logo
President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees

President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees

Yahoo13 hours ago
President Donald Trump pledged to end the tax on Social Security benefits prior to and following his election.
However, Trump's flagship tax and spending law excluded this popular proposal for two very good reasons.
Even though the tax on benefits isn't going anywhere, retirees who needed the biggest boost were helped out by the One Big Beautiful Bill.
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook ›
In May, Social Security retired-worker benefits made history. For the first time in the nine-decade history of the program, the average monthly check for retired workers topped $2,000.
While this is a relatively modest monthly sum, Social Security income is indispensable for most retirees. National pollster Gallup has surveyed retirees annually for 24 years to gauge how important their monthly payout is from America's leading social program. In April 2025, a combined 86% responded that it represented a "major" or "minor" income source, which is in line with the 80% to 90% of respondents in prior surveys who have needed Social Security income, in some capacity, to make ends meet.
Nothing bears more importance to retirees than knowing how much they'll receive each month from Social Security -- and arguably nothing excited these beneficiaries more than President Donald Trump's vow to remove the hated tax on the program's benefits.
But with his "One Big Beautiful Bill" now signed into law, retirees have come to the realization that the president broke his promise. Ironically, however, this might be the best thing that has happened to retired beneficiaries.
In 1983, with the asset reserves of Social Security's trust funds nearly exhausted, a bipartisan Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law. They gradually increased the payroll tax and full retirement age for working Americans and introduced the now-hated tax on the program's benefits.
Beginning in 1984, up to half of benefits could be exposed to federal taxation if provisional income (defined as adjusted gross income + tax-free interest + one-half of benefits) topped $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for couples filing jointly. A decade later, a second tax tier was added that exposed up to 85% of benefits in instances where provisional income surpassed $34,000 and $44,000 for single and married filers, respectively.
What's made taxing Social Security benefits such a sensitive subject is that these income thresholds, which were introduced decades ago, haven't once been adjusted for inflation. Taxing benefits was expected to affect around 10% of all senior households in the mid-1980s. Today, it's applicable to approximately half of all senior households.
During Donald Trump's presidential campaign, he proclaimed in all caps on Truth Social, "Seniors should not pay tax on Social Security." This was a sentiment that he reiterated at a town hall event months after his inauguration.
Based on the overwhelming popularity among existing beneficiaries of eliminating the tax on benefits, the expectation was for Trump's budget bill to follow through on his campaign and post-election vow. But this didn't happen for two very good reasons.
The prominent issue with Trump's popular proposal is that it would have financially crippled Social Security.
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI), which is responsible for paying retired workers and survivor beneficiaries each month, is an estimated eight years away from exhausting its asset reserves. Though the OASI fund doesn't require a cent in asset reserves to continue doling out payments, the existing payout schedule is at risk of being slashed by 23% for retired workers and survivors come 2033.
If the president's proposal was somehow signed into law and the tax on Social Security benefits was eliminated, it would have removed one of the program's three sources of funding and expedited the timeline to the depletion of OASI asset reserves. More than likely, it would have also widened how much benefits would need to be cut to sustain payouts through 2099.
The other reason eliminating the tax on benefits was shelved has to do with politics. Whereas most tax and spending provisions in what is now Trump's flagship law could be dealt with through a process known as reconciliation (where a simple majority of votes in the House and Senate determines passage), amending the Social Security Act can't be done through reconciliation. It requires 60 votes in the Senate, which would necessitate bipartisan cooperation given that Republicans hold only 53 seats in the upper house of Congress.
Instead of holding up the budget bill or risking defeat, the "no tax on Social Security" provision was left out.
On the surface, the prospect of still having to pay tax on some portion of Social Security benefits probably isn't sitting well with retirees -- especially with President Trump pledging to remove this disliked tax on a number of occasions. But when push comes to shove, Trump bailing on his Social Security vow may actually be the best possible news for retirees on two fronts.
To begin with, abandoning the "no tax on Social Security" provision ensures the OASI asset reserves won't be exhausted demonstrably faster than they're currently projected to. While doing nothing isn't the right answer for Social Security, eliminating the tax on benefits was unequivocally the wrong answer with regard to the financial health of the program.
However, the real victory for retirees is the provision that replaced this vow to eliminate the tax on benefits.
Trump's flagship tax and spending law offers a number of tax breaks, including no tax on overtime or tips for select workers from 2025 through 2028, as well as a quadrupling in the deduction for state and local tax (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 through 2029.
But the highlight of Trump's newly signed law is the beefed-up standard deduction for seniors age 65 and above from 2025 through 2028. Retirees will receive an added $6,000 standard deduction -- or $12,000 (combined) when filing jointly -- if their adjusted gross income (AGI) is less than $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 if filing jointly. A 6% phase-out begins above these income thresholds, with single filers and married couples with AGIs above $175,000 and $250,000, respectively, not eligible for this added deduction.
Removing the tax on benefits would have specifically aided middle- and high-earning recipients who are currently paying tax on some portion of their benefits. Meanwhile, the temporary deduction boost from the One Big Beautiful Bill is aimed at reducing tax liability for low- and middle-income beneficiaries. In other words, this provision helps the retirees more likely to need a financial boost.
Ultimately, this is the best possible outcome for a majority of Social Security retirees.
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
President Donald Trump Broke His Social Security Vow -- and It May Be the Best Thing That's Happened to Retirees was originally published by The Motley Fool
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump defends Bondi amid backlash over Epstein files
Trump defends Bondi amid backlash over Epstein files

