Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
42. Yes, and the impact
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:24 AM
Feb 2013

was a lot less money in seniors' pockets.

Social Security: Calculation and History of Taxing Benefits
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss24.pdf

It's easy to push the talking point, "first Democratic president to cut Social Security," by ignoring the facts: Carter implemented COLA, Reagan taxed benefits, Clinton increased the tax

Reagan's legacy of tax increases is based solely on taxing Social Security.

<...>

Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.

Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?

A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.

This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


<...>

TAX TREATMENT

Taxation of Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits

Beginning in 1984, includes in taxable income up to one-half of Social Security (and railroad retirement tier 1) benefits received by taxpayers whose incomes exceed certain base amounts. The base amounts are $25,000 for a single taxpayer, $32,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and zero for married taxpayers filing separately. Income for purposes of figuring these base amounts includes adjusted gross income under prior law, plus nontaxable interest income, and one-half of Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 benefits. The amount of benefits that could be included in taxable income will be the lesser of one-half of benefits or one-half of the excess of the taxpayers' combined income (AGI + one-half of benefits) over the base amount. The provision for including nontaxable interest income is intended to provide similar tax treatment of benefits received by individuals whose total incomes consist of different mixes of taxable and nontaxable income and to limit opportunities for manipulation of tax liability on benefits.

Includes in the definition of Social Security benefits for tax purposes workmen's compensation benefits to the extent they cause a reduction in Social Security and railroad retirement tier 1 disability benefits. This provision is intended to assure that these social insurance benefits, which are paid in lieu of Social Security payments, are treated similarly for purposes of taxation.

The provision applies to nonresident aliens as well as U.S. citizens. Under the Internal Revenue Code, nonresident aliens who have income from sources other than a U.S. trade or business are taxed at a flat rate of 30 percent, unless a tax treaty provides otherwise, and the taxes must be withheld at the source of payment. Thus, 30 percent of 1/2 of the Social Security benefit (15 percent of the total benefit) will be withheld from nonresident alien beneficiaries.

Provides special rules for dealing with overpayments and lump-sum retroactive benefit payments. Benefits paid to an individual in any taxable year will be reduced by any overpayments repaid during the year. Taxpayers who receive a lump-sum payment of retroactive benefits may treat the benefits as wholly payable for the year in which they receive them or may elect to attribute the benefits to the tax years in which they would have fallen had they been paid timely. No benefits for months before December 1983 would be taxable, regardless of when they are paid.

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Railroad Retirement Board to file annual returns with the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the amounts of benefits paid to each individual in each calendar year, together with the name and address of the individual. Also requires furnishing of similar information to each beneficiary.

Requires that amounts equivalent to estimated quarterly proceeds from the taxation of benefits be automatically deposited in the Social Security trust funds and the railroad retirement account, as appropriate, at the beginning of each calendar quarter, subject to final adjustments based on estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury. Requires an annual report by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the transfers under this provision.

The provision is estimated to affect about 10 percent of Social Security beneficiaries in 1984. Amounts equal to the estimated tax revenues under this provision will be automatically deposited to the OASDI trust funds. The provision increases trust fund revenues by $26.7 billion for 1983-1989 and by .62 percent of taxable payroll in the long range.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend2.html


The effect of Reagan's tax cuts were at least partially offset by phased in Social Security payroll tax increases that had been enacted by President Jimmy Carter and the 95th Congress in 1977

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Tax_revenue

A Democratic President enacted the COLA. Everything objectionable, from linking Social Security to the general fund, was part of that proposal.

President Jimmy Carter

<...>

While campaigning for President, I stressed my commitment to restore the financial integrity of the Social Security system. I pledged I would do my best to avoid increases above those already scheduled in tax rates, which fall most heavily on moderate and lower-income workers. I also promised to correct the technical flaw in the system which exaggerates the adjustment for inflation, and to do so without reducing the relative value of retirement benefits as compared with pre-retirement earnings.

