Republican big bill breaks promise on ending tax on soc. security but does something better

[Jingthing]

As many know, one of Trump's very loud campaign promises was to end federal tax on social security benefits.

 

This was a stupid and damaging promise for a number of reasons --

 

Most social security recipients don't make enough total income to owe tax on it already!

So cutting taxation out for all would help ONLY higher income people and do absolutely nothing for the majority lower income people. 

These taxes are put into the FUNDING for social security benefits so cutting all taxes for all accelerates the time when the entire program will need to make a major cut to benefits for all.

Currently estimated at about ten years from now unless there is a reform bill passed.

Instead of the broken promise the big bill proposes to increase the standard deduction for elderly people.

This is MUCH BETTER because it helps more lower income people stay in the no SS tax bracket and does not cut out the vital funding source entirely.

Higher income people will still owe SS tax even with the higher standard deduction.

Of course the congressional bill with this new provision needs to pass first. However, it seems clear to me that the total elimination of federal taxes on SS will not happen. A broken promise that is GOOD NEWS.

[TheAppletons]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Most social security recipients don't make enough total income to owe tax on it already!

 

  According to ssa.gov, approx 56% of beneficiary families will pay tax on their benefits.  

 

  https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/income-taxes-on-benefits.html

[jimmybcool]

19 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  According to ssa.gov, approx 56% of beneficiary families will pay tax on their benefits.  

 

  https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/income-taxes-on-benefits.html

 

Well that put a damper on the talking points JT  got from his far left echo chamber.  🤣

[gamb00ler]

47 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Well that put a damper on the talking points JT  got from his far left echo chamber.  🤣

Obviously spoken by someone who has never done their own taxes and is completely unfamiliar with the details of the interaction between a higher standard deduction and net tax payable.

 

Remember to periodically alternate which foot is in your mouth so that you don't end up hobbling around permanently.

[Mike_Hunt]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As many know, one of Trump's very loud campaign promises was to end federal tax on social security benefits.

 

This was a stupid and damaging promise for a number of reasons --

 

Most social security recipients don't make enough total income to owe tax on it already!

So cutting taxation out for all would help ONLY higher income people and do absolutely nothing for the majority lower income people. 

These taxes are put into the FUNDING for social security benefits so cutting all taxes for all accelerates the time when the entire program will need to make a major cut to benefits for all.

Currently estimated at about ten years from now unless there is a reform bill passed.

Instead of the broken promise the big bill proposes to increase the standard deduction for elderly people.

This is MUCH BETTER because it helps more lower income people stay in the no SS tax bracket and does not cut out the vital funding source entirely.

Higher income people will still owe SS tax even with the higher standard deduction.

Of course the congressional bill with this new provision needs to pass first. However, it seems clear to me that the total elimination of federal taxes on SS will not happen. A broken promise that is GOOD NEWS.

There should be no taxes on Social Security. 

[Jingthing]

32 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

There should be no taxes on Social Security. 

The trouble with that is that those taxes help fund the program.

Speaking of unfair things.

Minority groups die younger so disproportionately never live to claim a penny after paying in for decades.

[Jingthing]

To clarify 

Trump's promise was popular but bad policy.

The republican congress not Trump is working on an alternative policy that is better.

There is no perfect policy possible in human affairs  

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  According to ssa.gov, approx 56% of beneficiary families will pay tax on their benefits.  

 

  https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/income-taxes-on-benefits.html

Thanks for the correction.

It doesn't change the fundamental situation at all except for number of people impacted.

Relatively lower income people already pay no.tax on SS.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The trouble with that is that those taxes help fund the program.

Speaking of unfair things.

Minority groups die younger so disproportionately never live to claim a penny after paying in for decades.

Essentially the tax on SS benefits makes the SS program slightly more progressive in that the taxpayers with lower incomes get to keep more of their benefits than those with higher incomes.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, Mike_Hunt said:

There should be no taxes on Social Security. 

