Will it go back to BJ’s time?
But why is the social security provision temporary? Was this a rules thing?
As usual the GOP Senate shot itself, and Conservatives, in the foot. While they have repeatedly demonstrated they have no problem spending trillions of dollars we don’t have taking care of any wack job foreight aid package, they absolutely hate having to do anything that actually benefits working Americans
No, it does nothing.
Nor does the “no tax on tips” nonsense.
I will note that the removal of the tax on suppressors and SBRs destroys the Constitutionality of the law.
“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. You mean tax deductions only apply to people who pay taxes?
Could have fooled me.
There are people in and out of government who are not in the least bit interested in preserving Social Security benefits, as they so freely disburse them to people who are not eligible or deserving in any way, thereby running it down far more quickly than anything a tax break would do.
So, effectively the “Hyde anendment” blocked any meaningful social security tax relief — despite the campaign promises to remove taxes on pension incomes and distributions.
I am not a political expert. But it seems to me that the budget bill was the first real chance of removing taxes from retirement
Pensions like social security.
A increasing number of states don’t tax retirement. How can we get the (usually much greater burden of) federal taxes off retirees, too?
President Regan instated taxes on SS. There were none prior.
> What the bill does do is provide a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors aged 65 and older. <
They could have gone for a tax deduction or a tax credit here. Evidently it’s a deduction, which is by far the less favorable of the two. 🙁
A tax deduction reduces your taxable income.
A tax credit reduces the amount of tax you owe, dollar for dollar.
(If I’ve got this wrong, someone please correct me.)
“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”?
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.
How is that? The benefit declines after $150k joint income.
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.
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?
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.
A three year tax benefit. Wow. Thanks GOP. That’s worth adding $6 trillion to the national debt. LOL.
Makes as much sense as all the rest of the filthy, shameful IRS code.
Numerous states also impose income taxes on SS benefits so seniors will get no relief there.