AMAC On Capitol Hill

AMAC Supports H.R. 3894 – The “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act”

andrew-mangioneby Andrew Mangione – Today, AMAC is proud to support legislation recently introduced by Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY).  H.R. 3894, the “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act,” rightly eliminates income taxes on Social Security benefits.  Given that mature Americans and seniors have already paid tax on their Social Security contributions, it is irresponsible for the Federal government to double-tax the benefit in order to generate more revenue.  Under H.R. 3894, Social Security benefits would be neither taxable nor reportable on individual tax returns, enabling beneficiaries to retain more money for retirement while restoring the integrity of the program.  As the fastest-growing conservative seniors organization in the country, AMAC believes this significant piece of legislation is the first necessary and responsible step toward sensible Social Security reform – an issue that remains one of AMAC’s top advocacy priorities in Washington, D.C.  AMAC is pleased to partner with Rep. Massie to promote the “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act” and to bring attention to the need for meaningful Social Security reform.

Letter of Support                                                H.R. 3894

Read more articles by Andrew Mangione

Leave a Reply

112 Comments on "AMAC Supports H.R. 3894 – The “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act”"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
David L. Nicholson
8 months 18 days ago

A typical Congressional maneuver – GIVE to aliens and unemployed … Tax and then re-tax loyal, working American citizens. Then promise more benefits for aliens, non-workers, school drop outs, etc. The Bible says “The LABORER is worthy of his hire.” A person is entitled to entitlement programs to which they have contributed! Both political parties fail to honor HARD WORKING HONEST PEOPLE!
D. Nicholson

L. B. Lear
1 year 8 months ago

It looks like I’m just beginning to be educated on Social Security retirement benefits. I filed a few months ago and will receive my first payment in January. However, I just learned that my benefits will be taxed by the federal government, which has stunned and outraged me. To think that the feds have used my money since 1969 to their advantage only to penalize me for receiving what is rightfully mine is criminal. I worked full-time for 35 years and paid FICA out of each and every paycheck during that time. I thought being taxed on the same money twice was illegal. I should have known better considering the administration that’s been running our country (into the ground) over the past six years. It’s my hope and prayer that things will turn around in 2015 and that H.R. 3894 will be passed.

Jan Simpson
1 year 10 months ago
Some of you might want to check out whether or not Federal Employees pay Social Security Taxes. Some do and some don’t. The people who are still under the old Civil Service Retirement system never paid into it. They also do NOT collect it unless they have 40 work credits before they became federal employees under CSR. However, new employees, after a certain date that I can’t remember, DO pay into Social Security since it is part of their retirement system, Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Also, if someone has 40 work credits, their federal retirement offsets their social security benefits and the SS is reduced! I know this for a fact since I collect a small portion of SS that is DEFINITELY offset by my federal retirement under CSR!!! I do have to admit that Doug Swanson makes sense though, but I don’t believe that anyone should pay taxes… Read more »
John Pierce
2 years 2 months ago

How do we get the bureaucrats who only support what supports their own interests take this forward?

Jack & Nancy Hamlett
2 years 4 months ago

We are in full support of H.R. 3894, the “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act.” Social Security is a benefit we have already paid our taxes on. Why should Senior Citizens be targeted for a second tax? Just does not make sense. Thank you for all that you are doing to support H.R. 3894.

Thank you,

Charles Carpenter
2 years 4 months ago

Our elected officials should vote to support HR 3894. This would be a significant step to SS reform and help those that depend upon Social Security tremendously.

Richard Sullivan
2 years 4 months ago

Lets just all the BS talking an Pass HR 3894 and make meaning SSREFORMS!!!!!

Edwin Fritz
2 years 4 months ago

And the rich get RICHER.

jwjoycej
2 years 4 months ago

I’m an advocate for HR 3894. How can the general public help support? The purpose of the bill is to amend the IRS code and repeal the inclusion of SS benefits in the calculation of federal income taxes. The taxing of SS benefits is effecting far more people than ever anticipated.