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump defends Bondi amid backlash over Epstein files

(Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump defended Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday amid backlash against her from some of Trump's supporters over how the Justice Department handled the investigation into the death of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged clientele. Trump said "nobody cares about" Epstein, and that more time or energy must not be wasted on his case, as he tried to unite his base of supporters in a nearly 400-word post on Truth Social. "What's going on with my "boys" and, in some cases, "gals?" They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening," Trump said. In a joint memo released on Monday, the FBI and Justice Department said there was no evidence to support a number of long-held conspiracy theories about Epstein's death in federal custody in 2019 and his alleged clientele. Conservative influencers from Laura Loomer to Elon Musk have criticized Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel for their findings, which came months after Bondi pledged to reveal major revelations about Epstein, including "a lot of names" and "a lot of flight logs." U.S. media, including Fox News and NBC News, have reported that FBI deputy director Dan Bongino has clashed with Bondi over the issue and is considering stepping down. Patel and Bongino, a former conservative podcaster, both previously made statements before working at the FBI about a so-called client list and often suggested that the government was hiding information about Epstein from the American public. Monday's memo on Epstein concluded that after reviewing more than 300 gigabytes of data, there was "no incriminating client list" nor was there any evidence that Epstein may have blackmailed prominent people. The memo also confirmed prior findings by the FBI which concluded that Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial, and not as a result of a criminal act such as murder. Epstein's death while imprisoned in New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center has ignited controversy for years. Expectations for key revelations in his case grew when, in February, Fox News asked Bondi whether the Justice Department would be releasing Epstein's client list, and she said, "It's sitting on my desk right now to review." On Tuesday at the White House, Bondi walked that comment back, telling reporters that she was referring to the entire Epstein "file" along with other files pertaining to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. "That's what I meant by that," she said.

Trump Pleads With Followers to Back Bondi in Dispute Over Epstein Inquiry
Trump Pleads With Followers to Back Bondi in Dispute Over Epstein Inquiry

New York Times

time31 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Trump Pleads With Followers to Back Bondi in Dispute Over Epstein Inquiry