When you pay the FICA taxes that fund SS.... you don't pay tax on what essentially are the premiums that fund your retirement benefits.  The money that employed people pay into SS Trust funds was not taxed when earned.  All my FICA taxes came from self-employment but I'm sure that employers also don't pay income tax on the 50% of the FICA taxes that they send to the government on behalf of the employees.

[John Drake]

Big Beautiful Bill. Why does everything Trump creates sound gauche, vulgar, and childish?

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Big Beautiful Bill. Why does everything Trump creates sound gauche, vulgar, and childish?

He's crap on just about everything else, but he is a genius marketer and propagandist. Fitting for a corrupt cult leader.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

Big Beautiful Bill. Why does everything Trump creates sound gauche, vulgar, and childish?

He knows who he's talking to.

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

He's crap on just about everything else, but he is a genius marketer and propagandist. Fitting for a corrupt cult leader.

 

Like the $100K Chinese made watches he sold the license to use his name on. Sleaze just oozes out of everything this slug does.

[jimmybcool]

13 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Obviously spoken by someone who has never done their own taxes and is completely unfamiliar with the details of the interaction between a higher standard deduction and net tax payable.

 

Remember to periodically alternate which foot is in your mouth so that you don't end up hobbling around permanently.

 

Obviously posted by someone who is reading challenged.  But hey you can assume anything you like about me.  😃

[connda]

9 hours ago, John Drake said:

Big Beautiful Bill. Why does everything Trump creates sound gauche, vulgar, and childish?

Omnibus spending bills are pork-barrel filled abominations.

[Yellowtail]

I think it's time Social Security be phased out. 

[ThreeCardMonte]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As many know, one of Trump's very loud campaign promises was to end federal tax on social security benefits.

 

This was a stupid and damaging promise for a number of reasons --

 

Most social security recipients don't make enough total income to owe tax on it already!

So cutting taxation out for all would help ONLY higher income people and do absolutely nothing for the majority lower income people. 

These taxes are put into the FUNDING for social security benefits so cutting all taxes for all accelerates the time when the entire program will need to make a major cut to benefits for all.

Currently estimated at about ten years from now unless there is a reform bill passed.

Instead of the broken promise the big bill proposes to increase the standard deduction for elderly people.

This is MUCH BETTER because it helps more lower income people stay in the no SS tax bracket and does not cut out the vital funding source entirely.

Higher income people will still owe SS tax even with the higher standard deduction.

Of course the congressional bill with this new provision needs to pass first. However, it seems clear to me that the total elimination of federal taxes on SS will not happen. A broken promise that is GOOD NEWS.

“Most social security recipients don't make enough totalincome to owe tax on it already!”

 

Complete BS.  Along with the majority of your fear mongering.

Only the slackers in life.  I owe every year.   Already paid taxes on the income that go into SS.  Now, taxed again with Medicare payments also.

 

Don’t confuse SSI with SS.

 

Bring it on Trump.

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think it's time Social Security be phased out. 

Of course you do.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course you do.

Why so greedy? You're stealing from our children.

[gamb00ler]

1 hour ago, ThreeCardMonte said:

Already paid taxes on the income that go into SS.  Now, taxed again with Medicare payments also.

 

I think you need to read the details about FICA deductions a few more times.   The money you contributed towards SS benefits (and Medicare) was not subjected to Federal income tax.  Those funds have never been taxed.  The amount of FICA taxes you paid were deducted from your wage/salary income and income tax was levied on the remainder after that deduction.  If you were self-employed you paid 100% of the FICA taxes but if you earned a salary/wage you only paid 50% of FICA and your employer paid the other 50%.

 

To make it 100% clear... if you earned $1000/week you paid about 75$ in FICA tax and so did your employer.  You paid income tax on only (1000-75) 925$ and all of the $150 went into the SS and Medicare trust funds.

