Trump: No taxes on Social Security

You're right! It was the one thing that Reagan did during his whole, otherwise-wonderful eight year presidency that I thought was very unfair and unwise. At the time I was nowhere near retirement, so, it didn't matter much. It matters today, though -- to me and about 73,000,000 other Baby Boomers (and we VOTE).

Hint: C'mon, Kammy -- want to impress 'common' people with how much you're concerned for retired people on fixed incomes? CALL A HALT TO TAXING EARNED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS! The applause will be deafening!

 

One proposal would make the threshhold of $25k or 32k from a 1986 standard to an adjusted inflation rate of today's standard amounts. In 1986, the standard deduction was $2480 for single filers. For 2023, it is $13850. That is a 468% increase. Multipy the increase of $25000 times 468%, and you get $117k threshhold. And that should increase each year by the adjusted inflation rate like all other outcomes. In addition, use the same forumula for the Credit for the Elderly and Disabloed for SS benefits, income limitations, etc, and you will get most of those elderly people to vote Democratic and a far more plausible solution than what DJT is proposing.

 

Well I hope it catches on. You seem rather wedded to it.

 

Since none of those things are at all likely, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

 

FICA comes out of your check before your wages are taxed so FICA is not taxed.

 

It is highly likely if the GOP controls both legislative houses and Trump wins the WH. However, given we have gerrymandering, I don't know if the DP can retake the house. It is possible, but not probable. that being said, the GOP, if they control the House in 2025, will make these proposals, most of them anyway, in their next budget negotiatons with the WH, assuming Harris wins.

 

yet he could not pass it due to Republican in Congress

 

I'm all in on this. It's about time they get the tax breaks and are treated fairly.

 

What does that have to do with you original fallacy?

Just going to run away from that and throw something else out?

News flash, people like Trump don't need your social program. The amount that he contributes, and the amount he gets back is miniscule to his other sources of retirement income.

You just want him to participate at a higher level that won't benefit him, because it's yet another wealth redistribution scheme.

I don't pay SS tax on a large part of my income too because I max it out.

 

I stand corrected

 

Bad idea.

SS is in addition to other savings. For those who really need a tax break to survive on SS, this does nothing as they are likely taxed little if nothing. Essentially this is a tax break on those who retire wealthy.

Also does this include those who don't get social security and are on some other form of government pension?

 

Everyone should have skin in the game.

 

Democrat tax policy is the epitome of smoke and mirrors. First, congress does not right tax policy.... Lobbyist do. Second, even any tax increase ever implemented by the Democrats will be laden with loops holes where the only people impact will be the middle class. The rich will continue to have loop holes to avoid paying full taxes. Only real way to ensure everyone contributes is a flat tax. Something both Democrats and Republicans will never sign off on, because their handlers won't let them.

 

I like the reasonable fairness of your plan! Hell, I would like nearly anything better than the system we have had since the 1980's where you're taxed on the money you're forced to put into Social Security, and then, TAXED AGAIN when you get your Social Security money back out when you retire!

Isn't it interesting that Republicans (who put this travesty into law) AND Democrats, have both been quite content to allow this blatant, obvious unfair double-taxation to exist all these many decades?!

 

Are you sure about that? Links:

https://www.paychex.com/articles/payroll-taxes/how-to-calculate-fica-rate#:~:text=The FICA tax rate is,see Table 2-1).

https://www.wsj.com/buyside/personal-finance/taxes/what-is-fica-tax

 

I don't know. Today most pay income taxes on only a minor portion of their social security, and I am not particularly bothered by it. Most defined pension income is taxed fully.

 

Trump: No taxes on Social Security
That's because if tRaitor tRump and the Heritage Foundation christian nationals are successful in implementing Project 2025 there won't be ANY Social Security. There won't be Government BY the People for that matter.

