What you haven’t heard before about the taxation of Social Security benefits

The complexity here is that the marginal tax rate includes not only the tax on the IRA withdrawal, but also the additional tax on SS that the IRA withdrawal generates.
...
Right there is a bump in the marginal tax rates. Many will find it doesn't matter because their combined income sources including RMD's push them well above where SS gets the 85% full taxation.

Especially when we factor in IRA account increases due to investment performance and inflation (inflation up, bond rates up, more $'s in account). As has been mentioned above, FIRECalc has many upward sloping outcomes. Those outcomes don't even factor in the inflation (they are inflation adjusted outcomes). For instance, 15 years at 2.5% inflation makes a dollar go to $1.45. So you might even be loosing in the investment game and still getting higher RMD's due to inflation.

I don't think RMD's are adjusted at all for inflation. Just tax rates.
 
I'm thinking about human nature. Let's imagine two tax systems.

1. A very simple system where it's easy to see that I will pay $10,000.

2. A very complex system, where it looks like I could pay $15,000 if I take the easy route. However, by studying the tax law, maximizing deductions, tax deferrals, etc. I can get my taxes down to $10,000.

Personally, I'd prefer 1. However, I think a lot of my fellow voters really prefer 2.
Maybe they wouldn't say that if the two choices were laid out this clearly, but in practice, the $10,000 payment is more palatable in the second case because they figure they "out-smarted" the tax guy.

Exactly. Hence people do not like to see a simpler tax system because they would be losing their precious "deductions".

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing” -- Jean Baptiste Colbert quotes (French Economist and Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV of France. 1619-1683)
 
There are so many moving parts! I think the gummint, either knowingly or inadvertently, has created these complex tax codes so that the citizens spend all their time trying to "optimize" their taxes, and keep their nose to the [-]grindstone[/-] keyboard and forget to protest. Good diversion, that.

I have been w/ the AARP Tax-Aide program preparing taxes primarily for seniors for a number of years. I've seen many folks who come in who just have SS and a small bank account w/ a little interest. Makes you wonder how they can survive. They pay little or no taxes. Based on that, I have a simple-minded theory that the gummint by design decided that the poor should not pay very much, if any, tax on their SS and those who were more well off should pay more. If you are in the latter category, you can think of this situation in one of 2 ways:

1) You are just paying your normal tax on your SS income. In fact you are
being given a break because at max only 85% of your SS is taxed........and
if you earn less, even less of your SS is taxed.
OR
2)you can think of it starting at low income and make yourself miserable thinking about marginal tax rates of 27+ and 46+% instead of the tax bracket rates of 15/25%.

Most of us here of course love to optimize things so , in my mind anyway,
we create the complexity for ourselves.
 
...
Most of us here of course love to optimize things so , in my mind anyway,
we create the complexity for ourselves.
I'm guilty as charged. Sometimes I have to step back from complexity and smell the roses. :)
 
I have been w/ the AARP Tax-Aide program preparing taxes primarily for seniors for a number of years. I've seen many folks who come in who just have SS and a small bank account w/ a little interest. Makes you wonder how they can survive. They pay little or no taxes. Based on that, I have a simple-minded theory that the gummint by design decided that the poor should not pay very much, if any, tax on their SS and those who were more well off should pay more.

Independently from the progressive nature of the tax system which I myself agree with to some degree, the tax codes need some simplification to bring more transparency.

The way it is, two persons with the same income may pay two vastly different amounts, depending on the nuances that they shape their financial matters. I don't think that is healthy. For example, the home mortgage deduction and tax-free treatment of home appreciation were two factors that encouraged people to buy McMansions, leading to the housing bubble.
 
NW, the government will never let these carrots and sticks go, because they live to control people. Nothing but puppet masters.

Ha
 
NW, the government will never let these carrots and sticks go, because they live to control people. Nothing but puppet masters.

Ha
Well I'm certainly not a puppet, no strings attached here ... hey, stop raising my arm like that ...

;)
 
Most of us here of course love to optimize things so , in my mind anyway, we create the complexity for ourselves.
I'm guilty as charged. Sometimes I have to step back from complexity and smell the roses. :)
+1, guilty here too. But running through the exercise and not coming up with THE answer is often what it takes for me to get comfortable letting go. So it's often not a waste of time (not that the OP said it was). A valuable part of learning for me...
 
Stop to smell the roses and miss out on mucho tax breaks? :confused:

Not this scroogy guy! I have to go with the flow.
 
Either carnations or roses will have to wait until April 16. :cool:
 
"If you're not careful, the rules for Social Security taxation could create a tax rate of 46% on your IRA withdrawals!"

I think we've all heard this. I understand the theory. If I'm in a 25% marginal tax bracket, and if the taxable portion of my SS benefit is lower than 85%, then an additional $1,000 of regular income could cause me to pay $1,000 x .25 x ($1,000 + .85 x $1,000) = $462.50 in additional taxes.

For some reason, I remember looking at that and thinking "Won't happen to me". This thread prodded me to go look again, after all, the example in the OP sure looks serious. Maybe it would make sense to do some Roth conversions at 25% just to avoid the 46%.

When I do the math, it seems that very few people should actually fall into this situation. In order to get into this, I'd need an income that is:
a) high enough to get into the 25% marginal bracket, but
b) low enough that less than 85% of my SS benefit is taxable.

