Social Security You earned it you keep it

[MaryRose416568]

We need to get our Congress Representatives to support the 'You earned it you keep it' bill. This allows for raising the cap on the taxable earnings and stopping the federal taxes on SSN.  This would keep the trust fund solvent until 2054 and decrease the long range deficit.  This is a win for all retirees..  We need AARP support.

[CasimeroA741831]

Totally agree. Why is AARP quiet on this important issue?

[DrJohnQ]

YES!!!!  AARP needs to openly support this BILL, so why aren't they doing so?!?!?  Seems very strange they do not!!

[STEVE1217531]

 FYI - H.R. 7084 has 11 co-sponsors in the house. This bill was reintroduced replacing the original 8717 introduced last year.

[ScottA835236]

I’d like more information. Says it will lower or even get rid of SS benefits for “high earners” but it’s a little vague in what a high earner is.  

[STEVE1217531]

FYI, This bill has been now supported by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.

This is an excerpt from January 29th, 2024 in the Investment News written by Greg Greenberg.

"The Social Security Administration found last week that Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig’s proposed tax legislation may indeed extend the lifespan of the retirement program."

I have sent an email to my House Rep Bill Pascrell via his website to please cosponsor this bill.

This seems to be reintroduced as H.R. 7084.

[Tonster521]

@STEVE1217531 I do not know why Congress would support tax free SS Benefits especially for the higher incomes. I think you need to review why Congress started taxing SS benefits at the 50% threshold in 1984 and 85% in 1993. I have provided a link to an article that provides the history as well as the rationale. https://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-brief/taxing-social-security-benefits/ Hopefully, I copied and pasted it correctly. 

As you know, it does not take much income in today's dollars to exceed the thresholds which are causing approximately 50% of SS Beneficiaries to report their SS Benefits as taxable income. I believe increasing the income thresholds to realistic amounts in today's dollars is doable and may achieve Congress support. To carte blanche eliminate SS Benefits taxation is a windfall for the higher income folks. 

With regard to the phrase, "You earned it", the Supreme Court has already ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their SS Benefits. The case that established that ruling is Flemming vs Nestor (1960). There are other cases as well.  Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that SS Benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time. Of course, Congress has to initiate such action and the President has to sign that legislation. It would be political suicide for those who implement such legislation as well as an economic disaster for our economy. The good news, if any, is that Congress can increase SS Benefits for the greater good of all. However, as Gail pointed out, there needs to be a reconciliations of the debits and credits (i.e., revenue and expenditures). Otherwise, the SS Program is forecast to reduce SS Benefits at some point in the future.

Remember, the SS Program was created to be a form of Long Term Social Insurance that can be changed from time to time based on a changing workforce. It is not a retirement account like a 401 K, IRA, etc. wherein contributions plus interest/dividends are accumulated for a participant's benefit. The "contributions" that are made based on one's earnings are taxes just like federal income taxes. Your "contributions/taxes" have no correlation to how your SS Benefits are developed. Hope this helps.

[GailL1]

@STEVE1217531 

The SS Actuary doesn’t support or not support - the Actuary does the analysis of the effects.  

I certainly don’t see any extension of the financial aspects of the program in the analysis - they are taking money from the GENERAL Fund to make up for stopping the tax on benefits; the fund is extended 20 years by the 2nd provision (but we’re shooting for 75 years].

AND you do realize that the money that is collected from these taxes on benefits goes back into the SS Trust Fund to help with its financial condition.  

SSA.gov SOCIAL SECURITY Office of the Chief Actuary January 25, 2024 - Analysis of You Earned it , Y...

from the link ~

. . . . . We estimate that enactment of these provisions would extend the ability of the OASDI program to pay scheduled benefits in full and on time for an additional 20 years. That is, the date of projected depletion of the combined OASI and DI Trust Fund reserves would be moved from
2034 under current law to 2054 assuming enactment of the proposal, under the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report.

