{"id":47671,"date":"2025-07-08T03:37:10","date_gmt":"2025-07-08T03:37:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/47671\/"},"modified":"2025-07-08T03:37:10","modified_gmt":"2025-07-08T03:37:10","slug":"social-security-sends-incorrect-email-saying-big-beautiful-bill-ends-taxes-on-benefits-heres-what-is-actually-changing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/47671\/","title":{"rendered":"Social Security sends incorrect email saying ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ ends taxes on benefits\u2014here’s what is actually changing"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Social Security Administration sent a misleading email to benefit recipients and other Americans last week about the Republican budget bill<\/a> that was recently signed into law by President Donald Trump. Advocates are now trying to correct the record to ensure beneficiaries know how the legislation could affect their tax bill.<\/p>\n

On July 3, Social Security sent an email and posted a press release saying that \u201cthe new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.\u201d It also says \u201cnearly 90%\u201d of beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on the benefit. While eliminating taxes on Social Security had been proposed by Republican politicians, that provision was ultimately taken out of the version of the so-called \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d that became law because it violated Senate rules.<\/p>\n

Instead, the law allows Americans aged 65 or older to take an additional $6,000 income tax deduction. Notably, this does not include beneficiaries who are aged 62 to 64. The agency updated the press release Monday to note the deduction after outcry and media coverage.<\/p>\n

The difference could confuse beneficiaries, according to National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a non-profit advocating to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The group also notes that the political messaging behind the email\u2014it heralds the \u201clandmark\u201d legislation\u2014is \u201cunprecedented\u201d for the SSA, which is supposed to be a neutral agency managing the benefits of some 73 million Americans. SSA did not immediately respond to Fortune\u2018s request for comment.<\/p>\n

Trump made a point of promising to end taxation on Social Security benefits on the campaign trail. As Republican politicians worked to put their budget bill together, many promised to include the provision. <\/p>\n

But in order to pass the legislation using a process called reconciliation, it was determined that the GOP could not include a provision on Social Security taxes. Instead, they substituted in the higher deduction for older Americans.<\/p>\n

The senior \u2018bonus\u2019 deduction<\/p>\n

The legislation signed into law last week does, however, include a provision that allows Americans aged 65 and older to deduct an additional $6,000 on their federal income taxes, in addition to the standard deduction, which is already bigger for seniors than it is for younger Americans. Those who itemize also qualify for it. For married couples, both spouses can take the deduction if they are both over 65, for a total of $12,000 extra.<\/p>\n

Like other provisions in the bill, it is time limited: It is in effect only for the 2025 to 2028 tax seasons. It also applies to those earning a modified adjusted gross income up to $75,000, or double that for married couples. It then begins to phase out for incomes above that threshold, and is not available to individuals earning $175,000, or couples earning $250,000. <\/p>\n

According to the White House, this provision will increase the share<\/a> of seniors receiving Social Security who will not pay income tax on their benefits from 64% to 88%.<\/p>\n

The poorest seniors won\u2019t benefit from the break, because they already do not pay Social Security taxes (the White House\u2019s own analysis notes 64% already do not)\u2014nor the richest, given the income phaseout. Instead, it is upper-middle class seniors who stand to benefit for the next few years. Those with incomes below $63,300 pay about 1% or less<\/a> of their benefits, on average, in taxes, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.<\/p>\n

Additionally, this portion of the bill actually hastens the program\u2019s insolvency, a concern for many Americans, because the taxes seniors pay on the benefits go back into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for future generations. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates the provision<\/a> would bring the trust fund to insolvency one year sooner than current calculations. Once that happens, Social Security beneficiaries would face an across-the-board benefit cut of around 24%, CRFB says.<\/p>\n

Other provisions in the bill are also expected to disproportionately affect older Americans. For example, it changes eligibility for and cuts federal funding for the\u00a0Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program\u00a0(SNAP) starting in 2027, which 11 million adults aged 50 and older rely on, according to AARP. New work requirements on Medicaid could also prevent some older Americans from receiving benefits.<\/p>\n

Social Security has become a lightening rod for controversy since Trump\u2019s inauguration in January. The agency was an early target of the administration\u2019s so-called Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk, which has worried advocates who say it is becoming overly-politicized.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Social Security Administration sent a misleading email to benefit recipients and other Americans last week about the…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":47672,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[64,69,255,700,711,618,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-47671","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-donald-trump","10":"tag-personal-finance","11":"tag-retirement","12":"tag-social-security","13":"tag-taxes","14":"tag-united-states","15":"tag-unitedstates","16":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114815529675695428","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47671\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}