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
10 months 20 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 10 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
2 years 22 days 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 4 months ago

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

Jack & Nancy Hamlett
2 years 6 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 6 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 6 months ago

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

Edwin Fritz
2 years 6 months ago

And the rich get RICHER.

jwjoycej
2 years 6 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 6 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 7 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 7 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 8 months ago

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

beechiegirl1953
2 years 6 months ago

S.S. itself has always

Bruce Rych
2 years 8 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 8 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 8 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 7 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 7 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 »
wpDiscuz