Glad to see AMAC supports this, but where is AARP???

Barbara Fuller
2 years 4 months ago
Social Security itself has from its inception in 1935 been a TAX. FDR, knowing that the public would not accept it as a tax, instructed his people to present it as AKIN to an annuity, which most people still think it is. People constantly rail about it being “their money” that they put into an account for their retirement, so why don’t their children inherit it when they die; why does it stop. They say this because they don’t know how the government has duped them from the beginning – deliberately. The government-issued pamphlets explaining S.S., until fairly recently, actually promoted it this way. When you pay a tax, you have given up that money; it isn’t yours to claim at a later date. So here is the true picture: You are taxed on the tax! The money is originally withheld from your income (in other words, they automatically withhold… Read more »
cvanhorn
2 years 5 months ago

There are many forms of unfairness as it pertains to taxation. (see Jan. 2014 issue of Forbes magazine for all who think the tax is reasonable.) I’m thinking we would have a better chance of reducing social security tax in retirement by INDEXING the $25,000/$35,000 amounts to inflation.

If the cost of living has doubled since this was introduced by the Reagan administration, it might be easier to argue this point rather than eliminate the tax. The seniors who could least afford it would no longer be affected.

I’m no expert but it sounds reasonable and possible.

Bruce Rych
2 years 5 months ago

Joe Schmoe – truck driver earns $115,000 this year and pays the max into SS in 2013 of $7,049. His employER matches that amount so a total of $14,098 is paid-in to Joe’s SS# for 2013.

Derek Jeter – baseball player earns $22,000,000 this year and also pays the max into SS of $7,049, and the NY Yankees match that so a total of $14,098 is paid-in to Derek’s SS# for 2013.

Is this “fair”? Why or why not?

SKIP
2 years 5 months ago

Since SS is now called a benefit it should not be taxed.

beechiegirl1953
2 years 4 months ago

S.S. itself has always

Bruce Rych
2 years 5 months ago

Sounds good to me SKIP…I hope “they” can rename the salary I earn from “wages” to “benefits”. Then I’ll be exempt from taxation too.

beajay fishel
2 years 6 months ago

I worked as an elementary teacher in California. The state of California for teachers did not holdout SS taxes either Instead it held a certain percentage of your monthly earnings that went into a IRA type account. I am now receiving my retirement money, but of course can not get any SS benefits. You have to have paid into SS for the last 10 quarters you worked at an employer that collected SS tax from your earnings in order to qualify for SS benefits at retirement age.
I like the fact that my retirement is private, so it can not be changed or deleted based on political atmosphere.

Pamela Johnson
2 years 6 months ago

In TX when a teacher retires, they are not allowed to receive SS. We teachers have worked many jobs to pay into SS but because of our governor, Rick Perry, teachers cannot get SS and TRS. We paid into both. If they make a law about SS I hope they make a law that will include TRS. Yes, I have paid taxes on both.

Ken from Texas
2 years 5 months ago

My friend is about to retire from teaching in Texas. he said he would be able to draw some social security benefits, as he paid in for many years before he became a teacher. he said he could only draw about 40% of what his full payout would have been.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Pam…was this the case before Rick Perry was Governor of Texas???

I’m under the impression that SS is federal…how can a state deny it?

If you move to another state can you collect SS then?

What is TRS? Thrift…..? Is this your only teacher pension? Hard to believe teachers receive no pension benefits from the government.

James masters
2 years 6 months ago

TRS is the Texas Teacher Retirement System. Texas teachers in most districts pay into that system, but do not pay into SS on their teacher earnings. Therefore, it has been assumed they should not also receive SS benefits (“double-dipping”). The real injustice comes when teachers have had more than one career or job and paid into SS in that other–non-teaching–job. Even if they paid in sufficient to qualify for SS benefits outside of teacihing they are still penalized by this “double-dipping” rule.

