What is wrong with the tax cut for SS recipients. Although I will save

[doc03]

substantially on taxes it also takes funding from SS. What it does is increase the deduction
for retirees on SS. Instead, they could have raised the threshold for taxing SS income and removed the cap
for SS taxes it would have given middle class retired Americans a tax cut and the extra taxes paid by the rich would have put money into the SS trust instead. In the short run it will give some a tax break but after 2032 I read everyone's benefits will be cut. The cap on SS is still there for the rich while the trust fund will be depleted. Most will praise Trump for giving them a tax break not knowing 7 years from now them and
future generations will be screwed.

[gab13by13]

1. Exactly, they are shortening the life of SS.

I don't want their puny tax deduction. and it would benefit me seeing as I am about to be 78 years old.

My daughter has been planning for 20 years not to rely upon having SS.

[NCDem47]

11. "My daughter has been planning for 20 years not to rely upon having SS."

...and that's exactly what the Republicans wanted. They've been working to erode/end SS since 1940.

[Yonnie3]

2. smoke and mirrors

a saying that seems to fit

[Tadpole Raisin]

3. Yup, they want SS to collapse before 2034. This hastens the date and

allows them to blow it up, privatize it, and extract profit.

Oh yah and tighten control of the masses.

EVIL!

[lostincalifornia]

20. In my view the strategy is even shorter than that. Both the no taxes on social security, and the no tax on

tips is set to expire in 2028 when trump's term ends.

They rethugs are hoping that these temporary tax benefits on social security and tips will help them in the midterms and the next presidential election.

When that happens, and because of this tax bill, the deficit will have significantly increased, and that is when they will then campaign for either privatizing social security and medicare, or phasing it out. No more safety net.

It was one of the items in Project 2025.

[Wiz Imp]

27. The bill does not eliminate nor directly reduce taxes on Social Security Benefits

The bill does not even mention Social Security Benefits a single time in over 900 pages.

[CousinIT]

60. It gives some seniors an addition deduction on their tax returns. Ultimately it means ...

...they pay less tax on Social Security income because their taxable income is less. That's where the cut comes from, I think.

[Wiz Imp]

23. Not really. According to The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

We estimate that the extension and expansion of the 2017 tax cuts, the expanded senior deduction, and other OBBBA changes would reduce total taxation of benefits by roughly $30 billion per year. This would be enough to accelerate insolvency of the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors (OASI) trust fund from early 2033 to late 2032

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/obbba-would-accelerate-social-security-medicare-insolvency

So it would make the difference of a few months at most which is not significant. A recession could easily cause a much bigger change in the time frame.

I'm not convinced that their analysis is even necessarily. The bill did NOT change the amount of SS Benefits which are taxed at all. The bill doesn't even mention SS Benefits. The extra deduction for those 65 and over (which is just temporary) reduces the TOTAL income which is taxed, NOT just SS benefits. While The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that reduction to the SS Trust fund would be $30 billion, it's not clear it would necessarily be that much. Since, the deduction is to TOTAL income, how do they determine how much of the lost revenue comes from the SS Trust fund vs the General Fund?

Regardless, any lost revenue would be a relative pittance compare to the $1.7 trillion total which is collected annually by the trust fund.

[lostincalifornia]

33. Those that currently pay taxes on social security, would get those taxes back in the form of a credit on their

tax returns. That, along with the no tax on tips, and reduced tax rates especially on the wealthiest Americans. will all increase the deficit, and when they expire in 2028, will be used as an argument to either privatize or phase out Social Security and Medicare. That is the objective of Project 2025.

This is a bait and switch scheme. Short term benefit for some, while selling our destroying our children's future.

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/03/big-beautiful-bill-social-security

It reminds me of what a CEO of a company I worked for did. He sold our maintenance contracts off for a short-term gain to make the earnings looks good, and a few years later there were significant layoffs and consolidations, until it was absorbed by another company for its customer base, and the end of the company.

[Wiz Imp]

44. It is not a credit. It is a deduction.

A tax credit is applied after the tax has been calculated. That is not the case here. It is a deduction, meaning those who qualify can reduce the amount of income they pay taxes on by $6000 before the tax is applied. But their actual savings is only whatever their tax rate is times $6000. It has been confirmed that the average benefit for those who benefit will be just $670.

