AssetBuilder Inc, - Registered Invesment Advisor - Simple Investing Smart Future
in

Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived

Two Candidates with a Nasty Secret

By Scott Burns

Two Candidates with a Nasty SecretIn the coming election, two major candidates share a nasty secret. Twenty-five years ago the candidates voted for legislation that now hits middle-class retirees hard. Because of this legislation, many retirees now face effective income tax rates of 46 percent--- even though their household income may be less than $100,000.

Yet these same candidates are claiming that, if elected, they will help the middle class. Each candidate claims he will provide tax breaks for the 95 percent of all households with incomes under $250,000.

For retirees, that simply isn’t true.

Here’s the story.

In April 1983, following the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission, Congress approved major reforms of Social Security. They increased the employment tax on the self-employed. They reduced benefits for future retirees by increasing the age for receiving full benefits. And they accelerated planned increases in the employment tax.

Washington then claimed that Social Security was safe for at least 75 years. The same change also created a large surplus for Social Security. Over the next 25 years that surplus was squandered. IOUs were put in the Social Security trust fund.

The reforms also introduced the taxation of Social Security benefits. If the combination of one-half of your Social Security benefits and other income sources exceeded $32,000 for a couple or $25,000 for a single taxpayer, a portion of your benefits would become taxable. (During the Clinton administration, a still higher tax was imposed.) There have been multiple efforts to eliminate the tax, but they have not been successful.

Back in 1983 the tax affected very few people. Only a small portion of all retirees had enough income to pay the tax.

But the legislation had an odd twist.

Unlike virtually everything else in the entire tax code, the threshold for taxing benefits--- $32,000 for a joint return, $25,000 for a single return--- was not indexed to inflation. They are the same today as they were 25 years ago.  Had they been indexed to inflation, the thresholds would now be $70,389 for a joint return and $54,991 for a single return.

That’s quite a difference.

As a consequence, more retirees pay taxes on their benefits every year. Due to the way the tax is structured, retirees experience this tax as a higher tax rate on pension, savings, and investment income that they have in addition to Social Security benefits.

The October issue of Money magazine has an excellent article explaining exactly how this tax works. It also points out that while only 10 percent of retirees were subject to the tax in 1984, 33 percent are paying it this year, and 43 percent are expected to be paying it in 2018.

The current 33 percent figure is a lot larger than it seems.

According to the Social Security Administration, Social Security benefits account for 90 percent, or more, of all income for a stunning 41 percent of all households. So only the 59 percent of households with some savings are likely to be taxed. Do the math, and 56 percent of all households that have saved any money for retirement are already paying taxes on their Social Security benefits.

These are not rich people. They are just people who saved or had the good fortune to have a retirement pension. They are middle class.

Many, ironically, are the same folks who responded to programs Congress created to encourage saving--- tax-deferred retirement programs such as IRAs, 401(k) plans, and 403(b) plans. Instead of retiring to a lower tax bracket, savers now retire to a higher tax bracket simply because they had saved some money--- even though their income may be well under $100,000.

So, which candidates voted for this diabolical tax?

Of the 100 senators in office in 1983, only 20 are still in office today.  Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic Party candidate for vice president, was one of the 58 “yeas” in the Senate.

Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party candidate for president, was a congressman in 1983. He was one of 243 votes in the House of Representatives.

Regardless of party, there are only two conclusions. Either they don’t know what they are doing, or we can’t trust them.

Take your pick.

On the web:

Summary of the 1983 amendments to Social Security

Vote tallies for the 1983 Social Security amendments

Meet the Diabolical Tax, the alternative minimum tax for the retired (August 6, 2008)

Coming Soon. Tax Inflation (July 25, 2008)

Inflation Calculator

Social Security Chart Book/Fast Facts 2008

Published Oct 10 2008, 03:00 PM by admin
Filed under:

Comments

 

NMorgan said:

I will pick both. We can't trust them and they don't know what they are doing.
October 10, 2008 11:31 PM
 

mshideler said:

I hope that peope don't hate me for this but here it comes.