Steffie
2 years 6 months ago
I definitely agree that SS tax should be done away with. Hubby is still working and that means we pay higher taxes because of my SS income which is not fair since I paid taxes on it already. I know this is not the subject but I am hoping AMAC can stop the Medicare cuts to docs in March – otherwise mine will be gone. My friend says her doc told her he would stop taking Medicare patients altogether if it goes through even those who have been going to him for years as he can not afford to. We know the Pres wants to do away with Medicare Advantage plans which some of us really like and hopefully AMAC can fight for them. Also, hoping AMAC can make sure Medicare is not changed into something like Obamacare. My friend went into the website out of couriousity as “guest” and… Read more »
Mark
2 years 6 months ago

To Rik and Terry. I agree with you both 100%. If they get a welfare check, they should be subject to doing whatever work is needed and being drug/alcohol tested before they receive a check. If God only asks for 10%, it should be be good enough for the government.

Taunya McCarty
2 years 6 months ago

This is truly something that Congress could do in a bi partisan way if they just would. At least the people of America could put aside political parties and differences to agree that SS benefits to the nations seniors are not taxed. Does anyone know if welfare recipients are taxed on their EBT cards?

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Welfare benefits are not subject to federal income taxes. The fact that funds are credited to an EBT card is irrelevant. Sure Congress has the power to do it…but the fact remains that some Congresspeople want to tax SS benefits. You’re looking for “fairness” in the tax teatment between welfare and SS…fairness does not exist.

Jory Gromer
2 years 6 months ago

Some would argue that the taxation is on the employers part of the contribution. I would argue that many of us have paid into the system for 4 decades or more and have earned ZERO interest on our contributions. Really not contributions since we are forced to pay but I digress. We should not be taxed on our social security payments as PARTIAL compensation for the irresponsible manner n which the federal government has managed our “contributions.”

E. Fitzgerald
2 years 6 months ago

Originally Clinton taxed 50 % of Social Security since 50 % of the contribution was paid by the employer. This at least was somewhat logical. Then for no reason other than a preceived need for more revenue, the percent taxed was increased to 85%, destroying the logic behind the original 50% taxation of SS benefits received. None of it ever should have been subject to tax.

Kim
2 years 5 months ago

Please, let’s talk about the facts. Most people receive more back in SS benefits they they ever paid as taxes, especially retirees who paid in at the very lowest rates. SS taxes started at 1% and the ceiling was much lower at the beginning. How about taxing everything above what an individual paid in? I think that would be fair, since everything received above what a person paid in is “income” that was never taxed to the individual.

Bruce Rych
2 years 5 months ago

Kim…your point is logical and correct. The taxation of SS benefits as they are now must exceed a certain base amount ($25k/$32K). I’m all for increasing that base amount.. So, if an individual is receiving SS benefits and is earning in excess of let’s say $150,000 per year, then tax the employER portion of the benefit. It still would not be double taxation.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago
I am 100% for ending any type of FEDERAL OR STATE income taxation on SS benefits. Let’s just make sure our argument is correct. As employees, we had of our wages subject to FEDERAL income tax when the income was earned and withheld from our pay. Some of us paid federal income tax on this entire amount, some of us paid tax on a partial amount and some of us did not have to pay any federal tax at all. It all depended on how much you earned and deducted (itemize or standard) in any particular year…it is an individually unique calculation. However, none of us paid federal income tax on the matching amount contributed by our employer during our working years. Therefore, at least half of the total social security contributions made on our behalf, and credited to our social security number (account) was never subjected to federal income… Read more »
Javelin47
2 years 6 months ago

Please don’t forget that those millions running sole proprietary businesses and / or are self employed paid both halves – there was no rela & separate employer contribution. In other words, the employee and employer who both paid taxes on their portions, are the same.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Yes Javelin…BUT..a tax deduction was allowed for a self-employeds “employers” half…therefore no federal income tax was paid on that 50%. Again, I agree with not taxing SS benefits at all…but we must not make ignorant claims/comments unless we know all of the facts. You know the opposition will be well aware of this issue so we have to be a step or two ahead of them in our thinking. ADVANTAGE us! We need the edge in the argument.

