WSJ Poll: Trump’s No Tax on Social Security Income Extremely Popular

[mystery-ak]

WSJ Poll: Trump’s No Tax on Social Security Income Extremely Popular

Wendell Husebø 14 Sep 2024

Eighty-three percent of registered voters either strongly or somewhat favor former President Donald Trump’s proposal to end taxes on Social Security benefits, a recent Wall Street Journal poll found.

The policy would greatly benefit seniors who are on a fixed income and suffering under soaring inflation fueled by the Biden-Harris administration. The policy would provide an average benifit of $3,400, according to the Tax Policy Center.
Sixty-four percent of respondents said they “strongly favored” eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, the poll found, with another 19 percent “somewhat” favor the policy. Only ten percent opposed it.

The policy also has strong support among partisans. Seventy-six percent of Democrats support eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, while 89 percent of Republicans support it.

The poll sampled 750 registered voters from August 24-28 with a +/- 3.6 percentage point margin of error.

“The tax cut would benefit 16% of all households, according to the Tax Policy Center, providing an average boost of $3,400,” the Journal explained:

    The income tax on benefits hit 50% of Social Security recipients in 2023, according to the Social Security Administration, up from 10% when Congress created the tax in 1983. Many retirees are surprised when they learn about the tax liability, and surveys show the Trump proposal has touched a nerve.

    …

    Social Security recipients must calculate their income, adding in half of their benefits. If that total income exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 for married couples filing jointly), up to half of benefits are taxed. If it exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for married couples), up to 85% of benefits are taxed. That system can create high marginal tax rates for working Social Security recipients because they simultaneously face regular taxes and taxes on more of their benefits as income goes up.
     …

    Income taxes on benefits now make up about 4% of Social Security’s revenue, and repealing the tax would hasten the day when the program can’t pay full benefits. Congress raised the tax in 1993 and directed that money to Medicare. Lawmakers intentionally set income thresholds for the tax without inflation adjustments, and it affects more people over time. Beneficiaries who pay the tax generally have wage or investment income beyond Social Security.

“To help seniors on fixed incomes who are suffering the ravages of Comrade Kamala Harris’ inflation nightmare — I’m promising NO TAX on SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS!” Trump posted on X.

https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/09/14/wsj-poll-trumps-no-tax-social-security-income-extremely-popular/

[Free Vulcan]

Not to mention the right thing to do.

[Fishrrman]

Just playing the devil's advocate, but...

Let's suppose Mr. Trump wins and this does go through (IRS no longer taxing SS benefits at all).

Wouldn't it be likely for at least the blue states to START taxing it for some additional revenue...?

[Kamaji]

Yeah, because all those wealthy people getting social security benefits need every penny of those benefits.



100% of social security is never subject to income tax.  To what extent social security benefits are taxable depends on the recipient's "combined income", which only ever includes 50% of the recipient's social security benefits.

How about this:  exemption of 100% of social security from income tax in exchange for means-testing of benefits, so that those who have other assets adequate to their needs do not get benefits that should be going to support those who are in need - i.e., those who lack personal financial security.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I cannot imagine incomes are that high for retired seniors, they can't pay that much as it is? I don't know. I would figure it would keep  them in the lowest brackets.

[Kamaji]

I cannot imagine incomes are that high for retired seniors, they can't pay that much as it is? I don't know. I would figure it would keep  them in the lowest brackets.

Social security is not means tested, so everyone who hits retirement age gets it, whether they need it or not.

And for those seniors who are low-income, social security is not taxed; for those who are medium income, a portion is taxed, and even for the uber wealthy, only 85% is taxed.

See, e.g.:  https://www-origin.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Social security is not means tested, so everyone who hits retirement age gets it, whether they need it or not.

And for those seniors who are low-income, social security is not taxed; for those who are medium income, a portion is taxed, and even for the uber wealthy, only 85% is taxed.

See, e.g.:  https://www-origin.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html

Yeah, not sure how this helps the country. Is Donny stumping for votes?

How about lowering all of our taxes across the board?

[Kamaji]

Yeah, not sure how this helps the country. Is Donny stumping for votes?

How about lowering all of our taxes across the board?

[jmyrlefuller]

It's not a savings account, it's a transfer payment, paid for by the children who too many of the Boomers didn't have enough of to keep the scheme going (a problem only getting worse).