I'm married, so a did some numbers for a joint return.

For example, if our combined SS benefit is $50,000, and we have $54,000 of ordinary income, the taxable portion of our SS will be $35,750 (Test 3 in the OP), and our AGI will be $85,750. That's not enough to get into a 25% tax bracket.

OTOH, for the same $50,000 SS benefit, if we have $62,000 of ordinary income, 85% of our SS benefit will already be taxable, so the marginal impact of additional income is just the regular 25% rate.

The difference between $52,000 and $64,000 is pretty small. Very few people have $50,000 SS benefits, and even fewer have ordinary incomes between $52k and $64k. And, even for people in that window, the 46% would only apply to the first few thousand of additional income, before they cross the $64k border.

If I do some more math, I think that no couple with a SS benefit below $42,000 can get into this 46% situation. $42,000 is a substantial SS benefit.

The window widens as SS benefits go up. The OP uses $70,000. But that requires two, maximum earners, both waiting to 70 to start benefits. Even there, the window looks like it's just $51,000 to $72,000 of ordinary income. Many people will be above the $72k or below the $51k.

But, what about the future? The factors in the SS taxable formula aren't indexed for inflation, what will that do? I haven't done any numbers, but intuitively that means that more people will fall into the 85% taxable category, the upper border of this range will come down, and the window will get even narrower.

If this is all true, the 46% is too rare to plan for today, and will get even rarer in the future.

Caveat 1: Of course there are many other factors to consider on Roth conversions or when to start SS. I'm just looking at one, apparently rare, consideration.
Caveat 2: I've been known to make math errors. People who might be concerned about this should run their own numbers rather than just trust mine.
 
When I did a simple table and varied the IRA withdrawals by 10k increments, the max marginal Fed + State rate was 33%. I definitely won't be doing that line in the tables.

I did not check the max marginal rate that I could hit by going in smaller increments. I might have got higher by doing this but who cares, one is not going to optimize for hitting the max marginal rate, I hope. :)

All this depends on ones unique tax situation (Fed and State).
 
Geez, this retirement planning stuff is complicated but thankfully every cloud has a silver lining. There is no way we will be able to keep our income low enough for less than 85% of our future SS to be taxed so we do not have to worry about this.
 
Geez, this retirement planning stuff is complicated but thankfully every cloud has a silver lining. There is no way we will be able to keep our income low enough for less than 85% of our future SS to be taxed so we do not have to worry about this.
+2

Thank goodness I can scratch this off the list of things to worry about!!!!!
 
"If you're not careful, the rules for Social Security taxation could create a tax rate of 46% on your IRA withdrawals!"

I think we've all heard this. I understand the theory. If I'm in a 25% marginal tax bracket, and if the taxable portion of my SS benefit is lower than 85%, then an additional $1,000 of regular income could cause me to pay $1,000 x .25 x ($1,000 + .85 x $1,000) = $462.50 in additional taxes.......................

\.

You might have a few extra 1000s in that formula? but your general conclusion that the 46% has a limited effect that can be saturated out with more income is true .
 
Last edited:
I know I've remarked on it here before, but this is part of the reason why someone's taxes can go *way* up when they become widowed. My dad passed in 2005. In 2006 my mom's income dropped by about $8K (the value of her SS benefit; she inherited my dad's larger check when he died), but her federal income taxes nearly doubled (from about $4K to $7K). So on net, her after-tax income dropped by about $11K.

Between being moved to the 25% tax bracket instead of 15% when filing jointly, and having 85% of her SS taxed as "single" instead of 50% when MFJ, the U.S. Treasury seemed to delight in the grief of a widow.

So I'll say it again: It's important to remember the tax impact -- not just the income impact -- of the passing of a spouse. You can pay a lot more in taxes even when your income shrinks significantly. Being shifted into single filing status can be more impactful than the loss of a SS or pension check.
 
Last edited:
So I'll say it again: It's important to remember the tax impact -- not just the income impact -- of the passing of a spouse. You can pay a lot more in taxes even when your income shrinks significantly. Being shifted into single filing status can be more impactful than the loss of a SS or pension check.
That's a very good point.
 
Read the thread until I got nervous. Born before the first American began paying into the plan, and receiving SS in 1998, before it got complicated, am eternally grateful for being able to avoid reading the full pdf. :dance:

Old is Good!!!;)
 
There has been some discussion of high marginal tax rates when adding SS to RMD's. It turns out for us things are not going to be so bad even if the marginal rates push us up to the start of the high marginal rates (maybe 32%).

This is because only a few thousand will be taxed at the higher rates. So having Roth money to halt the taxation at higher rates is critical here. For us, the actual $'s paid to Fed+State are fairly low even though we might just start hitting those higher marginal rates.

So projecting your tax picture out to your 70's might be a wise move. Having some Roth funds to mix with IRA RMD's might be very wise depending on your total asset, income flows, and tax picture.
 
You might have a few extra 1000s in that formula? but your general conclusion that the 46% has a limited effect that can be saturated out with more income is true .
:facepalm:

Thanks. The frustrating thing is that I don't see a way to edit the post this morning. It will just sit there, reminding me to be more careful.
 
Back
Top Bottom