Cheryl L
2 years 6 months ago
But since most self employed also file their income derived from their business they are still paying taxes. As a business owner I pay taxes monthly, & yearly. Also pay taxes on all products purchased plus on sale of same products when sold. Not to mention the “licenses” that must be renewed each year to do business. Than we have to pay self employment tax . I can count 5 times I have to pay taxes on the same 1 article, just to operate my business. And pay into SS all to be taxed again when I collect it? Oh, btw, our business is such that we cannot charge tax on out product to the public. Best we can do is try to build it into the price but cannot increase whenever there is an increase to us.
Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago
Cheryl…I am not disputing that self-employed individuals pay taxes. As a matter of fact, self-employed individuals get nailed more that typical W-2 employees. My only point to Javelin was that the employER share of self-employment taxes (which are SS taxes…just called SE tax) was deductible from his/her income in the year paid, and therefore was not subject to federal income tax. So that “piece” will not be subject to double federal income taxation. Yes as a self employed owner you might pay sales or use tax on products you purchase for resale. You may also charge the CUSTOMER sales tax on products they purchase from you but the customer paid the tax…you just collected it for the government. I understand some products are sales/use tax exempt…and of course you must build that into your pricing like you would any other expense. Let’s not confuse federal income tax with social security… Read more »
G Walters
2 years 6 months ago

We were already taxed on the money, why tax us again!

The OLD Warhorse
2 years 6 months ago

Simple answer, “BECAUSE THEY CAN!”.

Folks, Senators and Congresscritters DO NOT pay into Social Security. Civilian Government Employees, Federal, State and Local, DO NOT pay into Social Security. The President DOES NOT pay into Social Security.

Therefore, none of this affects them, so why would you think this would matter to them.

That’s right Mable, THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ARE THE ONLY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. NOTE: They are also the ONLY Government Employees that are NOT unionized.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

HAM
2 years 6 months ago
Everyone needs to contact their representatives in the House on a WEEKLY basis & demand they vote yes on this bill. If it passes in the House then we need to contact our Senators & demand they vote yes also. If Harry Reid won’t bring it to the floor then our “representatives” need to be reminded they work for us and we CAN vote out the ones up for election this year. Let them know we can do the same in 2016. Why is it the government feels seniors should continue to be taxed when they allow ABLE BODIED people to draw welfare, food stamps, rent subsidies, etc. and not REQUIRE them to get jobs and get off welfare? Instead they prefer to put the burden on seniors of whom a very large number are UNAbLE TO WORK. We worked out entire lives, thinking we had our plan for retirement… Read more »
lightning
2 years 6 months ago

Hopsaregood just drop the “c” and you have it right, “obamarats”!!

Antisocialist
2 years 6 months ago
As a new member looking for an alternative to that other well known reprehensible organization that claims to represent seniors, this is the first time I have looked at this site. I won’t be a member for long if this is an example of the type of positions you promote. Rather than being proud to support this legislation AMAC should be embarrassed to be associated with such an intellectually and morally dishonest concept. This is no different than the essence of the positions taken by that other organization which is promoting special interest status at the expense of others. I fail to see how this legislation is an example of a conservative position. It promotes tax relief for “special people” who all seem to have no difficulty coming up with endless reasons why they are “special” and should not be taxed like other citizens. There is no doubt that the… Read more »
Encore
2 years 6 months ago
It’s just another broken promise from a slew of others Democrats have made. When FDR rammed it through, one of the selling points was Social Security would not be taxed. Slick Willy changed that. Not only that, if you paid into the system for ten years minimum and then later worked in the private or government sector under their respective pension plans, you lost SS benefits under SS’s so-called Windfall Elimination Program by 46% or more. (odd, you don’t lose any SS benefits if you are 70 years and still working). It’s only when you retire and begin collecting your private or government pension they penalize you with the WIP. BTW, are you aware a Senator or Representative in Congress need only serve five years to become eligible for a full pension for life? Or their surviving spouse? And that they do not contribute one red cent to this “Golden”… Read more »
W. L. courtney
2 years 6 months ago

