
'Big beautiful bill' may help some seniors on Social Security. But it doesn't eliminate taxes on benefits
In that email and a July 3 press release, the agency said the legislation will make it so "nearly 90%" of Social Security beneficiaries no longer pay federal income taxes on benefits. It attributed that to an additional $6,000 senior deduction and another unspecified provision.
Tax experts say that is not accurate.
The legislation does not include a provision that eliminates taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries. Moreover, while the Social Security Administration memo said the law helps protect Social Security, experts say the provisions weaken the program's funding by reducing the tax money it receives.
"It's simply not correct to say that there's a provision in this bill that is going to eliminate the Social Security benefit tax for 90% of the population," said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
"And it's also just wrong to say that this is going to preserve the solvency of Social Security," Gleckman said.
More from Personal Finance:What Trump's 'one big beautiful' tax-and-spending package means for your moneyTax changes under Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — in one chart78% say Trump's tariffs will make it harder to deal with debt, survey finds
Trump had said on the campaign trail that he planned to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits. However, the reconciliation process through which the budget and tax legislation was passed prohibits changes to Social Security.
The Social Security Administration did not return requests for comment. The White House deferred comment to the Social Security Administration.
The Council of Economic Advisers, an agency within the presidential executive office, estimates that changes in the legislation will help push the portion of seniors with exemptions and deductions exceeding Social Security income to 88%, from 64% under current law.
Those tax changes include a higher standard deduction, the existing senior deduction already in effect and the new additional senior deduction or "bonus."
The new tax package includes an additional deduction of up to $6,000 for seniors ages 65 and over.
While the additional senior deduction has been called a "bonus" in the legislative text, it is technically a deduction, which reduces the amount of income that is subject to taxes.
Notably, that does not necessarily mean seniors will see a $6,000 "bonus" check in the mail or in their refunds at tax time.
"This is not like what happened during Covid, when the government was writing checks to people," Gleckman said.
Per the legislation, the deduction will be in place for tax years 2025 through 2028. It will be available to eligible taxpayers regardless of whether they take the standard deduction or itemize their returns.
But eligibility depends on income. Taxpayers with up to $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income — or up to $150,000 if married and filing jointly — may receive the full deduction. For incomes above those thresholds, the deduction gradually phases out.
Middle-income seniors stand to benefit the most from the change, according to tax experts.
Social Security benefits are taxed based on combined income, or the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.
Individuals with between $25,000 and $34,000 in combined income may have up to 50% of their Social Security benefits taxed. If their combined income is more than $34,000, up to 85% of their benefits may be taxed.
For married couples with combined income between $32,000 to $44,000, up to 50% of their benefits may be taxed. If they have over $44,000, up to 85% of their benefits may be taxed.
Those thresholds are not adjusted for inflation, which means that over time more beneficiaries pay taxes on their benefits.
Because the new senior bonus is an above-the-line deduction, meaning it is subtracted from gross income to calculate adjusted gross income, it may indirectly reduce tax liability on Social Security benefits.
The additional senior deduction will not affect taxes on Social Security benefits for individuals and couples below those income thresholds, since they already are not subject to levies on their benefits, Gleckman said.
Nor will it help people who earn too much to qualify for the new deduction. Higher-income individuals and married couples with more than $75,000 or $150,000 in modified adjusted gross income, respectively, may not see their Social Security benefit taxes reduced, unless they are in the phaseout window.
For taxpayers who qualify, the senior deduction may reduce, rather than eliminate, their taxes on benefits, Gleckman said. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that fewer than half of older adults will benefit from the senior deduction, he said.
Even those who benefit won't necessarily see zero taxes; they'll just see fewer taxes, Gleckman said.
"The people who benefit the most, we estimate, are people who made between $50,000 and $200,000," Gleckman said.
The legislation may be more generous to seniors than to taxpayers in other age cohorts, said Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation.
"The enhanced adoptions overall are going to reduce tax liabilities for seniors significantly, and for some people, it will probably wipe out any tax liability they have," Durante said.
"But it depends on where they are in the income distributions," he said.
While certain seniors may see financial benefits now, the enhanced senior deduction will cost the Social Security program, which is already under financial strain.
The new additional senior deduction and other changes in Trump's "big beautiful bill" may reduce taxation of Social Security benefits by approximately $30 billion per year, estimates the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
That would accelerate the projected insolvency date for the Social Security trust fund devoted to retirement benefits to late 2032, up from the currently projected date of early 2033, according to CRFB.
To help shore up the program's funds, Congress faces a choice of raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both.
The sooner any changes are enacted, the more time there is for them to be phased in, according to experts.
"Every year we delay reforming the program means those changes will have to be steeper and affect more people closer to retirement age," CRFP President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a recent op-ed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Vows No Tariff Extension, Hardens Stance on Copper
Good morning. Trump isn't budging on his tariff timeline. Samsung's Unpacked event in New York loses some sizzle amid leaks. And a Chinese kindergarten provided food that left over 200 students with 'abnormal' levels of lead in their bodies. Listen to the day's top stories. Donald Trump isn't backing down. When it comes to tariffs on countries, the president is holding his ground on the Aug. 1 deadline as nations scramble to reach trade deals. He also ramped up his sectoral attacks, slapping a 50% levy on imports of copper, sending futures prices soaring. Industries including semiconductors also face charges, though drugmakers may get at least a year before a 200% fee on foreign-made products is implemented.


Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court lets Trump's ‘wrecking ball' federal job cuts proceed while legal fight continues
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court's injunction against the administration's executive order. In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court. The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to "streamline government and eliminate waste." Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal APPEALS COURT THROWS ROADBLOCK AT TRUMP'S EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself."Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Court wrote. "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court." The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court's unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is "likely to succeed" in defending the legality of the order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that "this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation." She warned that the executive action represents a "structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives" and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts. "This unilateral decision to 'transform' the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court," she wrote. "The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed "non-critical" or "not statutorily mandated." The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain "thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service... is not in the government and public interest." Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The court's ruling is not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. It only determines that implementation may proceed temporarily while appeals continue. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction or the Supreme Court declines to take up the case later, the order could again be American Federal Government Employees Union had a forceful response: "Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution. While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees."Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration," wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. "It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President's constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government."


Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Tariff Uncertainty Could Be Devastating: Carla Hills
Carla Hills, Former US Trade Representative, voices her concern with President Trump's tariff plan as the President has pushed back the deadline to his tariff plan to August 1st, and talks about the uncertainty the President has made countries feel trading with the US. Carla Hills speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's 'Balance of Power.' (Source: Bloomberg)