quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

So those of us under 65 who haven't begun receiving our SS will not benefit from this?

How can you get the social security tax break if you're not receiving social security?

I meant when we reach 65.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:

quote:

Originally posted by phil in indy:
From what I read I gather that the social security break will come at year end filing. And you won’t receive it if you applied for social security prior to turning 65.

As a former SSA employee the subject interests me. So as a result I have read several articles on the bill and it's affect on Social Security. My understanding from my reading is you are correct that the bill will have no affect at all on you if you are currently under 65, even if you are collecting SS benefits. Your tax liability remains unchanged.

LOL! I'm screwed. Missed it by exactly two months. Is this just year one? Or what?

It seems to me that the point in question is less than clear to many here.

Fed161, perhaps you might consider clarifying further, if you don't mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
My understanding from my reading is you are correct that the bill will have no affect at all on you if you are currently under 65, even if you are collecting SS benefits.

So those of us under 65 who haven't begun receiving our SS will not benefit from this? Or we will benefit from it once we begin collecting SS (provided we are over the age of 65)?

Yeah, if you’re currently under 65, there’s no need to be concerned one way or the other. You’ll get the break, when you get to 65 and collect SS benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
My understanding from my reading is you are correct that the bill will have no affect at all on you if you are currently under 65, even if you are collecting SS benefits.

So those of us under 65 who haven't begun receiving our SS will not benefit from this? Or we will benefit from it once we begin collecting SS (provided we are over the age of 65)?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if you’re currently under 65, there’s no need to be concerned one way or the other. You’ll get the break, when you get to 65 and collect SS benefits.[/QUOTE]

------------------------------------------------

Yup. That's how I read it. Emphasis on this part - You’ll get the break, but only when you get to 65 and collect SS benefits.

Apologies for not providing links. I read the articles, but did not save anything as I didn't anticipate posting on the subject. However my confidence level on everything I posted so far is high.

Rey HRH - But that's only an additional deduction for seniors, right? it only benefits people who use the standard deduction. For people who itemize deductions, it doesn't really help, right?

My background is SSA, not taxes. But it would seem to me that would be correct. What is clearly needed is a comprehensive explanation of this legislation as it relates to SSA and taxes. To date I haven't seen one that does this subject justice. The bottom line is this. See my previous post about the legislative history of the bill and why it's not a clean cut bill that says - no taxes on Social Security or maybe no taxes on Social Security for those making less than X amount. There are a lot of "what ifs" like - will those who itemize and don't take the standard deduction get any benefit from the bill. From what I see, the answer would be no. I say that because the bill clearly says there is an additional deduction beyond the standard deduction. But I sure wouldn't bet much money on saying that for sure. Perhaps there is something in the legislation for those who do itemize and meet the other eligibility requirements. It would be nice to see something from a reputable source that says if you itemize your screwed. Or if you itemize you benefit also because (insert explanation.)

If I see anything that gives a comprehensive overview of the bill as it relates to SSA and taxation (and it covers the what ifs) I will absolutely post it along with a link. I think there is a lot of interest in the subject and many people would benefit from reading it. But I don't need to be first. If anyone comes across a good article that gives a comprehensive overview, please post it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's the law now, baby, and all the efforts of the left have failed, and by that I mean not only this bill, but all of their efforts to keep the man out of office for his second term. You can bet that they are seething right now, and it is wonderful.

That's not fireworks I'm hearing outside.
It's the sound of a million liberal heads exploding because "Orange Man Bad" just WON... AGAIN!

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
My understanding from my reading is you are correct that the bill will have no affect at all on you if you are currently under 65, even if you are collecting SS benefits.

So those of us under 65 who haven't begun receiving our SS will not benefit from this? Or we will benefit from it once we begin collecting SS (provided we are over the age of 65)?

Yeah, if you’re currently under 65, there’s no need to be concerned one way or the other. You’ll get the break, when you get to 65 and collect SS benefits.[/QUOTE]

------------------------------------------------

Yup. That's how I read it. Emphasis on this part - You’ll get the break, but only when you get to 65 and collect SS benefits.

Apologies for not providing links. I read the articles, but did not save anything as I didn't anticipate posting on the subject. However my confidence level on everything I posted so far is high.

Rey HRH - But that's only an additional deduction for seniors, right? it only benefits people who use the standard deduction. For people who itemize deductions, it doesn't really help, right?

My background is SSA, not taxes. But it would seem to me that would be correct. What is clearly needed is a comprehensive explanation of this legislation as it relates to SSA and taxes. To date I haven't seen one that does this subject justice. The bottom line is this. See my previous post about the legislative history of the bill and why it's not a clean cut bill that says - no taxes on Social Security or maybe no taxes on Social Security for those making less than X amount. There are a lot of "what ifs" like - will those who itemize and don't take the standard deduction get any benefit from the bill. From what I see, the answer would be no. I say that because the bill clearly says there is an additional deduction beyond the standard deduction. But I sure wouldn't bet much money on saying that for sure. Perhaps there is something in the legislation for those who do itemize and meet the other eligibility requirements. It would be nice to see something from a reputable source that says if you itemize your screwed. Or if you itemize you benefit also because (insert explanation.)