The proposal includes two provisions with direct effects on the OASDI program. The following list briefly describes these provisions:

Section 2. Repeal taxation of Social Security benefits effective in 2025, but hold the OASDI and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Funds harmless. Under current law, Social Security beneficiaries are taxed on their personal income tax returns on up to 85 percent of their Social Security benefits, based on total income measures. This provision would repeal taxation of Social Security benefits, but would provide for transfers from the General Fund .. . . . . 

MORE. AT. THE. LINK  -

[STEVE1217531]

@GailL1 If the system as it is NOW would be depleted in 2034 but passing the bill extends it to 2054 (that the SS Actuary has verified) AND stops taxing the benefits of millions of seniors then I would say it's a win/win.

Whew, this is exhausting! 

[Tonster521]

@STEVE1217531 I am not sure why you are supporting H.R. 7084 that would eliminate taxes on SS Benefits. This proposed part of the Bill is a tax savings for the higher income folks who are receiving SS Benefits. The lower income folks, many do not pay federal taxes because of low income, do not receive any benefit from the proposed Bill. If Congress wants to solve the SS Trust depletion by 2034, they should continue with taxing SS Benefits and increase the amount of Earnings subject to FICA. I am including a link to an article that provides pertinent information regarding how the the SSA Program has helped folks at or near the poverty level. Remember, the SS Program was not created for individuals to accumulate equity and/or wealth. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-lifts-more-people-above-the-poverty-li... I am also including a link to the thought process that the Greenspan Commission utilized in 1983 regarding taxing SS Benefits https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html Hopefully, I copied and pasted this link correctly from the SS Website. My suggestion is to read the entire Greenspan report. 

[GailL1]

The SS Actuary is ONLY looking at what the provisions of the proposed legislation does to the Trust Fund - not that it is a good or even logical piece of legislation.

Wonder what the CBO would say about taking this amount from the General Fund?  

I could just as easily add a legislative proposal that would UP payroll taxes for everybody to cover the shortfall and their own benefits going forward.

OR maybe everybody should be the getting the exact same benefit and thus pay in exactly the same amount in payroll taxes. 

OR maybe we should be looking at some of the outflow - who’s getting the benefits and did they pay into the system - both SS and Medicare (Part A).  IMO, we have added and added to those who can get a benefit based on the record of a beneficiary thru the years but the income going into these Trust Funds hasn’t been adjusted to account for all of these additions thru the years.

If our goal is a 75 year plan, it needs to be a 75 year plan.  And a plan that makes some sense - this one doesn’t. Would it make better sense to say, ok, no more taxes on benefits but we will up your overall [income] taxes to cover what is being paid out of the General Fund for doing this.

Since these current taxes on benefits go back into the Trust Funds - maybe there should be some way to count this contribution in the benefit realm.  And for Medicare, maybe we should expand this tax to include those that are getting a benefit but never paid into the system, like those SAHM or SAHD.

You do realize that this proposal removes the taxation on benefits completely for everybody - not just for those senior who are at the lower end of the income cut off - 

I don’t mind paying these taxes on my benefit.  I don’t mind paying more for my Part B and D Medicare in the form of IRMAA surcharges.  And I am saying this as a person that was self-employed for the majority of my working career - meaning that I paid both the employee and employer portion of the FICA taxes during my working years.

I still think that beneficiaries should look at these taxes on benefits as a delayed payroll tax on the part of their contributions  paid into the system by their employers during their working years.  These have never been taxed in the 1st place.

I think all of these proposals do only one thing - separate us as a society into groups who think they deserve more from those who have more.  When in practicality, we are all paying for those who have less. 

[Tonster521]

@GailL1 Thanks for the thumbs up. I thought it will be helpful for the readers of this thread to understand the history of why SS Benefits are taxable income. I only linked Appendix C of the Greenspan Commission report. Folks that want to study the entire report can access it at the SSA website. There is a huge amount of detail in that report which is also important. I was unable to find an equivalent report/summary regarding H.R. 7084 which would support tax free SS Benefits for everyone. 

