclosures and plan to use focus groups and other methods to try to make these disclosures as clear and as user-friendly as possible. The Federal Reserve System also works to promote financial education and financial literacy through various outreach and educational activities. We provide a great deal of substantive financial information, including interactive tools for economic education, on our education website www.federalreserveeducation.org. The website links to a wide variety of financial education resources at the local, regional, and national levels.Additionally, the Federal Reserved Board collaborates with educational and community development organizations to support their efforts. Our national partners include the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, the Conference of Mayors’ DollarWi$e Campaign, Operation HOPE, the American Savings Education Council, and America Saves, among others. At the regional level, the twelve Federal Reserve Banks work with organizations to support financial education and financial literacy. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland has worked with community financial educators to form regional networks that combine resources and share best practices. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago sponsors "MoneySmart Week," partnering with banks, businesses, government agencies, schools, community organizations, and libraries to host activities designed to help consumers learn how to manage money. The Federal Reserve Banks of San Francisco and Minneapolis have worked with leaders in the Native American community to develop financial education materials. My recent testimony to Congress on financial literacy provided information on many other projects and programs. 6 The Federal Reserve will continue to make financial education a priority.Strategies to Encourage SavingEven if people know that they would be better off if they saved more or budgeted more wisely, we all know from personal experience that translating good intentions into action can be difficult. (Think about how hard it is to keep New Year’s resolutions.) The field of behavioral economics, which studies economic and financial decisions from a psychological perspective, has cast new light on consumer behavior and led to recommendations about how to improve people’s financial management. For example, studies of individual choices in 401(k) savings plans strongly suggest that workers do not pay adequate attention to their saving and investment decisions. Notably, despite the tax advantages of 401(k) contributions and, in some cases, a generous employer match, one-quarter of workers eligible for 401(k) plans do not participate. Studies have found, however, that if firms change the presentation of the plan from an "opt-in" choice to an "opt-out" choice, in which workers are automatically enrolled unless they actively choose to remain out of the plan, participation rates increase substantially.7 The impact of changing from "opt-in" to "opt-out" is particularly evident for younger and lower-income workers, who may have less financial expertise.In addition, participants in savings plans evidently do not understand the various investment options that are offered. A survey by the investment management firm, The Vanguard Group, found that many plan participants cannot assess the risk inherent in different types of financial assets; for example, many did not appreciate that a diversified equity mutual fund is generally less risky than keeping most of one’s wealth in the form of the employer’s stock.8 Indeed, employees appear to invest heavily in their company’s stock despite the fact that their income is already tied to the fortunes of their employer. More than one-quarter of 401(k) balances are held in company stock, and this high share arises not only from an employer match but from voluntary purchases as well.9These insights into consumer behavior have prompted some changes in the design of retirement plans and in education programs focused on saving for retirement. More employers now feature automatic enrollment in their 401(k) plans in an effort to boost participation. Also, some have set the default investment