Is not part of the problem with Social Security is that people that DONT need it take it? I know so many able bodied people that dont work and take their SSI checks. Some also have their own monies so they are doing pretty good for not working.

Is part of the issue everyone getting brain washed into refering to ages 62 or 65 as 'retirement' and the taking their SS 'that they earned'?

S.S. should only be used if you are disabled or really not able to work. There should also be means testing that considers assets, income streams, cash accounts, etc.

The system is good for those that need it. I have seen both sides of that coin in my own family.

My sister lost her husband in a tragic accident. She is completely able bodied but does not work and takes the SS checks.

I also worked with a gentleman that came to work everyday, put in his time at the age of 79. i don't know if he was taking SSI or not, but he was working 14 to 17 years after some folks choose to sponge on the government.

Yet another gentleman was already getting better than $40K per year from a pension for life with adjustments for inflation is also taking his SSI at the time of eligability. $40K per year and has full insurance, taxable investment accounts, a couple of rental houses. He needs the other $18-$20K per year? I don't think so. Even if his checks are reduced for some of that income, Where is this feeling of taking it when it is not needed?

Too many folks feel as though 'I paid in so its mine'. Maybe that is true, but social security won't last unless it reformed or those that dont need it stop taking from it.

Heated issue, i know but next time you see someone traveling the country in a nice RV and taking SSI checks.....think about it.

Just know that i am NOT going to take it when I am the right age. I hope my not touching it will help someone who ACTUALLY needs it.

If you need it, take it.

If you don't, then DON'T TAKE IT.

October 11, 2008 10:06 AM
 

8314ever said:

1.  So minus the IOUs that have replaced the one-time surplus...is this tax incorporated into the proposed fiscal gap you wrote about a couple weeks ago?  i.e. can this tax get the program back on track through the boomers' retirement

2.  How much of a tax (or on what amount of income) would have to be imposed NOW (while lots are still working) to properly fund SS...I know no one wants to think of this solution (especially given the tone of this article), but I ask since this might be the only option other than eliminating the benefits.

October 11, 2008 10:45 AM
 

djporter said:

Have any of the third party candidates ever commented on this issue?

This is the first presidential election where I cannot bring myself to vote for either of the major parties,

October 11, 2008 11:42 AM
 

minecanary said:

I beg to differ on three counts:

1.  Only Obama is promoting the tax break for under $250,000.  McCain just today is offering tax breaks for the "middle class" but it is undefined.

2.  If Social Security is the third rail in politics and yet is going to require pruning in the future, isn't this unfortunate taxation a back-door approach to reducing benefits?  

3.  With the economic losses we have been suffering, this tax may hit fewer of us than we might have expected.

October 11, 2008 2:30 PM
 

worriedinTX said:

There is a truly significant difference between collecting an SSI check and a SS check--one is based on NOT having any signifigant earnings and the latter is for retired workers...

SSI is a program for people who are unable to work --often without any meaningful earning history at all and are eligible to received support from the government--someone born blind or disabled through an accident while in college or who has erratic work history because of mental illness might qualify.

People who work and pay into SS retirement (w/ their employers' contributions) receive their investment plus interest ...they might get back more than they put in...but put in they did...

You should not equate an SSI recepient and a retired worker who gets social security...

And if you actually think you would willingly give up your claim to SS, then you are putting yourself into a much higher tax bracket with the SS withholding being done.

October 11, 2008 11:03 PM
 

worriedinTX said:

McCaid said he thought people should not be panalized by having to make their mandatory withdrawals from 401Ks for the next two years--(if they have enough income from other sources). Thought that was one of the most practical and probably helpful suggestions I have heard about dealing with the consequences of the market's disolve in the lives of individuals.

How much tax reduction would this change in the inflaction index bring about if it were implimented? And where should the compensating funds come from?

October 11, 2008 11:08 PM
 

mshideler said:

"There is a truly significant difference between collecting an SSI check and a SS check--one is based on NOT having any signifigant earnings and the latter is for retired workers...

You should not equate an SSI recepient and a retired worker who gets social security..."

I obviously got my terms screwed up and my intent was clear.