Social Security wasn’t taxed until Bill Clinton came along. After all , Social Security is taken out of your paycheck AS A TAX! This is a double tax situation and should never have occurred to begin with.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago
True…it began under wild Bill clinton. Paycheck wages are subject to at least two different types of taxes at the federal level. Think of it as two apples, one red and one green. One is 1) federal income tax (red) and the other is 2) social security tax (green). The definition of double taxation is having the identical earnings being taxed more than once for the same type of tax (bite the red apple twice)…and what we have here in your example is income being subject to two entirely different types of taxes (apples), technically not double taxation. Otherwise our paychecks are (potentially) subject to state/city/local taxation as well…but we don’t consider that as “quintuple” taxation. (That would be a fruit salad). An excellent example of “double taxation” is the taxation of stockholder dividends. These dividends are distributed corporate earnings which are first taxed at the federal corporate income tax… Read more »
Hopsaregood
2 years 6 months ago

Lots of luck with that. Most Republicans while a bit less spend crazy than Democrats are still all about spending and taking care of themselves, just like the Obamacrats.

ONTIME
2 years 6 months ago
The US government at whatever level you look is struggling to compete with the private sector, this use of the tax dollar to usurp the voters and taxpayers is accompanied by the special interest voting block comprised of the government unions. The above average pay and benefits for a government worker and the elected/ appointed politicians is coming from the entity that allows it to exist, the private sector, without the private sector there is no government, there is no need for a non producing imposition and civil service does not need a illegal union. SS taxation began under the Clinton administration when he smoothly shucked the elderly and those on SS to give back a part of their benefit* to the government because they were just to wealthy and cold well afford a small decrease in their income. The word benefit became entitlement and then the tax stuck, this… Read more »
William Emory
2 years 6 months ago
I agree the tax needs to be stopped but unfortunately as long as we do not have term limits and congress members can use the taxes we pay in to get themselves reelected repeatedly I see little chance of a repeal. There is only one other chance for us to be effective in getting them to listen and that is to vote them out every time for a new member unless they do listen to the people. I see no reason they have to be full time in Washington anyway as this only gives them more time to figure out ways to waste our tax monies buying votes for their next term. When one person such as Harry Reid can block any bill which might possibly improve the situation for the people on his own, there is a gross problem in the rules they work by. I think we need… Read more »
ONTIME
2 years 6 months ago

Not only term limits but no retirement, a ballot driven nat’l tax to remove the progressive tax, the IRS and create a accountable budget every year and most of all the banning of all government unions to remove the special interest that compete with the voters and tax payers who fund the government…This government is awry, it needs leashed, repaired and maintained with regularity..

Concerned Citizen
2 years 6 months ago
Term limits have not worked in California – they just play musical chairs and get elected somewhere else or get an appointment from the governor, etc. We already have a “term-limit” – it is called Election Day and we that gives us the right to “hire”, “re-hire” or “fire” our elected officials! We just need to get good folks to run for local elections and then as they learn the ropes and gain practical experience, to run for higher office. This is not the 1800s any more – most elected offices, even the local school board positions, require a lot of business acumen and legal understanding, along with technology and social media expertise. As you go up the level from local to state-wide, you need to add in higher levels of understanding of law and cooperation among many agencies, etc. because there are so many different factors involved. From the… Read more »
Roger Olsen
2 years 6 months ago

If Americans knew how Washington works, “We the people” would converge on D.C. and tear it down with our bare hands.

Pamela Van Horn
2 years 6 months ago

I support Congressman Massie to end the unfair tax on social security.