[valleyrogue]

24. How. praytell, is it going to "collapse"? It can't go broke.

WHY do people persist with the LIE ANY federal program can "go broke"? That is Cato Institute lies that have been perpetrated for decades.

The feds print money. Any alleged "shortfall" can come from the general fund.

[Ocelot II]

46. The SS trust fund invests in special-issue Treasury securities,

which are supposedly backed by the full faith and credit of the US government (for whatever that's worth any more).

[doc03]

4. I think if Harris would have taken up the issue

of taxing SS benefits and raising the cap on SS
we would have won the election. When he said
he would get rid of the tax on SS that is when I thought he was going to win. There were only a few thousand votes between winning and losing

[gab13by13]

9. Kamala Harris won the last election.

[BComplex]

14. Kamala Harris is our duly elected president, and I'm pretty sure everyone knows it deep in their hearts.

And I'm pretty sure she helped win both houses of congress, if the hackers, disenfranchisers and cheats hadn't had their way.

She planned to fix social security, medicare, and most importantly right now, the SUPREME COURT that is helping the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to destroy our democracy.

[Wiz Imp]

28. Perhaps. But the promise to eliminate taxes on SS Benefits was a total lie.

The bill does not eliminate nor directly reduce taxes on Social Security Benefits. The bill does not even mention Social Security Benefits a single time in over 900 pages.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Devaluation of the currency (inflation!) will make the end game worse

[gab13by13]

10. Everything that Krasnov is doing

is designed to weaken the dollar and strengthen crypto.

[homegirl]

15. And

benefit Putin!

[TexLaProgressive]

6. A llitle history

From its inception there was no tax on SS payments until Reagan. He not only imposed a tax onn SS but basically stole some 2 trillion dollars from the SS trust fund putting it into the general fund.

[doc03]

8. Reagan started the tax on SS by taxing

up to 50% of benefits. But it was Bill Clinton that increased it to 85%. I remember when first hearing Rush Limbaugh, he started every show critising Bill Clinton's tax on SS. There we go with messaging again they were able to turn that and the Bush NAFTA deal on us.

[lostincalifornia]

22. Yes, but it only applied to higher income beneficiaries, not those with modest incomes, and was part of the

Omnibus Reconciliation Act.

The tax on social security was started by reagan, as you said, and up to 50% of benefits potentially taxable for individuals and couples above certain income thresholds. Clinton added a second higher income threshold up to 85% taxable above that.

It is a perfect case and example of double taxation.

The big difference is under reagan and trump the deficit significantly increased, while under Clinton the deficit actually decreased.

[Wiz Imp]

34. Not double taxation. At least not when the law was passed.

The choice of 85 percent was based on previous calculations that showed workers earning the maximum taxable wage would contribute an amount equal to 17 percent of their lifetime benefits. The remaining amount (83 percent) represents benefits that exceed the contributions of hypothetical workers who earned the maximum taxable wage. The excess benefits are funded by employer contributions and general revenue used to redeem the trust fund which have not been taxed.

https://www.concordcoalition.org/deep-dives/issue-brief/taxing-social-security-benefits/

[MichMan]

18. Don't forget that Reagan did it with the approval of a Democratic House

He couldn't have passed any legislation without their help.

[valleyrogue]

25. UI was also taxed for the first time. n/t

[TexLaProgressive]

51. U.I. Unemployment Insurance or compensation?

[valleyrogue]

62. You have to pay taxes on your unemployment insurance benefits.

That wasn't the case before. The first time I went on it in the early 1980s, 1982-1983, the benefit was not taxed.

[Walleye]

7. Republicans hate Social Security, they've hated it from the beginning. They've done their best to try and destroy it.

[MLWR]

16. RepubliSCUM hate everything that benefits "We, the People."

[lostnfound]

12. No, it does NOT take any funding from SS. In fact it has nothing to do with SS.

The OBBB tax break for seniors is independent of whether or not they are receiving social security.

Furthermore, income tax paid by seniors who DO receive social security would not be going back into the social security fund.

