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

Join the Discussion   Add Your Comment

  1. David L. Nicholson says:

    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

  2. L. B. Lear says:

    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.

  3. Jan Simpson says:

    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 on their Social Security.

  4. John Pierce says:

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

  5. Jack & Nancy Hamlett says:

    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,

  6. Charles Carpenter says:

    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.

  7. Richard Sullivan says:

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

  8. Edwin Fritz says:

    And the rich get RICHER.

  9. jwjoycej says:

    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???

  10. Barbara Fuller says:

    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 their tax) and then when you begin to receive the government ‘benefit/entitlement,’ they tax up to 85% of it. As far as the government is concerned, you receiving S.S. is no different than someone receiving welfare, except that welfare payments aren’t taxed; it’s a total freebie. Another difference I’m sure you are aware of: There are billions of dollars squandered in abuse of the welfare system. I don’t know of a way a person could scam the S.S. system.


    And also here:

  11. cvanhorn says:

    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.

  12. Bruce Rych says:

    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?

  13. SKIP says:

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

  14. beajay fishel says:

    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.

  15. Pamela Johnson says:

    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.

    • Bruce Rych says:

      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 says:

        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.

    • Ken from Texas says:

      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.

  16. Steffie says:

    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 found out the deductibles are extremely high, the yearly out of pocket is around $6,000, there is no provision for out of network being paid anything, you not only need referrals to see a specialist, you also need approval from the “panel” and you can not see if your doctor is in the network until you choose a plan. Makes no sense. This guest thing has since been taken off the website and now you have to put in your information to check out the plans.

    It is so scarey what is happening to our country. It is so scarey what is about to happen to us seniors. Please find a way to help us AMAC. Thank you.

  17. Mark says:

    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.

  18. Taunya McCarty says:

    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 says:

      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.

  19. Jory Gromer says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        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 says:

          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.

  20. Bruce Rych says:

    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 tax. So, although only partially true, no “double taxation” exists in their minds. This will be one of the counter-arguments from the liberal left…be prepared for it.

    • Javelin47 says:

      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 says:

        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 says:

          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 says:

            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 tax, state income tax, sales tax, use tax, excise tax etc etc.

  21. G Walters says:

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

    • The OLD Warhorse says:

      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.



  22. HAM says:

    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 handled, under one set of rules. Then they move the goal post on us at the end if our working lives.

  23. lightning says:

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

  24. Antisocialist says:

    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 taxing of benefits that were funded with after tax contributions is outrageous and fair and equitable treatment would eliminate tax on the benefits that represent a return of those contributions and not a penny more. That would be a defensible position that would treat a recipient no better or worse than any other tax payer who had simply bought an annuity with after tax dollars. Why should a senior recipient of an annuity stream bought and paid for with his own after tax dollars be required to pay tax on the portion that represents the investment return while the “special interest seniors” receiving an annuity through social security don’t pay tax on the investment return. That is nothing more than another wealth transfer typical of liberals, progressives, democrats and all other misnamed American socialists and communists. This type of hypocritical position is what makes it so easy for the leftists to disparage so called conservative policy positions. Based on the comments I’ve seen I must conclude that the level of financial literacy and sense of equity of too many seniors is appalling. I would like to believe that a conservative position is one that promotes personal responsibility freedom and equal treatment for all. Any special treatment for some under the tax system is a wealth transfer that is welfare regardless of the recipient or the reason. The merits of wealth transfers as welfare should be an entirely separate policy consideration.. Unless they were just lurking progressives, I can not understand how any one could make an argument for means testing of social security. The promotion of the use of government force to become the recipient of stolen property can not be supported by any reasoning. Such a policy would be yet another instance of government policy to punish the responsible and discourage financially prudent behavior that such be promoted. Demonizing wealth does not create prosperity for the masses. Why would anyone do anything but spend every bit of their income and wait for the government to support them in their old age by stealing the savings of those who lived within their means and attempted to have financial security by savings rather than consumption. Properly stated means testing is the government saying “we means to steal whatever you have left that we didn’t manage to steal from you earlier”. Due to the immoral partnership between the banking interests and the politicians there is already an ongoing system of theft from seniors on a daily basis by artificially lowering the return on savings to enable the profligate government to spend even more borrowed money due to unrealistically low interest payments. For those inclined to support means testing, save us the time and aggravation and just promote the outright confiscation of everybody’s assets immediately. so we can all become parasitic government dependents and slaves

    • W. L. courtney says:

      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 says:

        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 level. Since corporations cannot deduct dividends paid to shareholders as a corporate expense…federal income tax is first collected here on the entire amount from the corporation (the red apple). Then the shareholder will be subject to tax on these same earnings on his/her individual tax return (the red apple again). That’s the second “double” level of taxation. On the same dollar, the government gets two bites out of the same apple.