option to a diversified portfolio that is rebalanced automatically as the worker ages or have set contribution rates to rise automatically over time in line with salary increases.However, although these changes in program design may boost saving and improve investment choices, they are not a substitute for continued financial education. Employers, including the Federal Reserve Board, offer financial education at the workplace to help their workers gain a better understanding of retirement savings options. Helping people appreciate the importance of saving and giving them the tools they need to translate that knowledge into action remain major challenges.ConclusionLet me close by observing that many factors influence consumer financial behavior. Financial education is clearly central to helping consumers make better decisions for themselves and their families, but policymakers, regulators, nonprofit organizations, and financial service providers must all help ensure that consumers have the tools and the information they need to make better decisions. Success can only come through collaborative efforts. I see much interest today in increased collaboration toward these objectives, both in Washington and around the country.Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I encourage you to continue working together to help provide increased economic opportunity in your communities, and I wish you the best of luck in your efforts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Footnotes1. Kenneth Temkin and Noah Sawyer (2004), "Analysis of Alternative Financial Service Providers (781 KB PDF)," report prepared for the Fannie Mae Foundation by the Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center. 2. Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B. Kennickell, and Kevin B. Moore (2006), "Recent Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances (448 KB PDF)," Federal Reserve Bulletin. 3. Abdighani Hirad and Peter M. Zorn (2001), "A Little Knowledge Is a Good Thing: Empirical Evidence of the Effectiveness of Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling (466 KB PDF)," paper presented at "Seeds of Growth - Sustainable CommunityDevelopment: What Works, What Doesn’t and Why?" 4. Gregory Elliehausen, E. Christopher Lundquist, and Michael E. Staten (2003), "The Impact of Credit Counseling on Subsequent Borrower Credit Usage and Payment Behavior (305 KB PDF" (January), paper presented at "Seeds of Growth - Sustainable Community Development: What Works, What Doesn’t and Why?" 5. Jeanne M. Hogarth and Marianne A. Hilgert (2003), "Patterns of Financial Behaviors: Implications for Community Educators and Policymakers (1.7 MB PDF)," paper presented at "Seeds of Growth - Sustainable Community Development: What Works, What Doesn’t and Why?" 6. Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Financial Literacy, Testimony Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 23, 2006. 7. Brigitte Madrian and Dennis Shea (2001), "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 116 (November), pp. 1149-87. 8. The Vanguard Group (2002), "Expecting Lower Market Returns in the Near Term," Vanguard Participant Monitor. 9. Jeffrey R. Brown, Nellie Liang, and Scott Weisbenner (2006), "401(k) Matching Contributions in Company Stock: Costs and Benefits for Firms and Workers," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 90 (August), pp. 1315-46.
[관련키워드]
[뉴스핌 베스트 기사]
사진
이정후, 9호 홈런 등 3할 타율 복귀
[서울=뉴스핌] 박상욱 기자 = 샌프란시스코 자이언츠 이정후가 홈런 포함 멀티 히트를 기록하며 타율 3할대에 복귀했다.
이정후는 11일(한국시간) 미국 캘리포니아주 샌프란시스코 오라클 파크에서 열린 2026 메이저리그 휴스턴 애스트로스와의 홈경기에 1번 타자 우익수로 선발 출전해 5타수 2안타(1홈런) 1타점 1득점으로 활약했다. 시즌 타율은 0.300으로 올라섰다.
이정후는 1회말 유격수 뜬공, 3회말 유격수 병살타로 물러나며 출발이 안 좋았다. 수비에서도 1회말 알바레스의 타구를 놓치는 아쉬운 모습을 보였다. 하지만 방망이로 곧바로 빚을 갚았다. 팀이 1-1로 맞선 5회말 2사 주자 없는 상황에서 상대 선발 헤이든 웨스네스키의 2구째 92.5마일(약 148.8km) 포심 패스트볼을 통타해 우측 담장을 넘어가는 솔로 아치를 그렸다.
[서울=뉴스핌] 박상욱 기자 = 이정후. [사진=샌프란시스코 SNS] 2026.08.11 psoq1337@newspim.com
시즌 9호포로 빅리그 데뷔 후 개인 한 시즌 최다 홈런을 경신했다. 장외로 날아간 대형 홈런이었으나 오라클 파크 특유의 '스플래시 히트'에는 미치지 못했다. 타구가 맥코비만 바닷물에 직접 빠지지 않고 난간을 맞았다.
이정후는 8회말에도 바뀐 좌완 스티븐 오커트의 슬라이더를 밀어쳐 좌전 안타를 만들며 멀티히트를 완성했다. 이후 2루 태그업까지 성공했으나 후속타 불발로 득점에는 실패했다. 연장 10회말 마지막 타석에서는 유격수 땅볼로 돌아섰다.