Bill Barnes
2 years 6 months ago

Both my wife and I are taxed on SS at 50% ‘Windfall Elimination’ plus income tax due to our having IRA’s that reached a certain amount considered a ‘trigger’ by the SS admin. We were told that when either of us dies the other will receive full death benfits making us worth more dead than alive.

What we actually collect in SS does not even cover our Medicare Advantage plans.

Frank Van Horn
2 years 6 months ago

I fully support Congressman Massey to not tax social security payments at the federal level. I would also like to see all states exempt it too.

dick
2 years 6 months ago

I’m glad someone finally see’s what’s happening. There should be a minimum wage for all government officials and a double tax rate for the bastards…all’s fair in redistribution…:)

Robert Addleman
2 years 6 months ago

My wife had a disabling stroke in 2002 and receives only social security. The only income we have is our social security and most of it goes to medical expenses. If not for our children helping us financially I don’t know how we would survive. Even with no little income we still make too much to receive any help such as food stamps, etc. I’m not sure I would accept them anyhow. If not for the fact that I am my wife’s full time care giver, I would still be working somewhere and I am 75 years old. Give us old timers a break.
. Thanks for introducing this bill. I pray it passes.

Blackbeered
2 years 6 months ago
Let’s be sensible … there has always been, and there will always be, a ‘redistribution of wealth’ principle in our society. It makes a lot of sense to me that there needs to be a “means test” for Social Security benefits. Yes, I earned those benefits and, yes, I had no choice in the matter. But with the majority of recipients needing that money, I think it’s fair to INCREASE the taxes on the benefits for a scant minority. For example, I think 100% of the benefit should be taxed for anyone having Taxable Incomes above $1,000,000. Further, between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 in Taxable Income, the tax RATE applied to the Social Security benefit should increase from 39.6% to 100%. In other words, above $10M in Taxable Income, in essence you don’t get a check. I realize it’s not going to make much of a difference … hopefully system will… Read more »
Paul Anthony
2 years 6 months ago

SS has always been a Ponzi scheme. I intend to collect because I was forced to pay into it with the promise that I would get it back if I lived long enough. I kept my part of the bargain.

But, it should have been designed more like insurance. We insure our homes and autos against fire and accidents and are pleased when we DON’T collect on those policies! SS should be considered “poverty insurance”. We should pay the premiums just as we do for other forms of insurance. And, just as with other forms of insurance, we should hope that we will never need it.

But that’s not how it was designed. Perhaps that is how it should be for future generations. Meanwhile, I would have no problem with means-testing benefits if the tax collected were applied to the SS trust fund.

Sal Sanders
2 years 6 months ago
Many cheers for Congressman Massie, AMAC and Mr. Mangione. H.R. 3894 will correct this long-standing unfair double taxation of seniors. Our Social Security (SS) benefits are not welfare. We paid a premium and taxes for those benefits, retirement insurance, deducted out of our hard-earned ages. And for those who served in the Government, there is additional injustice, a triple tax. We paid another deducted insurance premium for retirement benefits. Taxing federal employee benefits as well, constitutes a triple tax. Worse, our service is further penalized because we can only collect about twenty percent of our SS benefits due to our paid-for and taxed federal benefits. This amounts to a quadruple tax, a further penalty, for millions of seniors across this great and rich Nation who dedicated their lives to serving our Government, a service for which most of us were paid much less than we would have earned in the… Read more »
Tim
2 years 6 months ago

here’s an interesting fact; I am disabled and receive ssdi { $1054 } per month in 2013. i went to get food stamps and was told by the african american woman behind the counter that i received $55 per month too much to qualify for food stamps….in their calculations they, the food stamp people, did not calculate the monthly cost of medicare { $300+ } that they take out of my monthly check before i even receive it

Cheryl L
2 years 6 months ago

They did not deduct the medicare premium because they (gov) do not consider it a “true” deduction because it is not mandatory if you do not file for it. However, if you do not file for it & do so latter, you are charged even more for it for the rest of your life. Same with part D.