    • Encore says:

      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” retirement parachute” while in office? It’s all on the taxpayer’s back. And that it’s bumped up depending on their status while in office, i.e. Speaker of the House, Senate President on down to Committee Chair Person?

  25. Hopsaregood says:

    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.

  26. ONTIME says:

    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 is why he was called Slick Willie, your *entitlement is now subject to all kinds of scrutiny should the government deem it necessary and if you notice the inconsistencies of oversight to include fraud, theft and graft and of course the right of the government to take allocated funds for SS and never pay them back and you wonder why SS has now become so controversial……
    I would like to see the tax repealed but I would also like to see a voluntary SS and a means of attrition over a 20 year period and a new more stable form of income savings with incentives built in and keep the government as far away as possible from interfering with your approaching retirement means….

  27. William Emory says:

    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 a national tax payer revolt and get this all straightened out and take our country back for the people that are paying for it.

    • ONTIME says:

      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 says:

        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 county level to state and national you must add in understanding of international issues as well. If we sent a completely brand new batch of folks to Congress every 2 years, there would be no experience among them all and they would need to spend those first two years just getting to know the other reps and how things work and then it would be time to go home! Can you imagine how that would devastate our congressional committees’ knowledge and understanding of international affairs and security, etc.? You just can’t get up to speed in 2 years, that’s why they have senior representatives and senators heading these committees.

        As far as retirement, they should not get life-long retirement after just one term in office – that’s ridiculous. On the other hand, if you have served your country in Congress for more than 10 years in a row, it’s likely you have not been able to attend as well to your own career, business or investment development. Some follow-up compensation should be available on a supplementary basis that increases with years of service. Otherwise we could lose good leaders because they can’t afford to serve again. Maybe we could give the same amount of retirement pay as the typical retired “career” veteran – that would insure our vets would get a decent retirement and “COLA.”

  28. Roger Olsen says:

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

  29. Pamela Van Horn says:

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

  30. Bill Barnes says:

    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.

  31. Frank Van Horn says:

    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.

  32. dick says:

    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…:)

  33. Robert Addleman says:

    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.

  34. Blackbeered says:

    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 transfer the less than $40M per month take from the fortunate few to opposite end of the spectrum.

    • Paul Anthony says:

      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.

  35. Sal Sanders says:

    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 private sector. This additional tax is called a “windfall. . .” for the federal government. Our elected lawmakers have neglected seniors and ignored a bill to correct this travesty. Like unwanted laundry, we have been left out to dry and soon to die
    How about moving on this bill as well to eliminate an unfair windfall for the Government and further injustice for its seniors.

  36. Tim says:

    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 says:

      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.

  37. John Lewis says:

    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.

  38. Mike Passaretti says:

    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!

  39. NoLibLiz says:

    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.

  40. Bob Ewing says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        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”.

  41. Doug Swanson says:

    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 says:

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

  42. Sue says:

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

  43. BOB PARKER says:



    THEY JUST MAKE ME SICK! bob in augusta, ga

  44. Clarence Rod says:

    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.

  45. Erniue says:

    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.

  46. Rteired CPO says:

    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 in our retirement program that until you completed your twentieth year of active service, you would not be paid a penny in retirement benefits. This was a real blow to the military because we also lived under an up or out program in which you must continue to advance in rank at a particular pace or be subject to disharge “at the convenience of the government” without any benefits. Then, after active service, prior to 1990, was completed, Congress in all of its pompous care for the elderly decided that Social Security earnings should be taxed.
    An old adage comes to mind. Do not urinate upon my leg and then tell me it is only raining out.