[valleyrogue]

26. Thanks for the facts. n/t

[Wiz Imp]

37. You are partly right and partly wrong.

You are correct that the OBBB tax break for seniors is independent of whether or not they are receiving social security. The bill never mentions SS Benefits. There is no direct reduction in taxes paid on SS Benefits.

However, income taxes which are collected from SS Benefits do go back to the SS Trust Fund and not into the General Fund. I did not know that myself until yesterday. Part of the reason I didn't think that was true is I don't understand how they determine what portion of taxes collected come from the SS Benefits vs other income. Anyway, this explains it somewhat:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html

Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments. Under the '83 Amendments, up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income. The specific rules adopted in 1983 were:

If the taxpayer's combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer's combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983.

[gab13by13]

45. I copied this from Kiplinger, maybe another way to understand

how the 6k standard deduction could affect taxes on SS.

"Example: Consider a 67-year-old single retiree with $25,000 in Social Security and $18,000 from a retirement account. To determine if any Social Security is taxable, the IRS looks at "combined income." In this case, that’s $12,500 (half of $25,000) plus $18,000, totaling $30,500.

This fictional retiree’s combined income is just above the $25,000 threshold where Social Security benefits start to be taxed.
Under normal circumstances, a portion of their benefits would be included in taxable income.
However, if the bonus GOP deduction is available, it would reduce their taxable income, potentially lowering their combined income calculation as well.

With the bonus deduction and the OBBBA standard deduction proposed for 2025, their taxable income could drop enough to bring their combined income below the threshold or at least reduce how much of their Social Security is taxed."

[lostnfound]

48. I stand corrected, thank you. I'm pleasantly surprised. Nt

[RandomNumbers]

53. NOT CORRECT.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20458893

Or read the WaPo article directly (the important point is excerpted at my DU post).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/07/02/senior-deduction-trump-social-security/


Note that the OBBB did NOT address the reduction in benefits to SS recipients based on other earnings. It ONLY provides a deduction to taxable income, which is only helpful for middle and upper earners. Benefits reduction kicks in at about 23K of annual earnings, so potentially impacts some lower income retirees.

[CousinIT]

61. ? Taxes paid on Social Security DO go back into the Soc Security Trust Fund, not the treasury..

....Unless that has now changed and if it has, THAT'S A HUUUUGE CUT.

[MichMan]

64. Did not know that

I am on SS with a couple small type hobby jobs while my spouse is working full time. When we file joint taxes, our income is aggregated together and after the Standard Deduction and withholding from earnings, we end up with a combined household tax liability.

I never knew the IRS was able to divert a portion of that to the SS Trust Fund based on how much tax I owed individually on SS. I don't recall ever seeing a line item for that on the form.

[lostincalifornia]

13. It is a Machiavelli con along with the "no tax on tips", both set to expire in 2028 when trump's term ends.

Its strategy is that those on social security and those who work on tips will vote for republicans in the midterms and next presidential election.

It will expire when trump leaves office, and will hurt the poorest, along with accelerating Social Security and Medicare insolvency.

All this will significantly increase the deficit at the expense of decreasing Medicaid benefits, healthcare services, and other vital services.

While most objective people can see right through this con, the diabolical, deceitful hope of trump and his republican thugs, is that it will deceive older Americans over 65, and the younger population which earns their wages through tips to impact the midterms in 2026, and the presidential election in 2028.

Most in the demographics affected may not realize or worse, not care that it is selling the future of social security, medicare, and the poor and middle class down the toilet, for the illusion of short term gains.

This is how he hopes to win the midterms and the next presidential election for the next republican THUG.

This is Project 2025 on steroids, and will be the destruction of the middle class, and permanent rethug rule.

The question is, can those poor, working poor, and those who won't realize any of the short term benefit from this deception be enough to vote them out in 2026 and 2028? That will be the last hope for our Democracy.

The deficit will be so bad because of this deplorable tax legislation, that when the next presidential election comes up they will use that argument to justify either privatizing Social Security and Medicare, or actually "phasing it out", which will be the end of the safety net for millions of Americans.

[NGeorgian]

17. There's nothing about SS in the bill...............

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Section-by-Section.pdf

[lostincalifornia]

19. Yes it does. The tax bill is a thousand pages long.

Trump's Social security administration sent out an email praising this "tax break", with some misleading statements in the email:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/social-security-administration-sends-misleading-email-lauding-trumps-n-rcna216990

"The "big, beautiful bill" features a new tax break for older Americans who pay taxes on Social Security income. But there's a significant catch.