President Trump on Saturday threw a political lifeline to Pam Bondi, his embattled attorney general, appearing to side with her over Dan Bongino, the F.B.I.'s deputy director, who has threatened to quit over Ms. Bondi's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. 'They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Mr. Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social, his social media site. 'We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening.' He went on to plead with his followers to 'not waste Time and Energy' on Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier and registered sex offender he once socialized with and described in the post as 'a guy who never dies.' The post — which Ms. Bondi welcomed, according to officials — came a day after a bruising battle between her and Mr. Bongino burst into public view. Mr. Bongino has not shown up for work since Ms. Bondi accused him of planting negative news stories about her during a testy face-to-face encounter in the West Wing office of Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff and an ally of Ms. Bondi's. Mr. Bongino, who has groused about his workload and spoken wistfully of his lucrative old gig as a podcaster, where he promoted conspiracy theories, has told friends he might ditch his job. Even with the president's support, Ms. Bondi remains the target of withering criticism from the hard-right wing of Mr. Trump's coalition, which blames her for overhyping a modest tranche of new Epstein files as a bombshell revelation soon after she took office in February. Laura Loomer, the flame-throwing activist who wields significant influence with the president, has joined a growing chorus calling for Ms. Bondi's resignation. Mr. Bongino's boosters had hoped that Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, who has privately criticized Ms. Bondi's Epstein stunt, would also consider quitting in protest. It has not happened. A few hours before Mr. Trump posted his support for Ms. Bondi, Mr. Patel offered up his own statement on social media, calling it 'an honor to serve the President of the United States.' 'I'll continue to do so for as long as he calls on me,' Mr. Patel wrote. That would appear to leave Mr. Bongino in the lurch. Ms. Bondi's allies in the administration believe he has burned his bridges and needs to leave, according to two people familiar with her thinking. Justice Department and F.B.I. spokesmen declined to comment.

I'm a Real Estate Expert: The Salary You Need To Afford a $1 Million Home
I'm a Real Estate Expert: The Salary You Need To Afford a $1 Million Home

Yahoo

time34 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

I'm a Real Estate Expert: The Salary You Need To Afford a $1 Million Home

Thinking about buying a $1 million home? It sounds glamorous — and maybe a little intimidating. According to Fortune, $1 million can still buy you a lot of house in most parts of the United States, as the median home sale price was $419,200. But before you start daydreaming about that perfect kitchen or backyard oasis, it's worth figuring out what kind of paycheck you actually need to afford that price tag without breaking a sweat. Explore More: Read Next: GOBankingRates spoke with Brett Iwanowicz, the founder and CEO at Brett Buys Roc Houses, to break down the numbers so you know what salary you should be aiming for to comfortably call a million-dollar house your home. 'The ability to purchase a $1 million home depends on multiple elements which include personal income levels along with debt-to-income ratio and down payment requirements and interest rates and total financial responsibilities,' said Iwanowicz. The following analysis also includes the minimum annual income needed to maintain a $1 million home purchase. Here are some key factors to consider. According to Iwanowicz, a common rule for homebuyers involves putting down 20% of the property value which amounts to $200,000 for a $1 million home. The majority of buyers need private mortgage insurance (PMI) to get approved for mortgages that require less than 20% down payment. Find Out: 'A $800,000 loan amount will result after making a $200,000 down payment,' Iwanowicz explained. The mortgage payment amount each month depends on both the interest rate and the duration of the loan (30-year fixed or 15-year fixed). Iwanowicz noted the interest rate stands at 6% per year in this example for a 30-year fixed mortgage. 'An $800,000 mortgage at 6% interest with a 30-year term results in a monthly principal and interest payment of about $4,800,' he added. This also means that the calculated amount does not include payments for property taxes together with homeowners insurance and homeowners' association (HOA) fees. 'Annual property tax rates typically range between 1% to 2% of the home's total value,' said Iwanowicz. He explained that a $1 million home would require $10,000 to $20,000 annual property taxes which equals $833 to $1,667 monthly payments. And the cost of homeowners insurance varies between $100 to $300 per month based on location and coverage. Monthly housing expenses combining mortgage payments and property taxes and insurance would fall between $5,733 and $6,767, according to Iwanowicz. As far as income needed — he said the recommended limit for housing expenses in relation to gross income stands at 28% to 30%. Using this guideline, to afford $6,000 monthly housing expenses you would require a gross monthly income exceeding $20,000. 'This translates to yearly earnings of $240,000,' Iwanowicz concluded. Here, the lender evaluates the total DTI ratio of buyers, which combines every monthly debt payment including car loans, student loans and credit card debt. Iwanowicz explained that most lenders prefer a DTI ratio below 43%. With a yearly income of $240,000 ($20,000 per month) the buyer's total monthly debt payments including mortgage should not exceed $8,600. More From GOBankingRates 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on I'm a Real Estate Expert: The Salary You Need To Afford a $1 Million Home

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store