 

I don't think federal income tax was charged on any of the funds that were paid into the SS/Medicare trust funds.  When qualified contributors reached retirement age they receive Medicare and retirement benefits.  Only the retirement benefits are taxed after some exemption and the marginal tax rate is never higher than 85% of the regular marginal income tax rate.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

I think you need to read the details about FICA deductions a few more times.   The money you contributed towards SS benefits (and Medicare) was not subjected to Federal income tax.  Those funds have never been taxed.  The amount of FICA taxes you paid were deducted from your wage/salary income and income tax was levied on the remainder after that deduction.  If you were self-employed you paid 100% of the FICA taxes but if you earned a salary/wage you only paid 50% of FICA and your employer paid the other 50%.

 

To make it 100% clear... if you earned $1000/week you paid about 75$ in FICA tax and so did your employer.  You paid income tax on only (1000-75) 925$ and $150 went into the SS and Medicare trust funds.

 

I don't think federal income tax was charged on any of the funds that were paid into the SS/Medicare trust funds.  When qualified contributors reached retirement age they receive Medicare and retirement benefits.  Only the retirement benefits are taxed after some exemption and the marginal tax rate is never higher than 85% of the regular marginal income tax rate.

The "funds that were paid into the SS/Medicare" are taxes. 

[gamb00ler]

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why so greedy? You're stealing from our children.

I think that may be more than 100% wrong.   SS is completely funded by contributions collected from employed people via the FICA taxes and a tad bit more from the tax some people pay on their SS benefits.  Those collected funds belong 100% to those who contributed through payroll deductions based upon wages/salaries already paid.

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

I think that may be more than 100% wrong.   SS is completely funded by contributions collected from employed people via the FICA taxes.  Those collected funds belong 100% to those who contributed through payroll deductions based upon wages/salaries already paid.

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

Liar. Employers pay a large part of it, 

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

[Dan O]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Liar. Employers pay a large part of it, 

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

check yourself on that. Employees pay in 6.2 % of income to SS and the employer matches that with 6.2 %. if self employed then you pay all 12.4 % 

[NoDisplayName]

20 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

if you earned a salary/wage you only paid 50% of FICA and your employer paid the other 50%.

 

Not exactly.

 

If you earned a salary/wage you directly paid 50% of FICA as shown on your pay stub, and you indirectly paid the other 50% by your employer reducing your potential salary/wage to cover the government mandate.

 

Brought to you by the same folks that think $30/hour minimum wage won't result in fewer jobs for unskilled workers, or that China is gonna eat the tariffs, or that Mexico is gonna pay for a big, beeyootiful wall.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

check yourself on that. Employees pay in 6.2 % of income to SS and the employer matches that with 6.2 %. if self employed then you pay all 12.4 % 

Is half not a large part? I'm thinking it is. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Not exactly.

 

If you earned a salary/wage you directly paid 50% of FICA as shown on your pay stub, and you indirectly paid the other 50% by your employer reducing your potential salary/wage to cover the government mandate.

 

Brought to you by the same folks that think $30/hour minimum wage won't result in fewer jobs for unskilled workers, or that China is gonna eat the tariffs, or that Mexico is gonna pay for a big, beeyootiful wall.

They want a $30 minimum wage, but claim they need the borders open to keep prices down. 

 

They are against tariffs because they raise prices on imports, but they support corporate income taxes that raise prices on domestic products. 

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is lefty. 

 

[gamb00ler]

2 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

If you earned a salary/wage you directly paid 50% of FICA as shown on your pay stub, and you indirectly paid the other 50% by your employer reducing your potential salary/wage to cover the government mandate.

That's not a realistic view at all..... your employment exists in an environment where you and the employer are subject to the laws of the land.  One of those laws is that the employer has no option other than to pay the FICA.  So.... there is no lost "potential" wage in a land of laws.

[TedG]

18 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I think that may be more than 100% wrong.   SS is completely funded by contributions collected from employed people via the FICA taxes and a tad bit more from the tax some people pay on their SS benefits.  Those collected funds belong 100% to those who contributed through payroll deductions based upon wages/salaries already paid.

 

Your ignorance is truly stunning.

 

SS has run a deficit since 2010.   The taxes collected for SS do not cover the deficit.  The shortfalls is made by money from the general fund.  

 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/social-securitys-funding-gap-is-12-of-gdp-heres-how-we-can-close-it/