  47. Don says:

    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 says:

      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.

      When I lost my wife of over 55 years, the government rules now identifiy me as single person. The taxes I paid went up by over 25%..

  48. Neal Honderick says:

    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.

  49. J. Kowalski says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        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 says:

          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. :)

  50. Johnnie Johnson says:

    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.

  51. Forums4Justice says:

    this bill is a sham … first of all, FICA withholding, neither the amount you contribute, nor the amount the employer contributes on your behalf, has been subjected to income tax … this bill is nothing more than an attempt by the wealthier among us, who it benefits the most, to avoid paying income taxes … nothing more, nothing less … a fallacious attempt at that .. those that need money the most will not benefit from H.R. 3894 as they don’t pay income taxes on money received from Social Security. Don’t let the Republicans, i.e., Paul Ryan, push Granny off the cliff, at the additional expense of reducing Federal revenues, which, as a percentage of revenues with respect to GDP, haven’t yet recovered from the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

    • Jim Berger says:

      Incorrect….the amount you contribute to FICA withholding is taxed..It is included in your gross earnings and not deducted..Don’t post what you don’t understand..

    • Connie Seeley says:

      Do your research…your comments do not make sense…I am being taxed on only making 12000 dollars a year…..thats pretty sad isn’t it….Seniors have have paid their dues…they deserve better!!!

    • DJM says:

      Please feel free to pay as much of your income to the federal government in the form of taxes but don’t burden the rest of us with your bleeding heart liberal philosophy. Wage earners were paying taxes on the FULL amount of their income: no deduction or consideration was given to reduce tax obligations by FICA payments. Thus, those of us who worked and earned an income and paid FICA paid taxes on FICA. Now because we are “rich” we are being taxed on those benefits we paid for with taxed money.
      Please give your income, sell your house and give your assets to the federal government so that it can redistribute it to those who did not pay taxes. But give the rest of an opportunity for tax equity and eliminate double taxation.

    • Paul says:

      I guess you live in an Alternate Universe ruled by Harry Reid and King Obama. Where all fairy tales are true. Of course you’re wrong on everything you say, but hey – so are your leaders in DC.

    • Virginia Bennett says:

      The government is very effective in getting some Americans to envy others. What their efforts in convincing you do is divide and conquer. There is a reason envy and covetousness is wrong. It hurts the person who feels and expresses it. I am absolutely for removing this tax on social security benefits.

      By the way, my dad was poor all his life. He worked hard, but he was poor. When he and my mom were on social security, they lived on so little that they could barely buy groceries. At a time when they needed good nutrition more than anything, they could not afford it. They were taxed on the little social security benefits they received. So this issue has nothing to do with rich vs. poor.

      America is not about rich vs. poor. It is about our God-given right to freedom that the government keeps encroaching on.

      I am also opposed to reducing the cost of living raises of military personnel who put their lives on the line for this country, whatever their rank.

      Those who wish the government to come after the rich in order to benefit the poor are kidding themselves. The government will come after the poor, too. The politicians get rich off the laws they create. They are often richer than the rich they convince you to envy.

      • BJ says:

        Hello Virginia Bennett.
        My wife worked while I was collecting SS and my SS was taxed through 2012. My wife retired at 67 and began collecting SS. In 2013 we had income of $51,000 (INCLUDING $35,000 SS) and PAID NOT ONE CENT income tax! How is it your parents lived on SS alone and were taxed on it? Are you SURE they were taxed?

        • Jim Berger says:

          You must have had enormous deductions..

          • Bruce Rych says:

            Virginia…I too don’t understand how your parents could have been taxed on their SS benefits based on your narrative.

            BJ…based on your narrative, only $750 of your $35,000 of SS benefits is SUBJECT to federal income tax…so you are correct your FEDERAL tax liability would be zero…and you don’t need “enormous” deductions either, the standard deduction of $14,600 plus your personal exemptions of $7,800 makes your taxable income zero…therefore your tax is zero. You could have had $22,400 of income subject to tax and still paid zero (even without itemizing deductions).

    • Jim says:

      forms4justice ? you mean mouth piece for liberals. Are you for real ? Sounds like you have beed educated by Obama ‘s team.