I am posting my additional comments in this reply for the other readers. You already know most of  what I have to say. Rather than type several replies, I am hoping one reply will suffice.

SS Benefits are not taxable income for the folks below the thresholds established in 1983 ($25 K single and $32 K married). I have read that the majority of folks (approximately 55%) do not pay federal taxes because they are either low income or their taxable income does not exceed the standard deductible. Because the calculation uses only 50% of one's SS Benefits in the formula to determine if one's SS Benefits are federally taxable, it is one's other taxable income (i.e., pensions, withdrawals, interest, dividends, capital gains, Earnings from working, etc.) that cause SS Benefits to be federally taxable. 

The social security program (exception for Medicare Parts B and D) is based on a self funding approach via dedicated FICA taxes and interest from Special Treasury Bonds. It is designed to provide an amount of income to keep folks above the poverty level as long as certain eligibility requirements are met. The Program may provide greater SS Benefits if one's Earnings are greater, but are limited by the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) formula or the taxable income formula. The SS Program has never been an investment (i.e., IRA, 401 K, 403 B, 457 Plan, etc.) to accumulate individual equity. 

To put some numbers out there for folks to think about, I will use the maximum SS Benefit for 2024 for one (single) with maximum Earnings or $3,822 per month or $45,864 per year. Why would that person need tax free SS Benefits? Please note that the present value at 3% (age 66, life expectancy 18 years) is $630,790. If married, Spousal Benefits may be payable in addition to the Old Age (aka Retirement) Benefit depending if the spouse was entitled to a benefit pursuant to her/his Earnings (work record). Just for illustration, if Spousal Benefits were payable at 50% or an additional $1,911 per month, the amount of monthly SS Benefits will be $5,733 or $68,796 per year. The present value based on the above criteria is $946,185. Remember, the current FICA Max Earnings for 2024 is $168,000. As the readers should be able to comprehend, it does not take many couples like this to deplete the SS Trust faster if SS Benefits were tax free. With an approximate $1 million present value, it would take 2,900,000 couples like this to account for the $2.9 Trillion current balance in the SS Trust. I suspect there are many more at maximum Earnings based on about 170 million folks in the workforce.

There may be other provisions of H.R. 7084 that benefit our country. However, tax free SS Benefits is not one of those provisions. It is contrary to the provisions established in 1983. 

[DavidT155196]

Yes, it will also turn the national debt around from continuously increasing, to starting to shrink according to the projections.  We are currently adding 1 Trillion dollars to the national debt each 100 days, and this bill is projected to decrease the national debt by 9 Trillion dollars over 75 years.  We need to stop it from increasing while it is still possible and before USA is completely owned by  foreign interests.  Please tell your legislator to support the "You earned it, You Keep it" Social security bill!!!!

[jr3020338]

You are absolutely right!  I just did my taxes and I have to pay over $1,000 to the Federal Government!

This is outrageous!  I collect a small amount of Social Security every month and it is imperative I continue to work at 67 years of age.  I worked as much overtime as I could over the holidays to make ends meet and now I find that due to Federal Taxes I need to pay over $1,000 - basically what I worked so hard for over the holidays!  I am shocked by this!  And on the news tonight we hear how President Biden is forgiving student loans to the tune of over 1 billion dollars!  How about some relief for the elderly that need to continue to work to make ends meet in this economy???

This subject really needs to be addressed soon - more elderly are having to work now due to inflation and we should not have to continue to pay outrageous taxes on our Social Security, especially those of us who do not get substantial checks.

[DrJohnQ]

Agree 100%!!!!  It was their choice to go to college, yet, now the government is paying them for making that choice, yet as you stated, cannot do ANYTHING to help the elderly like making our SS Payments tax free....makes NO sense!!!!

[Winter2024]

(2/21/24) @jr3020338 , we oldies DO NOT count. The US is too "busy" taking care of the illegals, immigrants and refugees. So MANY of us are ending up "homeless" and NOT everyone has a place to go (NO kids or folks who care).