Why it matters: The break leaves out the poorest seniors — who already don't pay Social Security taxes —and the very rich ones, too.

How it works: Both the House and Senate bills include an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older. In the Senate version, the new deduction is $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples.

The deduction starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples), and phases out completely at $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, in the Senate version.
The break expires in 2028 when President Trump leaves office, as do a few other White House priorities in the bills, including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on auto loan interest."

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/03/big-beautiful-bill-social-security

[Wiz Imp]

38. Super misleading. The bill does not mention SS Benefits even once.

The bill added a new deduction of up to $6000 for those people 65 and over (many of whom collect SS Benefits). However, that deduction is not tied to SS at all. Even people who do not receive SS Benefits may take the deduction, and those people under 65 receiving SS Benefits can NOT take the deduction.

The Trump administration is trying to pretend that the bill eliminated (or reduced) taxes on SS Benefits, but it in fact did nothing of the sort. There is no direct reduction in SS Benefits in the bill. What it does do is give the $6000 deduction to those 65 and over, so that deduction may cover some or all of the tax they would pay on their SS Benefits. BUt that is not the same as eliminating taxes on SS Benefits. The SS Benefits are still added to people's potentially taxable income before the deduction is applied.

[lostincalifornia]

50. It is a credit which offsets the tax you pay on it, no?

[Wiz Imp]

58. No. It is not a credit. It is a deduction.

A tax credit is applied after the tax has been calculated. That is not the case here. It is a deduction (increasing the standard deduction for those 65 & over), meaning those who qualify can reduce the amount of income they pay taxes on by $6000 before the tax is applied. But their actual savings is only whatever their tax rate is times $6000. It has been confirmed that the average benefit for those who benefit will be just $670.

And there is no connection between the Deduction and Social Security. EVERYONE age 65 and older is eligible for the deduction whether they have taxable SS Benefits or not.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-break-for-seniors-trump-bill-includes-additional-6000-deduction-204604211.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE-XzkwEQ6a_M6A6c-6dqyGdIMjF3BBlckEx3EcYzCIZvYPzz2kNXerchHpF6wFdtvOvSarI80bJi4bV034wcvPZuAF6q02awOjSkqcgDreM4EdNTzJ2Ns68co4AQMI_jL1gSTUmfSLjlHer0FLvE5Ae9VUa-FOcco_NNUKPr6EX

President Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill that passed the House on Thursday provides a $6,000 boost to senior citizens’ standard deduction from 2025 through 2028. The new temporary tax break — $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples — is for tax filers age 65 and older. It starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples).

To be clear, this provision does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits as Trump promised in the campaign. It is a temporary income tax deduction, not a cut in the Social Security tax.

“Low-income seniors won’t benefit at all, and nor will very high-income seniors,” Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fiscal responsibility, told Yahoo Finance. Most lower-income seniors don’t have enough of a tax liability to claim the new deduction. In 2022, the median income of older adults was $29,740, according to the National Council on Aging.

The majority of taxpayers claim the standard deduction, which is $15,000 (or $30,000 for couples) for 2025. Seniors who are single filers already qualify for an additional deduction of $2,000. (If you're married, filing jointly or separately, it's $1,600 per qualifying individual.) This newly passed short-term deduction raises that amount by another $6,000.

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-tax-credits-and-how-do-they-differ-tax-deductions#:~:text=Credits%20reduce%20taxes%20directly%20and,rate%2C%20which%20rises%20with%20income.
What are tax credits and how do they differ from tax deductions?

Tax Credits
Tax credits are subtracted directly from a person’s tax liability; they therefore reduce taxes dollar for dollar. Credits have the same value for everyone who can claim their full value.