    • John E Nevola says:

      Seriously? Still blaming Bush? FACT: The Bush tax cuts were across the board for all income levels. So if you paid more in taxes, you got more relief. FACT: Worried about government revenues? 2007 was the highest amount of revenue the government EVER derived from Personal Income Taxes. FACT: Almost half the wage earners in the US today pay no Federal Income Tax. OPINION: Liberals love to trash the rich while having both hands in their pockets! Where will you get the money to redistribute once you’ve made the rich poor? And how about a “thank you” instead of an “ef you”?

      • Chris says:

        Actually you have the income tax payments incorrect. Its only about the bottom quarter that pay zero income taxes (23% last I checked) — but a lot of those people are at negative income taxes, i.e. they get more money back than they paid in. As a group those people get so much in negative taxes that they eat up the taxes paid by the next quarter, thus on *average* the bottom half pay no taxes, but about half of those people actually do pay above zero in income taxes.

        This distinction is important to note, as claiming that 25% of the population doesn’t pay taxes when they *know* they do is a good way to have them stop listening to your arguments. Letting them know that their taxes are essentially just a transfer to the bottom 25% just might open their eyes.

        person 1 pays in $150 in income taxes, gets $1350 in “refund” (net negative $1200 income tax)
        person 2 pays in $1200 in net income taxes, (including refund)
        person 3 pays in $2500 in net income taxes, (including refund)
        person 4 pays in $10000 in net income taxes, (including refund)

        Now, telling person 2 he paid no taxes isn’t going to go over well even though its quite true that “the bottom half paid zero income taxes”. Telling person 2 that all his taxes went to person 1 will get quite a different reaction.

  52. Forums4Justice says:

    this bill is a sham … first of all, FICA withholding, neither the amount you contribute, nor the amount the employer contributes on your behalf, has been subjected to income tax this bill is nothing more than an attempt by the wealthier among us, who it benefits the most, to avoid paying income taxes … nothing more, nothing less … a fallacious attempt at that .. those that need money the most will not benefit from H.R. 3894 as they don’t pay income taxes on money received from Social Security. Don’t let the Republicans, i.e., Paul Ryan, push Granny off the cliff, at the additional expense of reducing Federal revenues, which haven’t yet recovered from the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy.

  53. Bob says:

    It’s an outrage to re-tax social security earnings that do not exceed the total paid into the system. This reform is long overdue. Thanks!

  54. HAM says:

    Everyone please contact your Congressmen/women in the House of Representatives to vote yes on this bill, H.R. 3894. Remember, THEY work for US !!!

    • Catherine Benavidez says:

      If we tally all our payroll deductions from our years on the job up until retirement It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that our monthly social security check is peanuts compared to our already paid contribution and on top of that being taxed for money that we have already been taxed on. This doesn’t make sense. None of our lawmakers live in poverty. It would be nice to have every member spend at least a week in their city learning how citizens of their community manage on social security. They would find that the majority don’t have savings and depend on their monthly check just to get buy. They have to juggle their money and often times go without medications or food just to stay afloat. For those making the laws I say put yourself in their shoes. I say “NO” to taxing social security benefits when one retires.

      • carol schultz says:

        You mean like undercover boss? They might see how we live but they know they could go back to
        their ways. They listen to corporations, not we the people.

      • Bruce Rych says:

        Catherine….lets try to pove your assumption on our own without the help of NASA. Assume you worked full time for the past 30 years and contributed the annual maximim amount into social security. WHat would that total be? Now, how much are you earning from SS per month? Now simply divide your monthly SS check by the total amount you paid into SS over your lifetime. The answer ill be in terms of the number of months it will take you to recoup all SS benefits paid into your account. If you outlive the number of months calculated…you are on the gravy train…

  55. Nancy J says:

    Sorry for the errors in the comment below. It’s late and I’m tired but I had to add my two (after tax) cents.

  56. Nancy J says:

    It’s about time this rip-of retirees is addressed. Another fine example of how the Feds take and take and take, We are taxed multiple times on the same dollar we worked so hard to earn in the first place. Welfare is not taxed, and the recipients do nothing to get it but stick out a hand to get it.