I am announcing today a set of proposals which meet those commitments and which solve both the short-term and long-term problems in the Social Security system through the end of the twentieth century. These proposals are designed to:

--Prevent the default of the trust funds now predicted to occur.

--Bring income and expenses into balance in 1978 and keep them that way through the end of the century.

--Create sufficient reserves to protect the system against sudden declines in revenue caused by unemployment or other economic uncertainties.

--Protect the system's integrity beyond the turn of the century to the extent we can predict what will happen in the next 75 years.

--Provide for an orderly review and examination of the system's basic structure.

My proposals are the result of a number of hard choices. I am convinced that action is needed now, and that these steps will restore the financial integrity of the Social Security system.

I will ask the Congress to take the following specific actions:

1. Compensate the Social Security trust funds from general revenues for a share of revenues lost during severe recessions. General revenues would be used in a counter-cyclical fashion to replace the payroll tax receipts lost as a result of that portion of unemployment in excess of six percent. General revenues would be used only in these carefully limited situations. Because this is an innovative measure, the legislation we submit will provide this feature only through 1982. The next Social Security Advisory Council will be asked to review this counter-cyclical mechanism to determine whether it should be made permanent.

2. Remove the wage-base ceiling for employers. Under present law employers and employees pay a tax only on the first $16,500 in wages. Under this proposal the employer ceiling would be raised over a three-year period, so that by 1981 the ceiling would be removed. This action will provide a significant source of revenue without increasing long-term benefit liabilities.

3. Increase the wage base subject to the employee tax by $600 in 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1985, beyond the automatic increases in current law. This will provide a progressive source of financing.

4. Shift revenues from the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Trust Funds. In part, this shift will be made possible because of substantial savings to the Medicare system from the hospital cost containment legislation that I have proposed.

5. Increase the tax rate on the self-employed from 7 percent to 7.5 percent. This will restore the historical relationship between the OASI and the DI rates paid by the self-employed to one and one-half times that paid by employees.

6. Correct certain technical provisions of the Social Security Act which differentiate on the basis of sex. This will include a new eligibility test for dependent benefits. Recent Supreme Court decisions would result in un-financed increases in the cost of the system and some inequities without this change.

These six steps, along with measures already contained in existing law, will eliminate the short-term financing problem and improve the overall equity of the Social Security system.

In order to guarantee the financial integrity of the system into the next century, two additional steps must be taken. I will be asking the Congress to:

1. Modify the Social Security benefit formula to eliminate the inflation over-adjustment now in law. This modification, known as "decoupling," should be done in a way that maintains the current ratio of retirement benefits to pre-retirement wages.

2. Adjust the timing of a tax rate increase already contained in current law. The one percent tax rate increase presently scheduled for the year 2011 would be moved forward so that .25 percent would occur in 1985 and the remainder in 1990.

Taken together, the actions I am recommending today will eliminate the Social Security deficit for the remainder of this century. They mill reduce the estimated 75-year deficit from the Trustee Report forecast of 8.2 percent of payroll to a manageable 1.9 percent.

Prompt enactment of the measure I have recommended will provide the Social Security system with financial stability. This is an overriding immediate objective.

In addition, I am instructing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to appoint the independent Social Security Advisory Council required by law to meet each four years. I will ask the Council to conduct a thorough reexamination of the structure of the system, the adequacy of its benefits, the effectiveness and equity of disability definitions, and the efficiency and responsiveness of its administration. Their report, which will be issued within the next two years, will provide the basis for further improvements.

I call upon the Congress to act favorably on these major reform initiatives.

Jimmy Carter

The White House,

May 9, 1977.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/carterstmts.html#system


Fact, the current COLA is inadequate:

Even Social Security’s current cost-of-living adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients, who spend far more on health care than anyone else – including annual increases in Medicare premiums.

http://robertreich.org/post/38349329185

Inadequate and taxed, but "first Democratic president to cut Social Security," sounds so evil. This is going to play out soon. If Repubicans accept the President's proposal, it will likely come to a vote, and the structure of his plan will be known.