I can see that you have bought into the SS being used as a RETIREMENT and not for those who actually need it "...latter is for retired workers..."

Why should the government pay for someone to retire?

If you cannot work due to age, physical or mental imparement the yes you need help. But hitting a set age and then appliying for a check every month when most are more than capable of still working is sad.

Too many people have bought into the entitlement and that is truly sad. The system is being abused and most people think it is normal because they hit 'retirement age'.

"And if you actually think you would willingly give up your claim to SS, then you are putting yourself into a much higher tax bracket with the SS withholding being done."

Of course I would! Being in a higher tax bracket by not taking free money and paying our own way is the way it should be.

If i ever get too physically or mentally impaired due to age then that is what SS is for AFTER i have exhausted my other resources, i.e. my investments, etc.

Means testing shouid be if you have assets beyond a house with furniture, a vehicle then you should be your own steward with your assets. when those are gone (less your house/car) then you  should be qualified for SS.

Summary:

If you have a house, car and cannot physically or mentally work and you have no assets - You get a SS check.

If you have a house, car and cannot physically or mentally work and you have $100,000 in CD's - you should spend your CD's before getting a SS check.

If is your job to support you. If your family helps, God bless them.

SS should be about true need and not 'it sure would be helpful' or ' i am 65, it's check time,'

October 12, 2008 8:31 PM
 

oldnwizTX said:

Hopefully, the voting public is becoming more alert to details of financial legislation. All tax bills like the one you describe in Two Candidates with a Nasty Secret should be indexed to inflation. The AMT is another bill that must also be modified because it was not indexed. With tax and financial issues now getting the attention they deserve and with the public's recent education in financial matters, the new administration will have every incentive to include these reforms in a new tax bill. The public's indifference to what is done in Congress is one big cause of careless mistakes like these. We hire these folks, but we haven't always had the smarts and energy to supervise them.
October 13, 2008 4:42 PM
 

EbenezerTX said:

This is my first post here.  To give you a notion of what to expect from me...yes, my login was borrowed from Dickens's famous character.  I have paid into Social Security since 1966 (as a basic trainee in the USAF).  I'm now a retired military officer.

My views on Social Security are best expressed in these examples:

1. A woman I've known for over 40 years receives SSI.  Her mental and emotional age (approximately nine), and resulting behaviors, preclude self-sufficiency through employment.  The SSI amount she receives would support existence, albeit meager.  Her older brother supplements her SSI.  This is certainly an appropriate use of my Social Security tax.

2. A relative of mine spent most of his life as a petty criminal.  He also occasionally worked "off the books" in the construction trades.  His goal was to make it big in one or another criminal enterprise, with a fall back position of retiring on Social Security.  He viewed SS as a government-funded (vs. retiree-funded) retirement program.  I resent any of my SS tax going to him.  There are, after all soup kitchens and cardboard boxes.

3. Aside from earning a military retirement pension, I began at age 30 (admittedly waaay late) to invest for my retirement.  My wife and I have consistently borrowed far less than we qualified for on home purchases.  We use credit for large purchases when 0% credit for a year is available, taking care to repay well before the year is up.  

The result of these and other fiscally conservative choices is that we have a moderate income and few debts.  

I plan to begin proudly accepting Social Security payments when I reach 67 (unless the fickle fingers of the Fed tinker yet again with retirement ages).  It will be, as it was originally planned, a supplement to our income.  

I applaud mshideler's charitable spirit and hope many more are inspired to follow his/her example.  My only concern is that the potential surplus will also inspire our lawmakers to divert that money into the sort of pork barrells that keep them in office.

October 14, 2008 1:14 PM
 

rfcpa said:

Good article, totally agree, but you should mention who was President in 1983 and therefore ultimately responsible for opening up that Pandora's box of taxing SS benefits.  None other than most seniors' hero Ronald Reagan.  Yes, Clinton increased the maximum inclusion from 50% to 85% but it was Reagan who got the ball rolling.  Just wanted to help you paint the complete historical picture.  

October 15, 2008 12:50 AM
Copyright © 2007 - 2008, AssetBuilder Inc - DFA Advisor. All Rights Reserved.