    • HAM says:

      Great comparison Nancy. There are a large number if people receiving Welfare benefits who are ABLE BODIED and should be in the workforce. Instead of requiring them to work (& pay taxes) our government in it’s infinite wisdom decided SENIOR citizens should be doubled taxed on their SS income instead to help pay for THEM. It boggles the mind!!!

      • Rik says:

        Welfare should be changed to workfare … Here’s how it works: if one is on welfare they should be required to show up and do the jobs “illegals” are doing. You know, picking fruit and vegetables for one, we have plenty of empty storefronts and buildings which could be used for daycare if necessary, so welfare recipient could have child care provided by other welfare recipients. If you don’t show up to work, no welfare check! Plus, you get the wages the farmer would have paid to the “illegal” he would have hired instead. Best of 5 different benefits to this idea. One, the welfare recipient makes “extra” monies to survive with. Two, what better example to their children, if you don’t want to learn in school and better yourself, you’ll end up like me, picking vegetables whether you like it or not! Third, if you don’t like this kind of work, find a better job and get off welfare. Four, no need for all these “illegals”, those low paying jobs are filled. Fifth, we’ll catch some of that welfare fraud, you know, like collecting a welfare check and working “under the table” for cash, like housecleaning, baby or pet sitting, garden and lawn care work. A hand up … Not a hand out !!!

  57. PaulE says:

    Our existing federal tax system is littered with several examples of double taxation. All in the name of funneling more revenue to feed an inefficient and bloated government, that has grown well beyond its original Constitutional purposes. This bill is certainly a good place to start, but by no means should it be where it ends. Remember, this is NOT the government’s money. It is our money, that is being confiscated from all of us under the guise of “the greater good”. All so the federal government can, in its infinitely flawed reason, arbitrarily pick and choose winners and losers and reward those supportive of this status quo.

  58. Terry says:

    I have said that for YEARS. Why did it take so long for all of you to figure it out. Another thing to think about!! How about taxing Everyone!! 10% of there earnings. Straight INCLUDING THE RICH (NO DEDUCTIBLES) !!! There would be more money to go around than ever. I’m just a laymen. Why can my head think of that. And I’m damaged with brain seizures., It still works better.

  59. sam spagnolo says:

    As a City Councilman for the city of Rancho Cucamonga I see first hand how are Senior Population struggle to make ends meet and that is why I support this bill.

  60. Paul Gans says:

    My major gripe is the “Windfall Elimination Act”. I am qualified to receive SS, but because of my Federal Civil Service retirement, my SS is reduced by more than 40% AND my wife’s is also reduced, but at a lower rate. How fair is that. We both paid into SS, but since I also EARNED another pension, we both have our SS reduced.

    • Paul Gans says:

      The two acts are named : Windfall Elimination
      Provision and GPO Government Pension Offset

    • Kegler299 says:

      Windfall Elimination Act: Since you had many years where you ‘did not’ pay social security taxes because you were under CSRS your SS is under a standard formula is wrong. Simple no pay in no pay out. The SSA then must determine your SS and recompute it by some formula that removes the amount that should not be creditable because of no pay in. This means that you are not having your SS reduced at all! You are just getting what you actually earned and not the extra from those years you did not pay in.

  61. Carolyn Darby says:

    This is a very good idea. I do not think we should be taxed twice on these monies. We moved to AZ where they do not tax SS for state taxes.

  62. Mr and Mrs Arlie Osborne says:

    Yes , I have often thought this should not be taxed and am so glad to see this bill come forward. Truth be told I don’t think senior citizens should be taxed period. They worked for years and paid taxes and now have less to live on being retired. Why should what little they get from a pension be taxed?
    those are our thoughts.

    Thank you for the folks that will make this happen.

    • Bruce Rych says:

      Mr & Arlie…you sound so sweet and kind. Consider having income taxes based on earnings and not on age. Otherwise wealthy seniors like Warren Buffet and many multimillionaire senior congresspeople will also get off the hook from paying taxes. I dont think you are championing that.

  63. Maggie Pineda says:

    It’s more than past time this action be taken! Our SS benefit doesn’t cover the necessities now!

What's Your Opinion?

We welcome your comments! Join the discussion and let your voice be heard.