The problem is, and again, this is the problem with conservatism only making up 10% of the population at most... 90% of the population doesn't see it that way, even though it is that way. They truly think they paid into it, they have a right to it, and that somehow they already paid taxes on it. No, they paid taxes on someone else's Social Security check—which isn't right,* but semantically, the point stands.

Social Security is just another form of unearned income.

*To that point, it would be wise to reconfigure the tax tables to exempt the money actually paid into such entitlements from the federal and state income taxes; that'd be the fairer way to address the fact that that money never technically reaches the earner's pocket.

[libertybele]

It's not a savings account, it's a transfer payment, paid for by the children who too many of the Boomers didn't have enough of to keep the scheme going (a problem only getting worse).

The problem is, and again, this is the problem with conservatism only making up 10% of the population at most... 90% of the population doesn't see it that way, even though it is that way. They truly think they paid into it, they have a right to it, and that somehow they already paid taxes on it. No, they paid taxes on someone else's Social Security check—which isn't right,* but semantically, the point stands.

Social Security is just another form of unearned income.

*To that point, it would be wise to reconfigure the tax tables to exempt the money actually paid into such entitlements from the federal and state income taxes; that'd be the fairer way to address the fact that that money never technically reaches the earner's pocket.

??? Unearned income??  So, you've never had social security deducted from your paycheck?  The money didn't technically reach the earner's pocket because it was taxed and taken out of their paychecks.  Yes, they DID earn it but it was taken from them, and  yes, they did then pay into Social Security.  Supposedly, most people receive more than they've paid in -- which I'm not sure that's quite accurate as I believe Medicare enters into that scenario, however, people are also forced to go onto Medicare.  People also pay Medicare as a tax deducted from their paychecks.

Once people are forced onto Medicare they lose their primary insurance; which becomes secondary...and so they are paying a premium for Medicare AND supplemental insurance. Medicare premiums are deducted from their Social Security.

Then ...on top of that some states tax Social Security and depending on the income and situation many people pay taxes on Social Security -- so it was taken out of their paychecks as a tax and in many cases taxed again once they draw the money that was taken from their checks. It's hardly unearned income!

@jmyrlefuller   Why do we have to pay taxes on money that we've earned to begin with??

[Kamaji]

It's not a savings account, it's a transfer payment, paid for by the children who too many of the Boomers didn't have enough of to keep the scheme going (a problem only getting worse).

The problem is, and again, this is the problem with conservatism only making up 10% of the population at most... 90% of the population doesn't see it that way, even though it is that way. They truly think they paid into it, they have a right to it, and that somehow they already paid taxes on it. No, they paid taxes on someone else's Social Security check—which isn't right,* but semantically, the point stands.

Social Security is just another form of unearned income.

*To that point, it would be wise to reconfigure the tax tables to exempt the money actually paid into such entitlements from the federal and state income taxes; that'd be the fairer way to address the fact that that money never technically reaches the earner's pocket.

Exactly.

[Kamaji]

??? Unearned income??  So, you've never had social security deducted from your paycheck?  The money didn't technically reach the earner's pocket because it was taxed and taken out of their paychecks.  Yes, they DID earn it but it was taken from them, and  yes, they did then pay into Social Security.  Supposedly, most people receive more than they've paid in -- which I'm not sure that's quite accurate as I believe Medicare enters into that scenario, however, people are also forced to go onto Medicare.  People also pay Medicare as a tax deducted from their paychecks.

Once people are forced onto Medicare they lose their primary insurance; which becomes secondary...and so they are paying a premium for Medicare AND supplemental insurance. Medicare premiums are deducted from their Social Security.

Then ...on top of that some states tax Social Security and depending on the income and situation many people pay taxes on Social Security -- so it was taken out of their paychecks as a tax and in many cases taxed again once they draw the money that was taken from their checks. It's hardly unearned income!

@jmyrlefuller   Why do we have to pay taxes on money that we've earned to begin with??

Yeah, unearned income.  You didn't "pay into" anything.  You paid an additional income tax, a regressive income tax.  You did not pay into a benefit scheme in which you had a vested interest.  The fact that even people on this forum seem to think otherwise is testament to how seductive - and how successful - socialist lying is. 

Social security is just another form of welfare.