이정후의 활약에도 샌프란시스코는 웃지 못했다. 3-2로 앞서던 9회초 마무리 딜런 스미스가 동점을 허용했다. 이어진 10회초 승부치기에서 제이슨 폴리가 폭투와 피안타로 무너지며 3실점했다. 결국 샌프란시스코는 3-6으로 역전패하며 3연패에 빠졌다.
[서울=뉴스핌] 박상욱 기자 = 송성문. [사진=로이터] 2026.08.11 psoq1337@newspim.com
샌디에이고 파드리스의 송성문은 밀워키 브루어스전에 9번 타자 유격수로 선발 출전했으나 2타수 무안타 1희생번트에 그쳤다. 3회말 무사 2루에서 희생번트를 성공시켰지만 후속타가 터지지 않았다. 송성문의 시즌 타율은 0.209로 떨어졌다. 샌디에이고는 7회말 터진 잭슨 메릴의 역전 2점 홈런에 힘입어 3-2로 승리, 3연승을 달렸다. 밀워키 배지환은 결장했다.
psoq1337@newspim.com
2026-08-11 13:43
사진
부부 '공동명의 절세'도 옛말?
[서울=뉴스핌] 정영희 기자 = 부부 공동명의 1주택자의 종합부동산세 셈법이 세제개편을 계기로 한층 복잡해지고 있다. 그동안 절세 수단으로 활용돼 온 공동명의가 제도 변화에 따라 오히려 불리하게 작용할 수 있다는 분석이 나오면서, 주택 보유 형태에 따른 세 부담을 다시 따져봐야 한다는 목소리가 커지고 있다.
[AI 그래픽 생성=정영희 기자]
◆ 명의 따라 달라지는 종부세…입법예고에 반발
11일 부동산 업계에 따르면 세제개편안으로 공동명의 1주택자의 종부세 계산법이 달라지면서 명의 형태와 실제 거주 여부에 따른 세 부담 격차를 둘러싼 논란이 커지고 있다.
같은 한 채를 보유하더라도 단독명의인지 공동명의인지, 공동명의 특례를 선택하는지에 따라 공제액과 세액이 달라져서다. 기존에 절세를 위해 선택했던 명의 구조가 세법 변화에 따라 불리해질 수 있다는 우려도 나온다.
이번 세제개편안은 주택 수 중심이던 종부세 체계를 주택가격과 실제 거주 여부 중심으로 바꾸는 데 초점을 맞췄다. 실거주 1세대 1주택자의 기본공제는 현행 12억원에서 14억원으로 높이는 반면 비거주 1주택자는 9억원을 적용한다. 1주택자의 공정시장가액비율은 70%가 적용된다.
부부 공동명의 1주택자는 지분별로 각각 종부세를 내는 방식과 부부 중 한 명을 1세대 1주택자로 간주하는 공동명의 1주택 특례 가운데 유리한 방법을 선택할 수 있다. 특례를 택하면 단독명의 1주택자와 마찬가지로 실거주 여부에 따라 14억원 또는 9억원의 기본공제를 적용받는다. 반대의 경우 부부가 각자 보유 지분에 대해 별도의 납세자가 돼 종부세를 계산한다.
결국 실제로는 같은 집 한 채를 보유하고 있어도 명의와 특례 선택에 따라 적용되는 공제 구조에 차이가 있다. 비거주 1주택자의 기본공제가 9억원으로 낮아지면서 공동명의 일반과세가 더 유리해지는 사례가 나타날 수 있다. 공동명의자가 1세대 1주택자와 다른 과세체계에 놓이면 오히려 불리해질 가능성이 제기된다.
납세자들의 불만은 실제 보유주택 수보다 명의의 형식에 따라 과세 결과가 달라질 수 있다는 데 집중돼 있다. 이날 오후 2시 기준 법제처 국민참여입법센터 내 종부세법 개정안 입법예고에 총 3207건의 의견이 접수됐다. 이 가운데 공동명의와 관련한 의견은 29건으로 전체의 약 0.9%다.