I doubt Republicans are going to come around.






Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

-1000 to the OP. graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
Thanks,graham! sheshe2 Feb 2013 #3
Do you agree we need the cuts? madfloridian Feb 2013 #11
Why? Hissyspit Feb 2013 #40
What I do not agree to in this OP is sheshe2 Feb 2013 #45
That's fine, but madfloridian does not participate Hissyspit Feb 2013 #47
I truly think we should be far more concerned sheshe2 Feb 2013 #51
No, the GOP owns neither the SS cuts or the education reform. madfloridian Feb 2013 #57
You can not be serious. sheshe2 Feb 2013 #58
Very serious. If they made them their policies, they now own them. madfloridian Feb 2013 #64
Then teachers own salary and benefit concessions michigandem58 Feb 2013 #97
That analogy doesn't work. blackspade Feb 2013 #137
Think about it... madfloridian Feb 2013 #138
I'll agree with you on charter schools michigandem58 Feb 2013 #146
Then let them do it without personal propping. treestar Feb 2013 #79
That's funny, that's strange, but it is rather hateful to say. madfloridian Feb 2013 #81
OMG!!! a "Reverse Ad Hominem" !!! bvar22 Feb 2013 #92
Then let those who disagree with OP do it without substance-less first-post knee-jerk disapproval. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #95
Well it was rather treestar Feb 2013 #127
It bothered you because someone gave me a compliment? madfloridian Feb 2013 #131
Thank you treestar... sheshe2 Feb 2013 #132
Obama's plan includes chained CPI which = CUTS. It may be that this is some kind of 3-dimensional HiPointDem Feb 2013 #48
Except that's not the counterproposal in entirety, is it? Honestly, now....is it? Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #122
2/3 of SS recipients rely on it for 50% or more of their income, and the top 1/3 gets taxed on HiPointDem Feb 2013 #140
Protections for the vulnerable. That's the fact. Plus, the Repubs will NEVER accept that proposal. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #156
'protections for the vulnerable' = meaningless blow job in this context HiPointDem Feb 2013 #157
You can believe what you want. Free country. But it's a meaningless proposal. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #158
and there's no harm in raising a stink when any politician makes such a proposal. to let them HiPointDem Feb 2013 #159
Sometimes it is about far more than Obama. madfloridian Feb 2013 #53
No disrespect to you at all madforidian, sheshe2 Feb 2013 #55
By waiting and seeing, deals get implemented without input or protest from the affected tpsbmam Feb 2013 #147
The naysayers have *not* been proven wrong-- the pollyanna, "trust him" gang has been Marr Feb 2013 #54
Pollyanna, no. sheshe2 Feb 2013 #56
You were proven wrong when he proposed SS cuts. Marr Feb 2013 #71
exactly stupidicus Feb 2013 #128
Exactly who are you calling a freak/purist? nt sheshe2 Feb 2013 #133
obviously stupidicus Feb 2013 #151
Sounds like the poor on Social Security won't be affected by chained CPI, anyway. Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #121
Wow madfloridian Feb 2013 #5
In more ways then one. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #39
heh heh madfloridian Feb 2013 #73
At first I read it as +1000 & I thought, CrispyQ Feb 2013 #101
She's questioning authority. Bringing important facts and truths to our attention. Zorra Feb 2013 #20
I imagine his next post: are you now or have you ever been a Naderite Republican? Dragonfli Feb 2013 #26
I take it you didn't like that question. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #22
Yeah, typical. Hissyspit Feb 2013 #38
Means a lot coming from you. madfloridian Feb 2013 #43
I'll second that. FogerRox Feb 2013 #61
FogerRox! Haven't seen you around in ages. madfloridian Feb 2013 #65
Sup FogerRox Feb 2013 #67