John Lewis
2 years 6 months ago

I am an independent and support the H.R. 3894, having worked for over 40 years and paying in the maximum every year. I also worked on union and company contracts for 30 years. The argument to tax the employer paid half does not work for me. When labor cost are figured the half the company paid was deducted from what they would pay for labor. So that really means that the employee paid indirectly for that cost. Yes, the tax was paid by employer but only after they deduct from the employee total cost! This Mr. Clinton’s tax should be reversed and so should Mr. Obama’s.

Mike Passaretti
2 years 6 months ago

I think we all agree the government takes too much and then uses it less then wisely. It is odd that we refer to an “upper class” and a “middle class” but no one refers to a “lower class”. The rich know how to protect their money and the middle class is carrying the “lower class”. The money has to come from somewhere. The answer is simple. Get yourself to the poles and vote. Let’s vote these bums out!

NoLibLiz
2 years 6 months ago

Way too much logic being expressed here!

As much as what Mr. Mangione is writing about makes sense, it is not the real issue with our government. He says, “it is irresponsible for the Federal government to double-tax the benefit in order to generate more revenue” as if what we have going on in our halls of government is responsible actions. I hope this legislation succeeds but I don’t really expect that it will. There is no evidence that our government at any level is being directed or governed by what is LEGAL much less by responsibility.

Bob Ewing
2 years 6 months ago

That will never get past Harry Reid and the democrat majority in the senate. November is critical to moving forward to reform. Come on seniors, help make this happen.

Paul
2 years 6 months ago

Bob, You’re correct – ole Harry never met a tax he didn’t love. He will never give up the taxes – so he can spend it on Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanstan, Pakastain, and all those other countries that hate us. Harry is a tax loving man – not a tax cutting man.

Chuck
2 years 6 months ago

Democrats can be proud of their War on Poverty and LBJ – 50 years later there are more percentage-wise and actual total people in poverty than in the mid-60s when the lefty libtards solved all the world’s problems except for healthcare. Taxing SS benefits is making those numbers ever larger as the retired population continue to “boom”.

Doug Swanson
2 years 6 months ago

CORRECTION: in general, one half of what was paid into SS on your behalf was FICA withheld from your pay checks and you did pay income tax on this portion. The other one half was the employer match of your “contribution”. Thus there is a logical argument that half of your SS benefits are from previously taxed contributions and shouldn’t be taxed again. (Or at the very least that half should not be taxed until the cumulative benefits exceed the retiree’s lifetime contributions. )
However there is logic in taxing the benefits attributable to the employer’s matching contributions as these contributions were never taxed to the employee.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Doug….flawless….logical. You are thinking with your head and not being emotional with sob stories. This is how to win this argument.

Sue
2 years 6 months ago

100 percent in agreement. Still gainfully employed plus drawing social security. SS is being double taxed which seems illegal to me.

BOB PARKER
2 years 6 months ago

ITS A REAL SAME, THAT THE CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL FROM THE VERY PEOPLE THATS TRING TO KEEP AMERICA, AMERICA…

WE NEED TO PUT THE G.N. P UP AND THATS THE BUDJET, WHEN YOU RUN OUT OF MONEY GO HOME, NO EXCEPTIONS…ALWAYS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION…THOSE IDIOTS HAVE AND SHOULD READ AND UNDERSTAND.

THEY JUST MAKE ME SICK! bob in augusta, ga

Clarence Rod
2 years 6 months ago

Way past due that some one tries to get this done, However, good luck how long has this been going on
and our elected official have done nothing to solve this problem and my guess this will fail. I am writing my
officials and ask them to support this but it will take every senior and even non senior to voice it to their
elected officials.

Erniue
2 years 6 months ago

As a retired military (Navy CPO) like he fellow retired chief with the 01/25/2014 at 8:26 am entry I too was told of the many benefits that I and my family would always have. Unfortunately today those benefits have eroded. Now the congress and especially the current administration who have openly displayed their lack of respect for the military members seek to create even more erosion of those hard earned benefits.

