Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 12/28/2025 1:38:52 PM PST by fwdude
A $6,000 deduction is now law for some older Americans who receive Social Security benefits, a centerpiece of a major new bill signed by President Donald Trump. Promoted as historic relief, the reality is more complex, less generous, and comes with a significant long-term price tag that could undermine the very system it purports to help.
(Excerpt) Read more at futbolete.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
- It’s temporary. Very temporary. - You have to actively file for this benefit. - It’s more of a nominal reduction that most people realize.
The same can be said for the untaxability of overtime and tips. It is more of a bone thrown to the masses.
Why is it that all Republican-legislated tax relief is always temporary, with a sunsetting date in the near future, but democrats’ tax increases are always permanent?
It’s for those over 65, regardless of whether you’re collecting Social Security or not.
And it’s only for seniors with low or moderate incomes.
The second half of this article has a false assumption—the reification of the Social Security Trust Fund.
https://www.ocala.com/story/news/2005/02/27/a-socially-secure-filing-cabinet/31327008007/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
We will get the full (maximum) benefit.
Because “they” know the economy is cyclical. They are going to need the tax money back to fund servicing the debt.
They also schedule stuff to sunset around the next election so it can be used as a wedge issue. The Dems did it with the Obamacare subsidey. The GOP did it with this.
To me it just shows that those making the rules don’t give a flying sh!t about you and me. They just want to get elected and collect campaign money along the way. They are despicable.
Not low income. We don’t pay taxes already.
I’ve known a LOT of working seniors and retirees with taxable benefits who now think their social security benefits won’t be taxed. This is how it SHOULD be. That money was already taxed - twice. It’s immoral to tax it a third time, no matter how much income you make in retirement.
Why is a Spanish soccer website trying to write about taxes?
You are way too nice.
Income Limits (Modified Adjusted Gross Income - MAGI):
The full deduction is available for single filers with a MAGI up to $75,000 and married couples filing jointly with a combined MAGI up to $150,000.
No, the new law addresses social security benefits and their taxability. You get up to $6,000 in reduced taxable income (single) if you make enough income to trigger the taxability of social security benefits, a pretty low bar. For the average single person getting S.S., that’s less than 5 months of benefits that won’t be taxed. The benefits for the rest of the year will be taxed.
Yes, it’s something, but not nearly enough. And it’s gone by 2028.
It only benefits moderate earners. The very wealthy are phased out, and the low income don’t pay taxes on S.S. anyway.
“with low or moderate incomes”
Has that been defined?
Why is a Spanish soccer website trying to write about taxes?
They’re probably getting full boat USA benefits .... Medicaid, EBT, housing, education ... iow ... they have a vested interest in the American taxpayer 😂
“The taxation of Social Security benefits began in 1984, following the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which were signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
This change was implemented to improve tax equity by treating Social Security benefits more like other forms of retirement income and to generate additional revenue to strengthen the financial solvency of the Social Security trust funds.
Initially, up to 50% of benefits were subject to federal income tax for individuals whose provisional income—defined as adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest, and half of their Social Security benefits—exceeded $25,000 for single filers or $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
A second tier was introduced in 1993 under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, raising the maximum taxable portion to 85% for those with provisional income above $34,000 (single) or $44,000 (joint filers).
These income thresholds have not been adjusted for inflation since their establishment, leading to an increasing number of beneficiaries being subject to taxation.”
SS STILL goes into your Income. The ruse is an additional deduction for many, but not all. The deduction is not as large as the annual SS for many.
If it was higher the Trump haters on this thread would be screaming about the money only going to the rich,
Most disgusting thread I've seen on FR in a long time.
bkmk s/s
This change was implemented to improve tax equity by treating Social Security benefits more like other forms of retirement income and to generate additional revenue to strengthen the financial solvency of the Social Security trust funds.
Initially, up to 50% of benefits were subject to federal income tax for individuals whose provisional income—defined as adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest, and half of their Social Security benefits—exceeded $25,000 for single filers or $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
A second tier was introduced in 1993 under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, raising the maximum taxable portion to 85% for those with provisional income above $34,000 (single) or $44,000 (joint filers).
These income thresholds have not been adjusted for inflation since their establishment, leading to an increasing number of beneficiaries being subject to taxation."
SS STILL goes into your Income. The ruse is an additional deduction for many, but not all. The deduction is not as large as the annual SS for many.
If it was higher the Trump haters on this thread would be screaming about the money only going to the rich,
Most disgusting thread I've seen on FR in a long time.
“aforehand”? Brit English?
There are more than one MAGIs....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.