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
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Should Social Security benefits be taxed? [View all]
In spending some holiday time with family this year, I found out that Social Security benefits can be subject to income tax. This came as a bit of a surprise to me, though maybe it shouldn't have been. I'd always thought it was like tax refunds-- it would be strange for the government to tax payments it's making to you.
Nor do you have to make a lot of money to start paying taxes-- taxes start at $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for joint filers. At least you don't having to pay Social Security taxes on your Social Security benefits, so there's that.
From the SSA web site:
Some people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits.
No one pays federal income tax on more than 85 percent of his or her Social Security benefits based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:
file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is
between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is
between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits
more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
51 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They weren't taxed until Reagan, & taxes were stepped up under Clinton. I don't think they
El_Johns
Dec 2013
#1
No. But otherwise all sources income (wage, dividend, capital gains, interest) should be taxed same
on point
Dec 2013
#3
you contribute - you collect once you reach a certain age - that applies to EVERYONE
DrDan
Dec 2013
#8
if you raised the top income tax rate on their wages and income, I would have no problem with that
DrDan
Dec 2013
#15
from the beginning, social security was established to provide (among other things)
DrDan
Dec 2013
#18
No one contributed as it was first started yet they collected because it was designed for the needy.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#20
you are correct - no contributions when SS started . . . however, there were also
DrDan
Dec 2013
#40
I don't really care about being correct. I try to care about people who need help.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#41
so I am confident you realize Social Security initially paid ONLY a retirement benefit
DrDan
Dec 2013
#43
Social Security pays for more than a "retirement" check - contributions from the wealty are needed
DrDan
Dec 2013
#37
It was started as a tax on workers to fund their own retirement security program -- not as a welfare
El_Johns
Dec 2013
#21
I have read a great deal. The way a program is funded is crucial to its designation as a "welfare"
El_Johns
Dec 2013
#32
"SS was established as a program to benefit workers" It's not exclusive to workers.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#36
It IS exclusive to workers. Only the widows/widowers & children of workers who paid into the
El_Johns
Dec 2013
#39
What makes you think the Kochs paid any significant amount of SS tax, since they inherited
El_Johns
Dec 2013
#25
It's a Metaphor ...but that may be a challenge to assume with me not actually saying so.
L0oniX
Dec 2013
#27
Additionally, the deduction they take out for Medicare is based upon.....
northoftheborder
Dec 2013
#29