If I see anything that gives a comprehensive overview of the bill as it relates to SSA and taxation (and it covers the what ifs) I will absolutely post it along with a link. I think there is a lot of interest in the subject and many people would benefit from reading it. But I don't need to be first. If anyone comes across a good article that gives a comprehensive overview, please post it.[/QUOTE]

Is it 65 or at Full Retirement Age (FRA) which for those who aren’t retired yet will actually be 67 years Old…

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it 65 or at Full Retirement Age (FRA) which for those who aren’t retired yet will actually be 67 years Old…

My understanding is age 65. See below

The "One Big, Beautiful Bill," also referred to as "The One Big, Beautiful Bill," is a piece of legislation that includes significant tax cuts and provisions for older Americans. For individuals aged 65 and older, a key aspect is a temporary tax break of $6,000. This deduction is designed to offset federal taxes on Social Security benefits for those with a modified gross adjusted income (MAGI) up to $75,000 for individual filers and $150,000 for couples filing jointly.

From Grok:

"The "no tax on Social Security" provision, as part of the "One Big Beautiful Bill," does not fully eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits but instead provides a temporary enhanced deduction for seniors aged 65 and older. This deduction, which reduces taxable income, is set to expire after 2028. Specifically:
...

According to multiple sources, including the Tax Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center, this provision is temporary and scheduled to end after 2028 unless extended by future legislation."

Sounds like a bit of a bait and switch.

Bait and switch

Right, right

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by HuskySig:
...but figured I would be called out for being a wet blanket or some other such nonsense.

Well, isn't it? Let's be honest. Would you rather that this provision was not in the bill? Think of what we could have right now- the bill could have failed or, much worse, we could have Kamala Harris as president. The same goes for laments about the NFA changes we got, versus what would have been ideal. Time to count our blessings.

I have been accused of being a wet blanket before so I will own it. And yes it could always be worse! I am seriusly trying to take the win for the next 3 years and enjoy whatever the benefits may be for us.

I mean really I dotn have a dog in this hunt. No SS, tips, and I quit the OT in 202. Bought to suppressors earlier this month. Hopefully I see some relief from the taxes

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

...

According to multiple sources, including the Tax Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center, this provision is temporary and scheduled to end after 2028 unless extended by future legislation."

Sounds like a bit of a bait and switch.

Sounds like smart politics. While it would have been better to be made permanent from the beginning, this expiration date makes it a powerful campaign issue in 2028. Seniors are a major voting force. If the Dems block making it permanent, they'll lose big time.

The Republicans may have finally played the game well.

The White House put out a release on it here https://www.whitehouse.gov/art...-big-beautiful-bill/

Looks like a married couple (both over 65) would see their Standard deduction total go from the existing $33,200 to $46,700 under the OBBB. The added $6,000 per qualified individual (over 65) begins to reduce after $150,000 (married filing jointly) by a rate of 6% until it reaches $0 at $250,000 gross income. Been working on trying to estimate our tax bill for this year. Had it done, then had to go back and re-do everything after passage of this bill. Looks like it reduced our tax bill by ~$1,500. Going to finish converting the last of my 401(k) to Roth next year. Typically do the default 10% withholding on the conversion. That should just about pay all our IRS taxes next year.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...mSul1qlsj51t6BM6s%3D

How Trump’s Megabill Would Change Medicaid

Here are the major provisions, why they matter, and when they go into effect.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains changes to Medicaid that Republicans say will reduce fraud, waste, and abuse, making the program more sustainable for the future.

Democrats, however, have objected to the potential loss of coverage by several million enrollees, as forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the potential financial impact on small rural hospitals.

Both parties agree that Medicaid is a vital part of the country’s social safety net, providing health coverage for more than 72 million people, many of whom are children from low-income families, and elderly, or disabled people.

Yet the program costs more than $900 billion a year, more than two-thirds of which is paid by the federal government. And the cost has grown rapidly—more than 130 percent in 10 years.

Here is a summary of major changes to Medicaid authorized by what’s known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.
Semi-Annual Eligibility Verification

Medicaid is intended for low-income people, so annual income certification is currently required.
Under this bill, that would be done every six months, and includes providing proof of citizenship.

According to CBO data, some 1.4 million people who are not legal residents of the United States are currently enrolled in Medicaid.

“[The bill] requires citizenship verification and more frequent eligibility checks in order to ensure illegal immigrants and ineligible beneficiaries are not able to receive Medicaid,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in a May 20 statement.
Others see additional administrative steps as a barrier to health coverage for people who qualify.

This provision takes effect in October 2027.

Community Engagement Requirements

In order to maintain eligibility, some Medicaid enrollees would be required to spend 20 hours per week in employment, educational activities, training, or community service.
This provision applies to adults who are not disabled and are not responsible for caring for children or other dependents.

About 90 percent of Republicans and more than half of Democrats favor these provisions in the bill, according to the health policy think tank KFF.