 

No matter which major political party, all tax policy proposals are smoke and mirrors. For conservative proposals, they say their tax policies are "pro-growth" but in reality are designed to make the lower-income brackets pay more and the upper-income brackets pay less, as a percentage of GDP to taxes paid. This is why Republican broad-based tax proposals decrease tax revenues to GDP every time unless we have higher than usual, such as from 2021 to 2022. However, with inflation now dropping, the percentage of tax revenue to GDP is dropping again, which is why, assuming all other things equal, we continue to have deficits. Even if we do a dollar-for-dollar cut in spending, it will won't be enough because GDP goes down, then Tax Revenue goes down, and the percentage of tax revenue to GDP either remains the same or a slight uptick. However, the cost is that we lose a lot of services that people depend on, and thus, social unrest and drastic societal changes will cause a recession. And the deficit is added when paying for a huge DoD or warr such Afghanistan or Iraq or Grenada or Panama, etc. I am not arguing we should not have gone to war, but at least help pay for the damn thing when we do go to war. FDR knew this, and why he increased the marginal tax rate and had withheld in 1942 with a top marginal rate of 92% that lasted until the 1960s,

For the Democrats, it is the exact opposite. However, with the additional revenue, the Democrats would like to use that other money for their pet projects and thus we have the deficits continue and rise. The Democrats will pay for the existing services we have, even the necessary ones, but not for the projects that Democrats want. Yet, in both situations, GDP growth would remain the same overall because Congress cannot control businesses. And that is a different problem entirely that has nothing to do with tax policy.

both sides try to use "revenue neutral" CBO projections, but none of them turn out to come true. For Donald Trump's JCJA, he estimated an average of greater than 3%. It happened one quarter. That's it. And that is because businesses had a **** load of cash all of a sudden and needed to spend it. And spend they did. But after that initial shock, the GDP went back to normalcy that Obama had from 2012 onward, generally.

Give me 25 tax attorneys and CPAs with no party affiliation or membership to political think tanks, and we can have the budget and deficts solved within 20 years. No congress will have a say on what we can and cannot decide which stays and which goes.

 

Uh, He did get it passed and Social Security benefits have been taxable ever since.

 

No it does not. FICA taxes are taken out based on your SS wage base, up to that limit for that employer. It is taxed in the same manner as all gross wages subject to the income tax. If you have contributions or deductions for qualified health care plans, 401k accounts and a few other items on that W2 listed in box 12, then there would be a difference between the Gross Wages and the SS/Medicare wages boxes. Under 26 USC 106, medical deductions from your paycheck are not subject to income, SS, and Medicare. That is why there is that amount with a code on box 12. 401k deductions are not subject to income tax but are subject to SS and Medicare taxes, which is why you have a difference between Box 1 and Box 3 and 5 of your W2.

 

IRA's and 401k are unless they are ROTH IRAs and 401k. Then you need to be fully vested, which is five years, on those contributions until you reach age 59 1/2. But defined benefit plans, like FERS retirement, 403b Plans, 457 plans, or private pensions from Ford, GM, etc, then there is a cost to that plan and you can deduct a portion of that from your gross amount to eliminate that part from income tax over 25 years. There is also, or used to be, an option where you can take the three-year rule for pensions that have a cost in the plan. For the first three years, you deduct the cost from the gross pension until the cost is either used up or the three years is used. If any cost is left over, then you follow the deductions on a pro-rata basis for 25 years.

 

Because it provides the additional income to help pay for their pet peeve projects and reduce whatever deficit their budget is projecting. That's why.

Give me 25 tax attorneys and CPAs with no links to any political party and no membership or contributor to any political think tank, and we can get the budget and taxes solved. It will take 20 years to accomplish that. Congress has no say.

 

and who is going to pay for that. I am a federal retiree. I got some mixed advice from my old office due to a new person who handles that stuff. She wasn't aware of my financial situation which is a bit better than most of my peers. So I enrolled in both the "free" (I paid for it with years of FICA contributions) and Part B. Turns out I was paying more for Part B than I was for my FEHB with Anthem BC/BS. when my wife hit 65 she did the same because she wasn't covered by my Part B. since we file jointly, she also had to pay the Obama Care surcharge meaning we were paying over 1000 a month for the health care of others. I met with Anthem and they assured me as long as I paid my 450/M premium both my wife and I were covered as long as we were above ground. So we terminated Part B. but for those who aren't federal retirees, they are stuck with this. how much more of a surcharge would be cover that 80%?

 

hiking spending is the problem. cutting taxes often increases the revenue to the government.

 

Looking at the stats, it seems not cutting taxes increase revenue even more. Revenue has increases over 90% of time over the years, mainly due to inflation. If we want to balance spending, we need to address both, taxes and spending. IMO it makes no sense that taxed have been cut to zero for 50% of the population.