의견 제출자 A씨는 "부부 공동명의는 공정시장가액비율 80%, 단독명의는 70%를 적용하는데 공동명의를 하지 말라는 것인지 의도를 모르겠다"며 "그냥 세금을 더 걷겠다는 것으로 들린다"고 지적했다.
또 다른 제출자는 B씨는 재산세와 종부세의 기준이 다른 점을 문제삼았다. 그는 "재산세는 이미 부부 공동명의 1주택자에게 1주택 기준을 적용하면서 종부세는 명의가 2인이라는 형식적인 이유로 불이익을 주는 것은 세제 간 엇박자"라며 "집이 두 채가 아니라 실질적으로 한 채인데 부부가 공동명의로 등기했다는 이유로 차별하는 것은 부당하다"고 주장했다.
종부세만 실거주 여부와 명의 구조에 따라 과세 방식이 달라지면서 납세자가 체감하는 제도 간 차이가 커질 수 있다는 지적이 나온다.
◆ 거주냐 비거주냐…같은 집인데 수백만원 차이
명의 방식에 따른 세액 차이도 상당할 것으로 예상된다. 우병탁 신한은행 프리미어 패스파인더 전문위원은 부부가 주택 지분을 각각 50%씩 보유한 것으로 가정해 반포자이 전용 84㎡의 보유세 변화를 분석했다. 세액공제는 적용하지 않았고 2027년 공시가격 상승률은 올해 상승률의 절반 수준으로 가정했다.
분석 결과 반포자이 전용 84㎡ 공동명의자의 보유세는 2026년 1171만원에서 2027년 실거주할 경우 1744만원으로 늘어나는 것으로 추산됐다. 1년 만에 573만원, 48.9% 증가하는 수준이다.
같은 공동명의라도 해당 주택에 거주하지 않을 경우 증가폭은 더 컸다. 비거주 공동명의자의 보유세는 2027년 2183만원으로 계산돼 올해보다 1012만원, 86.4% 급증했다. 같은 주택과 동일한 지분 구조를 유지하더라도 거주 여부에 따라 2027년 세 부담이 439만원 벌어지는 셈이다.
공동명의는 그동안 종부세 부담을 줄일 수 있는 방식으로 활용돼 왔다. 1주택자는 부부가 지분을 나눠 보유하면 각각 공제를 받을 수 있어 공동명의를 선택하는 경우가 적지 않았다. 세법이 바뀌면서 기존에 유리했던 명의 구조가 예상치 못한 세 부담으로 돌아올 수 있다.
이장원 법무법인 리치 세무사는 "1주택 공동명의는 각각 종합부동산세 공제를 받을 수 있어 일반적으로 유리한 편"이라면서도 "세법이 바뀌면 유리하다고 판단해 선택했던 공동명의가 갑자기 불리한 상황을 만들 수 있다"고 설명했다.
주택 수가 늘어나면 명의 구조에 따른 차이는 더 복잡해진다. 이 세무사는 "부부가 각각 주택 한 채씩 온전히 갖고 있으면 각각 1주택자로 세금을 내지만 2채를 50%씩 갖고 있으면 각각 2주택을 갖고 있는 것이 된다"며 "유리하다고 해서 공동명의를 했는데 갑자기 세법을 바꿔버리면 곤란할 수 있다고 말했다"
일각에서는 주택을 취득할 당시의 세제상 유불리를 고려해 결정한 명의 구조가 이후 제도 개편에 따라 다른 결과를 낳는다면 납세자의 예측 가능성이 떨어질 수 있다고 우려가 나온다. 같은 주택을 계속 보유하더라도 거주 여부와 명의 형태, 특례 신청 여부 등에 따라 세 부담이 크게 달라지는 만큼 과세 형평성을 둘러싼 논란이 이어질 것으로 보인다.
chulsoofriend@newspim.com
2026-08-11 06:00












