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

CBS News ^ | July 07, 2025 | Mary Cunningham

[njmaugbill]

No

[TexasGator]

“Gee, if you don’t like what I post…don’t read it.”

Not like I can “unread” it!

[TexasGator]

“They want it to be a campaign issue in ‘28.”

Nope. Required per reconciliation rules.

[TexasGator]

“You are way too angry.”

Please ask your doctor why your internet mind reading ability has been lost.

[central_va]

The trust fund is unaffected. FICA funds the trust fund.

[central_va]

Don’t fall for that lie. FICA funds SS and MC.

[eastexsteve]

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

No, it doesn't.

[P8riot]

"I will note that the removal of the tax on suppressors and SBRs destroys the Constitutionality of the law."

Apparently I have not been following this issue that closely. I was under the impression that this was removed from the bill. Did it actually make it through?

[Vermont Lt]

You aren’t very good at this are you? LOL

[TexasGator]

1”Eliminating taxes on Social Security under the bill was impossible because of a congressional restriction (dubbed the Byrd Rule after late West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd) that limits what the Senate can include in a reconciliation bill like the Republican budget measure.”

Wrong!

First, the SS Taxes are embedded into law. Changes in law do not go into reconciliation as then it would be subject to filibuster.

Second, the Byrd rule is a point of order and does not restrict what goes into reconciliation. It defines what are extraneous items. Any senator can raise a point of order on any item. If no point of order is raised, an extraneous item can remain and passed as part of the bill.

[minnesota_bound]

Congress makes something simple into complicated and the tax deduction temporary.

[Red Badger]

The trust fund is full of IOUs................................

[MeanWestTexan]

The removal of the tax did. The removal of the rest did not.

The SCOTUS case upon which the law relies, however, says, explicitly, that the law is Constitutional because it’s a tax under the taxing authority of Congress and the regulatory portions (fingerprinting, etc) are lawful because they support the tax.

No tax, no Constitutional support for the rest.