However, some say they do more harm than good.

“Work requirements impose administrative barriers and red tape that lead to coverage losses among both people who are working as well as people the policies purport to exempt,” according to Gideon Lukens and Elizabeth Zhang of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank.

“They also lead to coverage losses for those who are between jobs,” Lukens and Zhang wrote.

This provision takes effect no sooner than January 2027.

Cost-Sharing

The bill requires states to set cost-sharing amounts to be paid by some Medicaid recipients.
This provision applies only to patients covered under the Medicaid expansion who earn between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Primary care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and emergency care provided in a hospital emergency department are exempt from this requirement.

The amount of the shared payment will be determined by each state, but cannot exceed $35.

Currently, prescription drugs have a mandatory cost share of $1 to $4. That remains the same.

This provision would take effect Oct. 1, 2028.

Reduction of Medicaid Provider Taxes

The bill includes a provision that shrinks but does not eliminate a legal maneuver that allows states to increase their reimbursement from the federal government without providing additional services to Medicaid beneficiaries.
Currently, 49 states levy various taxes on Medicaid providers and return the money to providers by increasing their Medicaid payments.
This system allows the states to increase their Medicaid revenue at the expense of the federal government.

“The provider tax needs to go away,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) told reporters on Capitol Hill on June 25. “It’s money laundering.

“For every dollar you collect from the providers, the federal government is giving you $1.67. There’s nothing fair about it.”

The bill reduces the maximum tax states can levy on Medicaid providers from 6 percent to 3.5 percent in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Ten states that didn’t expand their programs will see no changes.

The reduction will be phased in incrementally from 2028 through 2032.

Rural Hospital Fund

States have grown used to the revenue from the provider tax, which allows them to increase reimbursement to some providers, including in rural areas.
Some lawmakers feared that altering the tax could hurt small hospitals that provide care in remote communities.

“We’ve got 35 hospitals in Missouri that have fewer than 25 beds,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters on June 17. “They just feel that they’re at the breaking point.”

To offset any negative impact on rural hospitals, the bill creates a Rural Hospital Stabilization Fund of $50 billion. The funds are allotted at $10 billion per year from 2026 through 2030.

“Dr. [Mehmet] Oz is going to work with states, work with governors of all types, to be able to deploy those dollars in a way that will bend the cost curve,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told reporters on July 2, referring to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

In all, the Medicaid provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could reduce federal spending on the program by $1 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis by KFF.

However, the bill would also increase the number of uninsured Americans by 7.7 million, according to the CBO.

Republicans have disputed the accuracy of that calculation.

Haven't rural hospitals been shutting down for a long time?
I guess that's Trumps fault too.

I think the bill will overall have a positive impact. I do have a question about the "waste, fraud and abuse" phrase that is often used. Specifically the word "fraud." By definition the word fraud indicates criminality or law breaking. If there is fraud, why do you need a new law for something that it already illegal? Unless the legislation includes something new, like hiring additional OIG agents to develop and prosecute cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Schmelby:
Haven't rural hospitals been shutting down for a long time?
I guess that's Trumps fault too.

This could potentially hurt a lot of communities. Rural hospitals operate on VERY thin margins and rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. I don't know if that $50B will be enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Schmelby:
Haven't rural hospitals been shutting down for a long time?
I guess that's Trumps fault too.

This could potentially hurt a lot of communities. Rural hospitals operate on VERY thin margins and rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. I don't know if that $50B will be enough.

This is what you get when the government gets involved. Hospitals play a profits game, and when it reflects negatively on them, they blame the government.

However, hospitals do not even attempt to recover bills from Medicare and Obamacare recipients. If the government doesn’t pay, they write the rest off. Which isn’t a great business model.

I can tell you for a fact that a young woman called 911 each day for nearly two months (about 5-6PM each day) feeling suicidal. She was transported by ambulance to the hospital each time. The hospital admits her and then releases her after only a few hours. The ambulance and hospital get the Medicare amount, and write off several thousand dollars. Each day. Multiple that by a couple of hundred (or more) people a week. That’s where they are losing money.

And at 40 trillion in debt now, the American taxpayer can’t afford to fix it. Nor should it be our responsibility to fix it.

As Scott Bessent has said, the OBBB and tariffs will aid in fostering a robust economy through growth-oriented policies and suggested that deficit reduction could result from economic expansion.

Add to that, consider the alternative, which is the OBBB failing, which would have been to the detriment to the American taxpayer and consumer in the here and now.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I can tell you for a fact that a young woman called 911 each day for nearly two months (about 5-6PM each day) feeling suicidal. She was transported by ambulance to the hospital each time. The hospital admits her and then releases her after only a few hours. The ambulance and hospital get the Medicare amount, and write off several thousand dollars. Each day. Multiple that by a couple of hundred (or more) people a week. That’s where they are losing money.

They have no choice. EMTALA (the government) requires that they see her and they can only accept what CMS pays (generally speaking). Again, the government is the reason for that. They have no choice but to write off a ton of money. Can't get blood out of a turnip.