I'm at Kos also. Since 2004 I think. madfloridian Feb 2013 #70
ask for an invite to Social Security Defenders group FogerRox Feb 2013 #74
SSD @DK, ask 4 invite to group FogerRox Feb 2013 #75
Done. madfloridian Feb 2013 #85
Couldn't agree more. nt tpsbmam Feb 2013 #148
What a stupid post. Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #107
Does this mean you support Republicans putting SS cuts on the table, claiming sabrina 1 Feb 2013 #155
+ 1001 DJ13 Feb 2013 #2
And remember, the $1000 reduction over 15 years becomes the new baseline Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #4
Yep, its like compounding interest DJ13 Feb 2013 #6
Well, in their defense, there isn't a hell of a lot they can do about it. Marr Feb 2013 #9
+1. It's a recipe for immiseration and the destruction of the program. HiPointDem Feb 2013 #49
+10000 Thank you. woo me with science Feb 2013 #91
^^^^^Excellent point! Thanks, Demo_Chris^^^^^^ nt tpsbmam Feb 2013 #149
+1 leftstreet Feb 2013 #153
Nearly 10% of seniors are already below the poverty line. joshcryer Feb 2013 #7
And if he isn't actually selling it, why dress it up? Marr Feb 2013 #8
+1 woo me with science Feb 2013 #18
Here's a page of polls from google..perhaps those up for election in 2014 need to beware. madfloridian Feb 2013 #10
This President has a fetish for cutting Social Security MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #12
Choosing Simpson and Bowles sent a message to seniors, I think. madfloridian Feb 2013 #13
As Clinton's Chief of Staff, Bowles brokered a deal between Clinton and Gingrich MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #14
Yep...and just end of last week Simpson & Bowles were over the KoKo Feb 2013 #99
Hoping that they Nite Owl Feb 2013 #103
Yep. nt MannyGoldstein Feb 2013 #112
Campaign promise kept! joshcryer Feb 2013 #15
Great big ol' K&R MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #16
It is obscene of Obama to pretend it is "balanced" to hurt seniors who forestpath Feb 2013 #17
Very sad state 840high Feb 2013 #21
+100000 It's unconscionable. woo me with science Feb 2013 #24
Unconscionable and incomprehensible. hay rick Feb 2013 #28
K&R and a +1000 to counteract the first reply :-D (n/t) a2liberal Feb 2013 #19
Thanks. madfloridian Feb 2013 #23
SS should be strengthened JEB Feb 2013 #25
Job creation and raising the min wage means more FICA FogerRox Feb 2013 #66
Must protect poor little, vulnerable banksters, as always. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #27
Actually, that REALLY IS one of the rationalizations used here, for reallzies: Dragonfli Feb 2013 #30
From that source, I'm not the least surprised. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #104
Huge, huge K&R, woo me with science Feb 2013 #29
Thank you for that. madfloridian Feb 2013 #41
You're so right. woo me with science Feb 2013 #134
It's eleventeen dimensional chess donchaknow. progressoid Feb 2013 #31
K & R AzDar Feb 2013 #32
First Democratic president to cut Social Security? Not quite. JayhawkSD Feb 2013 #33
Yes, and the impact ProSense Feb 2013 #42
That was then. This is now. I have criticized Clinton for things like that. madfloridian Feb 2013 #46
Are we getting disillusioned yet? nt fadedrose Feb 2013 #34
POTUS Obama has usually put neoliberal ideas on the table. PufPuf23 Feb 2013 #35
Why would President Obama want to "protections for the vulnerable?" ProSense Feb 2013 #36
Because "superlative CPI" is a BENEFIT CUT. nt hay rick Feb 2013 #37
If this is the benefits cuts Republicans want, why aren't they jumping on it? n/t ProSense Feb 2013 #44
cause they're playing 3-dimensional chess too.... HiPointDem Feb 2013 #50
Now that I think about it, you're right, Obama put it on the table, Dragonfli Feb 2013 #52
Obama is an individual Babel_17 Feb 2013 #123