Tax Deductions
Tax filers have the choice of claiming the standard deduction or itemizing deductible expenses from a list that includes state and local taxes paid, mortgage interest, and charitable contributions. In either case, filers decrease their taxable income by the amount of the allowed deduction.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

21. No. Because of the bill being a reconciliation bill they actually could not touch the SS trust fund, so they...

...just made this a regular tax credit to get around that. SS is still taxed and that money goes into the SS trust fund, but a tax credit gives most SS recipients money back to offset what they paid in taxes--but that depends on taxable income, etc. It's more a slight of hand, and they still hold onto your money for the tax year before giving it back to you just like any other tax credit.

But yes, the income cap on SS withholding would be by far the easiest way to right the ship. But in a world where spending money is considered free speech...it's never going to happen.

Future benefits will be cut, but it will not be specifically because of this provision.

[Wiz Imp]

40. Correct. You stated it pretty succinctly. Better than I did.

[RandomNumbers]

54. This provision DOES move up the insolvency date of the SS trust fund

by about a year, per WAPO

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20458251


You are correct that there is "slight(sic) of hand" here. (Except it's "sleight" )

[Ol Janx Spirit]

66. Thanks!

[Ocelot II]

29. It's an illusion. There's no actual tax cut for SS income.

What they've done instead is provided an extra standard deduction for people over 64 so it looks like there's no SS tax - in other words, most people will get enough of a deduction that it looks like your SS income isn't taxed. But it's only temporary; the deduction will expire and your SS income will be taxed like it always was; you'll just feel it because the deduction will be gone. This sleight-of-hand has to be exposed for what it is. It doesn't affect the SS fund directly but it affects the total amount of revenue received.

[MichMan]

30. Then it doesn't affect the SS trust fund like the OP is claiming. n/t

[D. Spaulding]

32. I'd say that's correct.

[Ocelot II]

35. That's correct, except indirectly wrt total tax revenue.

The SS trust fund gets most of its money from the FICA tax as well from taxes paid on SS income (this would be offset by the deduction, which might be where the confusion arises). The fund also invests in special-issue Treasury securities that earn interest.

[Wiz Imp]

41. That part is unclear. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says:

We estimate that the extension and expansion of the 2017 tax cuts, the expanded senior deduction, and other OBBBA changes would reduce total taxation of benefits by roughly $30 billion per year.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/obbba-would-accelerate-social-security-medicare-insolvency

but I'm not sure if that's true.

[RandomNumbers]

55. Yes. it does

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20458251

[D. Spaulding]

31. Since you get that extra deduction, whether you're

claiming SS benefits or not, it has no real connection to Social Security at all.

[Ocelot II]

36. True, but it's being used to claim that Dear Leader in his mercy has removed the tax on SS income.

[MichMan]

39. It is only applicable to people over 65

I would guess that the vast majority are receiving SS. Did a search and it is 9 out of 10.

[Wiz Imp]

42. But there are also millions of people under 65 collecting SS benefits who get no tax breaks at all from this bill.

[Ocelot II]

43. Still, it's not connected to SS. A couple million people or so will never get SS

because they didn't have enough of a work history to qualify for it. They'd also be eligible for the deduction, but most are already so poor that a tax deduction is meaningless.

[gab13by13]

47. I went back and looked at my taxes from last year,

The 6k additional standard deduction is only applied after the determination is made about how much SS benefits are taxable.

I figured my own taxes out last year, went through the SS tax work sheet and the amount of my taxable SS is determined before Krasnov's extra standard deduction is subtracted.

Krasnov's extra standard deduction has nothing to do with determining taxable SS benefits. What I posted from Kiplinger prior to this is wrong.

My total taxable income will be lower but the amount of my taxable Social Security will not change.

[Ocelot II]

52. Yup. That's how it works, but Krasnov wants us all to think that he, in his munificense,

has granted us peons relief from those crushing SS taxes.

[OKnow]

65. Agreed, but tax might be at a lower rate.

I believe you are correct (and yours is the best analysis yet in this thread). The SS taxable is calculated before the standard or special deduction (as you say). But the special deduction may lower your marginal tax rate because your taxable income is reduced.

I think the reduction in tax on SS will be small. That is good in that it has a smaller effect on the trust fund, but it is very misleading to state that it reduces taxes on social security. Any reduction will only occur by virtue of taxable income falling into a lower marginal bracket and will only be a few percent.