---

[*** @jr3020338 wrote:

You are absolutely right!  I just did my taxes and I have to pay over $1,000 to the Federal Government!

This is outrageous!  I collect a small amount of Social Security every month and it is imperative I continue to work at 67 years of age.  I worked as much overtime as I could over the holidays to make ends meet and now I find that due to Federal Taxes I need to pay over $1,000 - basically what I worked so hard for over the holidays!  I am shocked by this!  And on the news tonight we hear how President Biden is forgiving student loans to the tune of over 1 billion dollars!  How about some relief for the elderly that need to continue to work to make ends meet in this economy???

This subject really needs to be addressed soon - more elderly are having to work now due to inflation and we should not have to continue to pay outrageous taxes on our Social Security, especially those of us who do not get substantial checks. ***]

---

[Tonster521]

@TaKe That Step Today, thanks for the positive replies. This has been an interesting post and exchange of information. I hope I have explained and clarified why SS Benefits may be federally  taxable for some folks. Essentially, it is due to their other income and the definition of combined income (must include tax free municipal bond income). The federal taxes collected at the 50% threshold are returned to the SS Trust. So, that money is put to good use by helping fund the SS Trust to pay SS Benefits to all of us. Especially, the folks that worked in lower income jobs or do not have additional retirement benefits (i.e., pensions, IRA, 401 K , etc.). So, oldies do count. 

I enjoy helping explain some of the complex SS Benefit provisions since I worked with such provisions including these 1983 SS Amendments. Although 40 years ago, time has flew by. We are all getting older.

[GailL1]

@MaryRose416568 

It appears that within this proposed legislation the amount that would make up the loss of these tax collections on SS benefits would be made up by a transfer of these funds from the General Fund thus increasing our national debt.

The increase in the collection of payroll taxes on raising the cap on taxable earnings would create a new benefit calculation for those who would be effected by this increase and together THIS IS THE ONLY PART OF THE LEGISLATION THAT HELPS WITH FIXING THE TRUST FUND FOR THE LONG TERM.

Why shouldn’t one of these provisions offset the other ?

We are just playing games with this proposed legislation - so instead of benefits being cut by 20% in 2034 when the fund is forecast to be depleted - it just changes it to 2054 with them being cut by about 10% at that time.

By taking money from the General Fund for the removal of these taxes we are losing valuable income to the Trust Fund and the program then will not be self-sufficient as it was originally designed to be.

I don’t think our legislators understand basics of add and subtract.  If we increase benefits there has to be an equal offset of increasing income.  And if we remove income (like the tax on SS benefits) then there has to be some way to make that income up rather than taking it from the General Fund.  

The proposal should be written where there is NO offset from the General Fund - the income to offset the removal of tax on benefits should be from the raising of the cap on the taxable earnings or some other [inside the program] increase in revenues.

The way this proposed legislation raises the cap on the taxable earning is (1) tax those earning ABOVE $ 250,000 and then when the current cap catches up to $250,000, all earnings would be taxed.

SSA.gov. - SS Actuary Report on the proposed You Earned It, You Keep It Act 01/24/2024 (pdf)

I just don’t want the Trust Fund to start relying on General Funds - doing it once makes it easier to do it again and again.  

I think I will wait to see what the new Committee comes up with in their suggestion for a broader fix rather than just piece mill action.  And I am speaking as one that does pay taxes on my benefits.

The NUMBERS:   SSA.gov - Trust Fund Financial Data by year (1957 - 2023)

[STEVE1217531]

@GailL1 Like the saying goes...You don't want to loose the good for the perfect. H.R. 7084 needs to pass.

Just Sayin

[DrJohnQ]

Amazing AARP can openly support and get our membership involved on much less important issues than this Bill that would add money back to many of us in making our payments tax free, YET, they do nothing too little on openly supporting this Bill.  SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!!!

[CasimeroA741831]

Exactly!!!

[STEVE1217531]

@DrJohnQ Ya think?

