Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

A Tale of Three (Or Maybe Four) Tax Bills

By Scott Burns

A Tale of Three (Or Maybe Four) Tax Bills

Which of these tax bills would you rather pay?

a.   $0
b.   $610
c.   $2,004

This is not a trick question. The historical role of taxes as the price of civilization notwithstanding, most people will go for answer (a) because most of us have a deep inner belief that taxes are best when paid by someone else.

In fact, (c) is the amount a nicely Solvent Senior would pay on 2009 income from various sources under current tax law. The other answers, (a) and (b), are what the same Solvent Senior would pay if there were such a thing as an honest politician. I got these figures by doing some woulda-coulda testing for a reader who wanted to know how the taxation of Social Security benefits affected his tax bill. I thought you might like to know.

The retired couple had combined Social Security benefits of $50,000 a year. They get this much because both worked and both earned and contributed more than most people. They also had $12,000 in pension income, $15,000 in IRA distributions and $12,000 in Roth IRA distributions. So their total retirement cash income is $89,000.

That’s a nice total. Lots of retirees and working stiffs would happily change places with them. Even so, they are among the 52 percent of retired couples who derive at least 50 percent of their income from Social Security. They are a long way from Fat City.

Now let’s look at the three possible tax bills.

Current Law.  Under current law, $12,000 of Roth IRA income isn’t counted. But their other $27,000 of pension and IRA income causes $12,800 of their Social Security benefits to be added to their taxable income. This gives them a taxable income, before deductions and exemptions, of $39,800. After the standard deduction, elderly deduction and two personal exemptions totaling $20,900 their taxable income is $18,900. Their federal income tax bill is $2,004 the TurboTax program tells me.

Current Law with indexation of Social Security benefits taxation. When the weasels in Washington decided to tax Social Security benefits in 1983 they knew it would be unpopular. So they finessed the conflict. They set a high threshold that was not indexed to inflation. Basically, they put a slow burning fuse on a bomb timed to go off well after they were out of office. The first threshold number for couples is $32,000. The second is $44,000. Plug those numbers in the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator and the inflation adjusted numbers would now be $68,927 and $94,775, respectively.

That’s why I don’t think it’s rude to call these jokers weasels.

If the taxation formula were adjusted for inflation this couple would not have to include any Social Security benefits in their taxable income. Their taxable income would be $6,100.  Their tax bill would be $610, and the politicians of 1983 wouldn’t have made President Franklin Delano Roosevelt into a liar. (He’s the one who promised Social Security benefits would never be taxed.)

Under promised Obama law. While a candidate, President Obama offered a “Comprehensive Tax Plan” that included eliminating income taxes for seniors with income under $50,000. Under current tax law, the income before deductions and exemptions for this couple would have been the $39,800 cited earlier. So their tax bill would have been $0 if the President kept his word. The President is being quite fastidious about increasing taxes for those with incomes over $250,000, but he has forgotten his promise to cut taxes for seniors.

Should seniors organize marches and protests about this chicanery and tax injustice?

Everyone should protest the insanity and chicanery of our entire infuriating tax system. That’s why I have advocated the Fair Tax for years. Moving to a consumption tax is the only way we’ll get a system where people pay taxes in proportion to their capacity to pay.

But seniors should only mumble when complaining of tax injustice. Do the same tax calculation for a younger couple that is still working and earning $89,000 and their income tax bill will be $9,950—and that’s without counting what they pay in employment taxes. The bill can be lowered by saving in IRAs, 401(k) plans, having children, and itemizing tax deductions— but it’s still going to be far more than seniors pay, even under current rules.

All these differences are why we need a complete overhaul of our tax system.

Only published comments... May 21 2010, 03:00 PM by admin


Comments

 

noppenbd said:

From the Social Security website:

Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

May 21, 2010 3:35 PM
 

raygun99 said:

Stealth TAX

Scott:  It seems to me the Uncle Sam has multiple levers it can pull without calling it “NEW TAX”  For instance inflation is a TAX on everyone in America .  The most current one I see happening to fixed income segment of our population.   The burden of bailing out banks and big “too big to fail” business falls on the seniors as a Stealth TAX.  Banks get free money from Uncle Sam 0 % they in turn pay .01 % interest on secure CDs .  In the middle they loan the free money or invest it in their own bank stocks, bonds, treasuries, …… This arbitrage is really a TAX on anyone relying on fixed income.  Seniors are paying for the bail outs without a single bill in congress to add taxation.  I see this whole bailout as a way to re-capitalize the banks to pay for their bad investments on their books and until they have comfortably absorbed all of the bad investments they will continue to receive free money and pay it back with the difference.

May 31, 2010 2:09 PM
 

scottb said:

To raygun99:

You're right on. There are lots of ways to tax and the current federal reserve policy of low interest rates is one of them. It's what I call a "Hood Robin" policy--- using artificially low interest rates to feed the bankers at the expense of the savers.

To nopenbd:

Long ago a reader sent me a government printed flyer about the beginning of Social Security. It specifically said that Social Security benefits would never be taxed. It also said that the tax would never be increased.

June 2, 2010 2:38 PM

Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075