[doc03]

49. I have read here numorous times SS isn't

mentioned in the BBB. It may not be but the way I understand the tax we pay on our SS benefits goes into the SS trust fund. If a senior gets a larger deduction that would reduce the amount SS that is taxable, therefore reducing the amount that goes into the SS trust fund. There may not be one word about SS but it will reduce the taxes paid on SS benefits and result in less going into the SS trust fund.

[RandomNumbers]

56. You are correct

This is one time when it is worth reading journalists who do this for a living - but only those journalists who do it well.

Despite some of their unfortunate decisions recently, WaPo still has a few good ones on staff.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20458251

[MichMan]

73. Wouldn't that be true of any other tax deductions taken by seniors on SS ?

Like mortgage interest, SALT deductions etc. ?

[Voltaire2]

57. It doesn't actually change SS funding.

Your income will still trigger including ss benefits as always. The SS trust fund will continue to be credited for that revenue. The fact that you will now have an additional 6K deduction does not change that anymore than any other deduction.

[CousinIT]

59. It is a cut to money going into Social Security, according to this article:

And because it does that, Social Security's inability to pay full benefits will occur sooner, and the cuts that result will be deeper. I think the initial estimates were 2033 and payment of 85-90% of benefits.

Now, the estimate is 2032 (or sooner), and payment of only 77% of benefits. I've seen different numbers, but bottom line, it negatively affects Social Security's ability to pay full benefits soon.

That's a significant cut for everyone on Social Security. ALL BECAUSE we don't make billionaires pay their fair share or pay more, which they can WELL, WELL afford.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-social-security-budget-bill

[MichMan]

63. The Social Security Fairness Act legislation passed last year did shorten the trust fund solvency

while benefiting a fraction of total SS recipients. As I recall, it was widely praised here, yet I see a lot of opposition to seniors (like me) receiving a little more in their check every month with the tax provision.

[RandomNumbers]

67. It's a deduction taken at tax time, not a monthly increase in your check.

And it will be irrelevant for those who most need it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20458251

I have no objection to SS recipients receiving a little more - especially if it comes in the monthly check - which this DOES NOT. But it should be done in a way that benefits the most needy AND does not hasten the across-the-board cuts due to fund insolvency.

I think most of us object on 3 basic points:

1. It is done in a way that doesn't help the most needy, and the overall bill HURTS the most needy. Since it is a deduction to taxable income, it does NOTHING for those who already make so little they don't pay taxes. Meanwhile, it is offset (ostensibly) by CUTS that WILL impact those who are most needy in our society. And don't forget that the overall bill ADDS to the deficit. It is all smoke and mirrors to benefit the wealthiest, with a few crumbs thrown to demographics most likely to support Trump, while shafting the rest of the country.

2. It moves up the date when, unless something is done to push that date out, there will most likely be across-the-board cuts to payouts. Meaning, breaking the contract with folks like me, who are approaching retirement but will have most of our retirement years impacted by those looming cuts. If you are still drawing SS in 2032, it will reduce your income then, unless something is done. - the exact opposite of what you are positing this provision will do for you today. (Note, I opposed the SS "Fairness" Act for exactly these reasons as did CRFB. I did not object to Biden signing it once it passed, due to the politics of it. Again, it was an issue of who it helped vs. who it hurt - for some reason those who think they are helped, are not happy with those of us who are more concerned with those who are hurt.)

3. Probably the biggest general objection: The Trump administration, predictably, is being VERY MISLEADING about what this provision does. They did NOT stop taxation of SS benefits. They did NOT help most seniors, and in fact ultimately hurt us. But it is Trump, so they are lying. Of course. Do not believe the crap they are sending out, if it is coming from Trump, you can safely assume it is a LIE.

[MichMan]

68. If I currently have taxes withheld from my check, and no longer need to, why wouldn't that be a increase every month?

[RandomNumbers]

70. Only if you reduce your withholding accurately based on this provision

But if you do nothing regarding your withholding, this provision does nothing for your monthly check.

You just highlighted another trap with Trump's misleading communications - if people think he has eliminated the income tax on SS, then they are mistaken. You will STILL owe tax according to the revised formula. Maybe a fraction of seniors - possibly including yourself - fall into a golden zone where this would eliminate your tax on SS - I haven't done the numbers myself, just read reliable reporting on this.

