Does the "big, beautiful bill" eliminate taxes on Social Security?

CBS News ^ | July 07, 2025 | Mary Cunningham

[SaxxonWoods]

“We already have a problem of not enough money going into the trust fund. This bill makes even less money go into the trust fund,” he said.

What happened to your “Lockbox”?

[Teacher317]

It also won't benefit the many low-income seniors who already pay no federal income tax because they earn too little.
"Boosting the amount that you get to write off when you already get to write off everything does not help you at all," Kogan said.

Soooo... you're whining because people who don't pay any will continue to not pay any, and that's a bad thing? Idiot. Just more "hate the rich" class-warfare Marxist rhetoric.

[1Old Pro]

The biggest beneficiaries of the bill will be higher-income seniors, said Martha Shedden, president and co-founder of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, which focuses on Social Security education.

How is that? The benefit declines after $150k joint income.

[babble-on]

Moderately good news for high-income seniors like me. Brings forward the date of the Trust Fund full depletion by a year, at which point all SS benefits drop 20% across the board.

[EVO X]

I assume if you claim standard deduction it does nothing

For a senior that qualifies, it adds $6K to the standard deduction amount.

[Leaning Right]

> I assume if you claim standard deduction it does nothing <

I’m guessing there will now be two standard deductions, one for seniors and one for everyone else. The senior deduction will be $6000 more.

But the IRS specializes in making bizarre, unfair, and complicated rules. So who knows how it will actually turn out.

[Red Badger]

You have to realize that to a liberal, $150k per year is ‘wealthy’..................

[Red Badger]

Algore stole it......................

[Red Badger]

Algore stole it......................

[1Old Pro]

You have to realize that to a liberal, $150k per year is ‘wealthy’...

More like middle class. It should be good up to $400k, that's the number they typically use.

[cgbg]

It is on top of the standard deduction.

My first cut look at our numbers is my wife and I (both over 65) will add $12,000 in deductions.

At a marginal federal tax rate of 20% that would save us $2,400 a year in federal taxes.

If I missed anything I am sure some folks here will be quite willing to correct me.

[ChronicMA]

yes it was a rules thing

the senate parliamentarian

so 60 votes are needed to pass it, which means you’d need 7 democrats, good luck with that

[Teacher317]

In 1983, when the first tax on SS income was passed, the House was 269-164, Dem.
The Senate was 53-46, GOP.

When it came to the budget and taxes, that was all Dems.

For that 1983 SS bill, tons of GOP went with the "no vote" option.
The Senate vote was 58-14. (At least 12 GOP crossed, and about 30 went "no vote"
The House vote was 243-102. (About 60 GOP went "no vote". The media called this "strong bipartisan support".)

And...

The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act increased the proportion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation, raising the limit to 85% for higher earners. The 1993 Congress was 257-177, Dem. The Senate was 57-43, Dem. Clinton was President.

It barely passed... In the House, it was 218-216, with 42 Dems voting against it. All 174 GOP votes were "nay". Vice President Al Gore broke the 50-50 tie in the Senate, despite 7 Dems voting against it. Again, every GOP voted "nay'.

[bk1000]

I paid into SS for nearly 50 years. It was not voluntary, but taken out of my pay before I received it. Now that it is my time to collect my payoff for all the years I paid for those before me I am told I must pay tax on that “income”?

Who came up with that, and where do they live?

[V_TWIN]

“If I missed anything I am sure some folks here will be quite willing to correct me”

-

I know one jackass that will....and thanks for the info.

[Teacher317]

See Post 33.

[TexasGator]

Half of SS contributions are untaxed.

[Red Badger]

Thomas “Tip” O’Neill (D) MA served as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives during the Reagan Presidency.

He’s dead, Jim..................

[bankwalker]

Biden did in 1983.

[Be Free]

"Providing a temporary tax deduction is likely to help some Social Security recipients, but it could also worsen the retirement program's fragile financial state, Kogan said. Social Security is on track to deplete its trust fund by 2034 if Congress does not take action.

We already have a problem of not enough money going into the trust fund. This bill makes even less money go into the trust fund," he said."

The bill does no such thing. It is an enhanced deduction against taxable income, which can include Social Security benefits. The "trust fund" receives money from workers' and employers' payroll taxes, not the general income tax receipts.

The only things that worsen the state of the trust fund are decreases in the receipts, or increases in the aggregate amount of benefit payments.

BTW, Kogan is a spokesperson for the Center for American Progress, and the AP refers to them as a non-partisan think tank. They're far from non-partisan, and operate really as a far-left advocacy organization. They're only non-partisan to the extent they say they are to satisfy IRS requirements to remain tax-exempt.