Not only should the tax on Social Security Income be repealed (for those to young to remember it was initially unthinkable to consider such an idea) but the tax on military pension should also become tax free. This would at least offset some of the continuing rising cost and lack of medical care promised to the those who severed or were injured during their service to our nation.

Let hear some congressional member/s speak up on this proposal.

Thanks for listening.

Rteired CPO
2 years 6 months ago
The attacks on retired wealth (Savings account taxation, Social Security taxation, Military pension taxation of benefits earned prior to 1990) are all attempts to punish people for sufficient thrift that they have a nest egg. For my entire military career, 20 years, we were told that benefits such as Commissary availablility and on-base medical care were provided to us in lieu of a living wage. When on active duty our pay was always presented as “Total Compensation” which was almost double in amount to what our base pay amount was. That worked really well and was almost adequate to live on. Upon retirement, you were cut in “Total Compensation” to fifty percent of your last active duty base pay. While I was in the service, Congress passed the Investment Retirement Act, and prohibiited active duty military from participating because they had a “guaranteed” pension program. Left unmentionned was the stipulation… Read more »
Don
2 years 6 months ago

This double tax was instituted by President Clinton and at that time there was little or no organized objection because the economy had not tanked and our senior population was small by today’s standards. Of course it’s double taxation, and we need to remember in 2016 which White House instituted it . According to DC double-talk it is taxation of entitlement which in a rational world would be illogical.

Kenneth Canterbury, CMSgt USAF Ret
2 years 6 months ago
That is a fact this tax was imposed during the Clinton ERA. The tie breaking vote to impose these taxes was made by none other than Al Gore as the sitting Vice President. The formula as currently written tt requires you to reach back and collect any non-taxable earnings you may have accrued by investng in such items as Municipal bond funds.That gain is then added into the equation to determine the percentage of your social security you are taxable on. Consequently your non-taxable investments have now become txable. That of course, negates the very purpose for buying the so called non-taxable bond funds, This procedure only applies to you if you receiving SS. .If you are not on SS, then your earnings remain non-taxable. IT IS A STRICT PENATLTY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS WHO HAVE WORKED A LIFE TIME TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES INTO RETIREMENT. When I lost my wife of… Read more »
Neal Honderick
2 years 6 months ago

I am a senior. I feel that the tax on SS is not right. And agree, that the SS benefit is shy of being enough to really live on. I worked hard all my life only to give more taxes to the government, taxes that are paid twice. We need to get this stopped and stopped now.

J. Kowalski
2 years 6 months ago

I receive Social Security and the federal government DOES TAX this money!!!!. I’m getting taxed twice; when I received my paycheck while working, and now, again when I receive my Social Security check each month.
Incredibly unjust.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Jim it sounds like you are working at the same tme you are collecting SS benefits. This is legal. You are subjecting your current earnings to SS tax…and are being taxed on your regular monthly SS check. So whats the problem? I see no double taxation here. Where are you being taxed on the same pile of money twice? Make a good non-emotional argument for your defense…..ill be waiting…

Cheryl L
2 years 6 months ago

Bruce R, please reread J. Kowalski’s post it states, ” WHEN I RECEIVED my paycheck WHILE working, and now, again when I receive my Social Security check each month.” That sure looks like past tense to me.

Bruce Rych
2 years 6 months ago

Cheryl…his original post is not very clear (while/when), but I’ll assume you are correct regarding what he meant to say (past tense)…however JK still did not pay tax on, nor was he subject to federal income tax on the employER portion of his SS benefits WHILE working. That is not disputable. :)

Johnnie Johnson
2 years 6 months ago

Most of us don’t have a pension. If we do have a pension we don’t have a cost of living increase. We may be living off our savings and or social security. Taxing our social security is just not right after working and paying tax for our working life. Enough is enough. I support H.R. 3894. It’s about time.

wpDiscuz