I'm very much afraid that if Dems are linked to SS cuts... Jasana Feb 2013 #59
No. LWolf Feb 2013 #60
No, you are not being paranoid. madfloridian Feb 2013 #62
Not at all. It would make 2014 a potential Waterloo. FogerRox Feb 2013 #63
And we will be told to vote for the lesser of two evils again, CrispyQ Feb 2013 #113
Fuck with OUR Social Security and reap the whirlwind, Democrats. 99Forever Feb 2013 #68
New poll out from The Hill. 62% of Republicans oppose cuts. 82% of Democrats. madfloridian Feb 2013 #69
Count me in the 82% Progressive dog Feb 2013 #98
If it includes "protections for the vulnerable" Autumn Feb 2013 #72
Sigh. Yes, the chained CPI would reduce the budget deficit Recursion Feb 2013 #76
Not paying ones bills does "appear" to leave more money in the bank, Dragonfli Feb 2013 #86
Well, yes, defaulting on all foreign-held bonds would decrease the deficit also Recursion Feb 2013 #87
Honestly? because theft is not an option, it isn't really true it's accounting fraud Dragonfli Feb 2013 #88
We "owe" SS retirees precisely what we legally obligate ourselves to pay them Recursion Feb 2013 #89
keep telling yourself that, I am sure someday you will believe it Dragonfli Feb 2013 #90
What do you mean, "And that has changed over time?" John2 Feb 2013 #115
The same reason lipstick is applied to pigs. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #77
Finally an answer to the question! woo me with science Feb 2013 #82
Just about the truth. madfloridian Feb 2013 #84
The question is not whether it is a "cut" treestar Feb 2013 #78
Here are a bunch of links from a google search of "social security cuts 2013" madfloridian Feb 2013 #83
They won't. MessiahRp Feb 2013 #106
Then I'd prefer honesty Babel_17 Feb 2013 #116
K & R historylovr Feb 2013 #80
Vague and Arbitrary "Protections for The Vulnerable"? bvar22 Feb 2013 #93
That's the big question at the heart of that statement isn't it? Pretty damn sad. K&R nt riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #94
From Dean Baker at Truth Out. madfloridian Feb 2013 #96
A Definite Read...thanks for putting this in the thread... KoKo Feb 2013 #100
That Biden quote Babel_17 Feb 2013 #124
K&R for this POST. nt woo me with science Feb 2013 #141
Where is everyone? Nite Owl Feb 2013 #102
Kick and Rec. Fuddnik Feb 2013 #105
We have to face it. Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #108
We were only offered corporatists. woo me with science Feb 2013 #142
Even the very best Jakes Progress Feb 2013 #154
Wall Street wants that money... awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #109
George Carlin was right. dgibby Feb 2013 #152
kickety theaocp Feb 2013 #110
K&R (n/t) bread_and_roses Feb 2013 #111
K&R CrispyQ Feb 2013 #114
I seldom watch any political stuff on TV anymore. madfloridian Feb 2013 #125
Where's the AARP on this? Or have they lost all relevance? Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #117
Actually the AARP has been strongly against chained cpi. Link madfloridian Feb 2013 #143
Thanks! Canuckistanian Feb 2013 #144
I stand with Senator Sanders (nt) Babel_17 Feb 2013 #118
This is not what I voted for newfie11 Feb 2013 #119
"the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change" Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #120
the threat it represents to his legacy stupidicus Feb 2013 #126
A chained CPI would be an institutionalized lie. dawg Feb 2013 #129
For those who don't understand, this is how you flush away overwhelming advantage Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #130
+1 forestpath Feb 2013 #136
What utter BS ProSense Feb 2013 #145
Strange....Ya know? blackspade Feb 2013 #135
Food Stamps, Welfare, School lunches.... WCGreen Feb 2013 #139
Excellent question & post, madfloridian tpsbmam Feb 2013 #150
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If no cuts to Social Secu...»Reply #42