It doesn't change the fact that this is an ultimate loss for most seniors, and that Trump's SSA blatantly lied about it in their email. And that your benefit, should you receive one, is at the expense of taking away assistance from many of the most needy Americans. When it could have been done in a different way, that did not hurt others so much.

More:
https://govfacts.org/explainer/how-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-impacts-social-security/


N.B. - I am nearing retirement; if I retire soon I personally "benefit" (temporarily) from this provision of the Big Bullshit Bill. But you know, I am not interested in making more money on the backs of the disadvantaged. I am not interested in gaining a little now to lose much more later, with a broken contract. (Note that the aforementioned Windfall Elimination Provision seems to have been "phased in" so that people knew what was coming and had an opportunity to adjust - i.e. not a breach of contract. WEP possibly needed fixing, but again, the politically driven Congress chose to do something that they could make "LOOK GOOD" while actually making things worse.)

[PCB66]

69. My wife and I are retired

We have a six figure income of which SS is about 25%. The $12K deduction will save us about $2K in taxes each year.

[RandomNumbers]

71. Saving your 100K+ household $ on the backs of the disadvantaged.

Okay then.

Great for you, but not everything that benefits you personally is necessarily good policy, right?

https://govfacts.org/explainer/how-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-impacts-social-security/

And how will you feel with a 20 - 25% benefit cut starting in 2032?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2025/06/29/social-security-benefit-cuts-are-coming-timeline/
(ignore the ads, this article has some good analysis from a site that is credible for this type of info)

But the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report does indicate that the existing payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, is unsustainable beyond 2033. If nothing is done to reform Social Security, OASI benefits may need to be cut by 23% in just eight years, which is a steeper reduction than was forecast in the previous Trustees Report.

[Dave says]

72. Not taxing a greater portion of SS has NO ...

… has NO impact on FICA taxes collected. It does not erode the trust fund. Its sole impact is reducing revenues to general federal funds (by numbers amounting rounding errors). What am I missing here?

Of course, adding $3T to the debt will pressure pols to cease paying back the trust fund as the Special Treasury Bonds the trust fund is invested in mature. But that’s a different matter.

There’s still the gap, but IF they continue to pay interest, and they continue to pay back the face value of maturing bonds, we still fall short in upcoming years (and lifting the cap would resolve that). But that’s a big IF.

What does exhaust the trust fund sooner is deporting large numbers of immigrants that pay into social security but, due to their undocumented status, will never collect benefits. It kills a revenue stream. Ipso facto we dip into the trust fund more sharply, exhausting it sooner.

[MichMan]

74. The comments here are fascinating

Not referring to any other complaints that people have on the BBB which I completely understand, but specific to this one particular provision. Not understanding the angst over an additional $6000 tax deduction for senior citizens. How is lowering the tax burden on senior citizens a bad thing like so many have commented? Seems like a plan that people would be in favor of but looks like that's not the case. SMH

Here are some of the arguments I've seen against it here. Might have missed some.

1) It doesn't apply to everyone on SS, only those over 65. True; but lots of tax deductions are limited. Mortgage interest deductions don't apply to renters, SALT deductions are only useful in high tax states, child deductions cut off at 18 or don't apply to those who don't have children. Just how it is.

2) It doesn't apply to low income people with no tax liability. Pretty much true for any other non refundable tax deduction like SALT, EV credits, or Mortgage interest, yet I haven't seen complaints about that.

3) It doesn't apply to higher income seniors. Odd to see complaints here that the wealthier aren't getting their fair share.

4) It is temporary. Fine for the meantime; people can campaign in 2028 about making it permanent then, or for that matter, just letting it expire

5) It will hurt the SS trust fund. I don't believe it has any effect, but COLA and the 2024 Social Security Fairness Act both do, and those have universal support here.

6) It adds to the deficit. So does all other spending that isn't directly offset by tax increases. Yes, that included the popular proposed Student Loan forgiveness plan of $10,000/20,000 that the SC stopped.

7) It will only be an average of only $670 in tax savings for those who qualify. So, if the amount is so low to be meaningless, how then can it have such a huge negative effect on the deficit or trust fund?

8) The administration is lying about it. OK, what a shocker, but doesn't change what it actually is.