[Tonster521]

@DrJohnQ As you may already know, SS Benefits are federally taxable only if your "Combined Income" exceeds certain thresholds (single or married). Most folks just receiving SS Benefits only do not pay any federal taxes on SS benefits. I am copying and pasting an article from Kiplinger regarding SS Benefits and federal taxes. https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/social-security/604321/taxes-on-social-security-benefits It should be noted that the amount of federal taxes developed at the 50% threshold are returned to the SS Trust. In other words, it is a reduction (pay cut) of your SS Benefits. The amount of federal taxes developed up to the 85% threshold (51% to 85%) are returned to the Medicare Hospital Trust. In other words, you are contributing more for Medicare Part A insurance benefits. What is wrong with these provisions? IMO, it is the thresholds. The 50% threshold was established in 1984 and the 85% threshold on 1993. They are not realistic today, in 2024, and should be increased so that the lower income folks receive federal tax relief and the higher incomes continue to pay federal taxes.

[PaulR456348]

The thresholds are too little….combined income at 25 to 34 50% and over 34 is 85% the latter is from 1983!!! For God sakes it should only be 50% and the threshold is anything over a combined income of 60 to 75k 

[Tonster521]

@PaulR456348 I agree that the federal tax for SS Benefits should be at 50%. SS Benefits are currently funded 50% by employee payroll taxes and 50% employer taxes which are tax deductible for the employer. So, there is some support for taxing the 50% employer portion. Of course, folks that do not exceed the established thresholds and/or standard deduction(s) for single/married federal tax filers will not incur any federal tax liability. The folks that exceed the thresholds and/or standard deduction(s) should incur and pay federal taxes (which I pointed out in my earlier replies) are returned to the SS Trust (OASDI) and not kept by the Federal General Fund. Currently, federal taxation of SS Benefits amounts to about $52 Billion/year. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table3c3.html I copied and pasted a link from the SSA website which provides pertinent data. You need to click on the sub-topic, Contributions By Program & Source (right side of screen), and you will see a breakdown of how the SS Trust (OASDI) receives about $1.1 Trillion for 2023. For the OAS portion, Taxation of Benefits is $49,764 Billion. For the DI portion, Taxation if Benefits is $950 Million. The total taxation is $51,714 Billion or about $52 Billion. By waiving that annual revenue, the SS Trust will be depleted well before 2034-2035. Remember, if you find yourself in a hole, quit digging deeper. Moreover, why should folks with higher incomes receive tax relief? To carte blanche eliminate taxation of SS Benefits for all is a windfall for the higher income folks. I am all in favor of providing folks at lower incomes with tax relief. The goal is to keep them well above poverty, not to transfer income/wealth from higher income SS Beneficiaries to their heirs. As I replied earlier, the Supreme Court already ruled in 1960 that workers have no legally binding contractual tight to their SS Benefits. Moreover, Congress can reduce or eliminate or increase SS Benefits at any time. 

With regard to the additional tax (from 51% up to 85%) which is returned to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust (Medicare Part A), perhaps Congress should consider increasing the Medicare portion of the FICA payroll tax to a percentage greater than 1.45% of earnings. I believe it has been at 1.45% since 1986. I believe it is financially easier to pay more when your working full time than to increases taxes on the lower and middle income SS Beneficiaries after they stopped working.

[DirkB349973]

There are many good points being made...some of which I understand. I think it makes sense to fix the program, making it self-sufficient, rather than pulling from the general fund. It also seems fair to pay everyone that pays into the system, the rich included (I'm not rich). I have a question and there are at least two people here that probably know the answer. The Boomers (I'm one) are straining the system, but most of us will likely be dead in twenty years. When do the deaths start to rebalance the ratio of contributors to payees?