[libertybele]

Social security is not means tested, so everyone who hits retirement age gets it, whether they need it or not.

And for those seniors who are low-income, social security is not taxed; for those who are medium income, a portion is taxed, and even for the uber wealthy, only 85% is taxed.

See, e.g.:  https://www-origin.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html

Not true.  By tax table bracket we are considered low-income, yet we still pay at the end of the year.

So, why is it that citizens who work at a job only receives a portion of their money and the rest must be handed over to the government? The federal government is funded by excise taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and individual income tax and other misc., taxes.

The government didn't earn the money that they are taking out of our paychecks. The citizens have worked to earn their money.

[libertybele]

Yeah, unearned income.  You didn't "pay into" anything.  You paid an additional income tax, a regressive income tax.  You did not pay into a benefit scheme in which you had a vested interest.  The fact that even people on this forum seem to think otherwise is testament to how seductive - and how successful - socialist lying is. 

Social security is just another form of welfare.

Welfare?? So, what do you call it when the government takes money from your paycheck that you earned? Why is that we pay taxes to the government? Are they entitled to money that they didn't earn?

So, let's see ....I work for a certain amount of years and have taxes taken out of my paycheck and the gov't in turn gives me a portion of that money every month that they've taken from me over the years.

Now,an ILLEGAL comes in and in many cases get food stamps and medical (among other benefits) and they have never given the gov't any of their earnings because they've never worked .... so who is getting Welfare?????

Sorry -- YES, I paid into the 'system'. Period.

[Kamaji]

Not true.  By tax table bracket we are considered low-income, yet we still pay at the end of the year.

So, why is it that citizens who work at a job only receives a portion of their money and the rest must be handed over to the government? The federal government is funded by excise taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and individual income tax and other misc., taxes.

The government didn't earn the money that they are taking out of our paychecks. The citizens have worked to earn their money.

Then maybe you aren't computing it correctly. 

Why do governments tax?  Two reasons:  because they can, and because when "We the people" ratified the Constitution, we expressly granted the federal government the power to tax.

[libertybele]

Then maybe you aren't computing it correctly. 

Why do governments tax?  Two reasons:  because they can, and because when "We the people" ratified the Constitution, we expressly granted the federal government the power to tax.

Of course I'm computing it correctly. 

So IOW, gov'ts are stealing from citizens because they can. No different than if we were to go into someone's house and take their money...yet, we'd go to prison.

Yes, I realize what's in the Constitution and gives the gov't the 'power' to tax -- so which proves my point -- they tax our paychecks ... money that was not earned by them -- SS was developed -- YES we absolutely paid into that system via tax! We also pay into Medicare via a tax to the gov't AND are charged a 'premium' which is deducted from that pool of money. 

Those aren't my rules -- those are the gov't rules.  They take because they can -- we take and we go to prison.

[Hoodat]

Just playing the devil's advocate, but...

Let's suppose Mr. Trump wins and this does go through (IRS no longer taxing SS benefits at all).

Wouldn't it be likely for at least the blue states to START taxing it for some additional revenue...?

Blue States can do whatever in the hell they want.  Raising taxes is what makes them Blue States.  No skin off my back.

[Hoodat]

Yeah, because all those wealthy people getting social security benefits need every penny of those benefits.

It really is none of your business what someone else "needs".  It's their damn money.  And you don't get to decide who gets money and who does not between two people who paid the exact same amount in social security tax.

How about this:  exemption of 100% of social security from income tax in exchange for means-testing of benefits, so that those who have other assets adequate to their needs do not get benefits that should be going to support those who are in need - i.e., those who lack personal financial security.

How about this:  Get rid of the Social Security ponzi scheme altogether.  Instead, mandate that people invest 14% of their income into fiduciary retirement funds.  They can choose whether that contribution is pre-tax or post-tax.  If pre-tax, they get taxed on it at the regular rate when they withdraw.  If post-tax, they pay 0% taxes on it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

How about this:  Get rid of the Social Security ponzi scheme altogether.  Instead, mandate that people invest 14% of their income into fiduciary retirement funds.  They can choose whether that contribution is pre-tax or post-tax.  If pre-tax, they get taxed on it at the regular rate when they withdraw.  If post-tax, they pay 0% taxes on it.

Great idea but then the media sob stories will start... just like with everything else.