[Tonster521]

@DirkB349973 You may recall in the early 1980's the SS Trust was close to depletion. Congress addressed the issue by increasing the FICA tax rates and reducing SS Benefits.The FICA tax rates were 6.7% (5.4% OASDI and 1.3% Medicare) in 1982. In 1984, FICA was raised to 7.0%. In 1990, FICA was raised to 7.65% (6.2% OASDI and 1.45% Medicare) which is still the current FICA tax rate today (34 years). FICA taxes were raised about 14% from 1982 to 1990. That is significant. In addition, the Full Retirement Age was increased over time from age 65 to 66 (about a 7% increase) and again from age 66 to 67 (about another 7% increase). I recall the reason for all of these increases and cuts were the "boomers" (born 1946 to 1964). Especially, the group from 1946 to 1954 where I am a member. During that time, there was no problem with the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) which is an important factor the actuary addresses when developing SS Trust funding. So, most of the current SS Trust surplus (about $2.8 Trillion) is the result of "boomer" FICA taxes and SS Benefit cuts including paying federal income tax on SS Benefits ( federal taxes at the 50% level are returned to the OASDI Trust). The "boomers" are no longer the largest group. They have been replaced by the"Millennials" in 2019. I found an article from Pew Research Center that provides pertinent info about the various generations.https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers-as-americas-lar.... Maybe it is time for the "Millennials" to contribute more just like we ("boomers") had to do to shore up the SS Trust. I could not find an answer to your specific question regarding a date when the "boomers"fade away and the SS Trust will re-balance. The Pew report indicate that by the mid 2050s the "boomers" will number only about 16 million. However,.the Summary: Actuarial Status https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html indicates the SS Trust will be paying reduced SS Benefits over the next 75 years unless Congress addresses this issue.   .

[DirkB349973]

Thanks @Tonster521. Your post and links have been very educational for me. I didn't realize that Boomers were no longer the largest group, but I expect we will be the largest group collecting benefits until the late 2040's when Millennials begin to retire. The Pew article was very interesting and the Actuarial Summary article was full of good info that I started to understand after a few times through. 😀 I found an Investopedia article, "Will Baby Boomers Bankrupt Social Security", that has a section, "The Potential Solutions", that speaks simply of three possible solutions and their effect on the solvency of the fund. Some folks might find that informative. Thanks again for the explanation.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/022516/will-baby-boomers-bankrupt-social-secu...

[Tonster521]

@DirkB349973 The investopedia article is informative and highlights the issue that the SS Program needs to increase revenue, decrease benefits (expenses), or some combination of both. The SS Program was initially designed to be insurance program funded with dedicated taxes (FICA). Over the years, it has been amended and expended to include more than  just insurance against "old age" which was initially age 65. One of the issues that also needs to be addressed is should the insurance benefits provided by the SS Program be the same for everyone in view of great income disparity. This should be reviewed line by line and should be done before increasing FICA taxes for folks below certain income thresholds. The SSA informs us that on average we contribute only about 15% toward our total SS Benefits. This is why Congress, in 1993, created two thresholds (i.e., 50% and up to 85%) for determining how much SS Benefits are federally taxable. IMO, it was an approach that Congress could rationalize reducing SS benefits for the higher incomes. Today, more and more folks are paying federal taxes because the thresholds were established in 1993. Moreover, the tax cuts that became effective January 1, 2018 pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Job Act were beneficial to the higher incomes by reducing their federal taxes due which means less money for the SS Trust. Yet, there are folks asking to make SS Benefits tax free for all income levels. Maybe, Congress should review why the SS Program provides wealthy beneficiaries Spousal Benefits (worked less than 40 quarters) when they do not need the current income. There are so many more approaches that Congress can implement rather than tax the folks at lower income levels.

[sktn77a]

"The SSA informs us that on average we contribute only about 15% toward our total SS Benefits."

While this is true in terms of the present value of money (at the time of the contribution), it doesn't reflect the future value (at the time the benefit is paid out).  Compounding interest on those contributions is quite significant over 40-50 years!  In reality, contributions plus interest over this time amount to over 50% of the benefit. And this is in large part due to artificially low interest rates over the last 15 years. Of course, politicians will put any spin on any topic they wish.