Proper term for Social Security Income

The problem I see with all this is that there is almost nothing you can do about it if you have a pension, substantial RMDs, or lots of other income while collecting SS. If you want to plan to avoid having your SS taxed, you should probably start in your 20s, latest 30s. And if you are like many people, it’s simply irrelevant as our MAGI in retirement will always dictate that 85% of SS is taxed at our highest marginal rate.
If you start early enough, there are a number of things that you can do.

If you have debts that will extend into your retirement years, pay them off with IRA money after the age of 59 ½. Just remember to do it little by little to keep in the lower tax brackets.

Using your estimated age 70 SSB and your total pensions and other fixed incomes, calculate the maximum RMD that will not force you into the 40.7% marginal bracket.

Since the percentage used to determine your RMDs increases with age, we decided to purchase some small annuities within our IRA to guarantee the size of that income source. There is no age limit on Roth Conversions, so we started doing conversions early. The goal is to have a zero balance in the IRA and a large balance in the Roth by age 70.

This will get a lot of negative remarks, but our annuity payouts grow by 9% each year until we start them. As we approach age 70 we will start each annuity on different years so that the sum at age 70 is the maximum amount that will not push us into the 40.7% marginal bracket. That is why we purchased a series of the smallest annuities we could instead of one larger one.

The biggest thing is to convert your substantial RMDs into a substantial Roth account. Too bad that they did away with the ability to recharacterize a Roth Conversion!
 
If at 70.5 I get 36k pension + 24k SSA + 24k RMD - 12k standard deduction, you're stating my taxable 72k has a marginal tax rate of 49.95%? [emoji55]

Tax table has it at 22%
 
Last edited:
If at 70.5 I get 36k pension + 24k SSA + 24k RMD - 12k standard deduction, you're stating my taxable 72k has a marginal tax rate of 49.95%? [emoji55]

Tax table has it at 22%

possibly......see the Bogleheads link posted by SevenUp above and look at the simple graph shown. If you believe that they have calculated the complex nature of SS taxation correctly, you will see a small region of high marginal tax rate surrounded by the 22% nominal bracket rate. That plot is specific to the income inputs so does not apply specifically to you but the general behavior may.
 
The problem I see with all this is that there is almost nothing you can do about it if you have a pension, substantial RMDs, or lots of other income while collecting SS. If you want to plan to avoid having your SS taxed, you should probably start in your 20s, latest 30s. And if you are like many people, it’s simply irrelevant as our MAGI in retirement will always dictate that 85% of SS is taxed at our highest marginal rate.

Our income is already high enough that 85% of our SS benefit will (hopefully) be taxed and push us out of the 0% cap gains bracket as well, so I don’t worry about SS taxation.
 
If at 70.5 I get 36k pension + 24k SSA + 24k RMD - 12k standard deduction, you're stating my taxable 72k has a marginal tax rate of 49.95%? [emoji55]

Tax table has it at 22%
You will have paid ~40% on the first ~$5K of the RMD. If you want to do some Roth conversion using amounts above the RMD it will be at a 22% federal marginal rate for the first ~$4500, at which point you hit an IRMAA tier, etc.

See chart below, from the spreadsheet referenced in the Bogleheads' wiki (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/case-study-spreadsheet-updates/):

screenshot_390.png
 
Using your estimated age 70 SSB and your total pensions and other fixed incomes, calculate the maximum RMD that will not force you into the 40.7% marginal bracket.
From the bogglehead's link I calculated approx $1386 (per year) tax in the 40.7% marginal bracket. My question is how much conversion tax do you need to spend to get your RMD where you need to for being under this bracket. OK, this is not completely fair as part of the way make make sense to do some roth conversions to lower the major tax brackets on roth conversions. This is very dependent on the individual situation. It is quite possible you could pay more dollars in tax doing the conversions than just paying the tax in some cases.


Since the percentage used to determine your RMDs increases with age, we decided to purchase some small annuities within our IRA to guarantee the size of that income source. There is no age limit on Roth Conversions, so we started doing conversions early. The goal is to have a zero balance in the IRA and a large balance in the Roth by age 70.
So when does it pay to do this considering taxing differences. One may have to convert significant amounts. How much conversion tax is too much to save the $1386/yr?


This will get a lot of negative remarks, but our annuity payouts grow by 9% each year until we start them. As we approach age 70 we will start each annuity on different years so that the sum at age 70 is the maximum amount that will not push us into the 40.7% marginal bracket. That is why we purchased a series of the smallest annuities we could instead of one larger one.
I'm not an annuity expert, but I own a small one. I think there was something where that for certain annuities in IRAs that their distribution would be considered as the RMD. I could be dead wrong... But I guess this must be what you are doing. You seem to be doing a lot to be just under that marginal spike.

Can you adjust if the tax threshold shifts (tax law updates or financial adjustment?

What would happen if you were to make a bit more RMD - pay more tax and have more in your pocket? Is it bad to have extra $?

The annuity is likely good for having reliable income and potentially longevity. As with many annuities it is a cost trade off.

Your formula seem to ignore after tax assets. How would those figure into your method?
 
So when does it pay to do this considering taxing differences. One may have to convert significant amounts. How much conversion tax is too much to save the $1386/yr?
If doing extra conversions at 22% avoids paying 40%, then the extra conversions will have been helpful.
 
Ok, SevenUp. That booglehead link I understood. IMHO the bump up that OP is trying to alert someone somewhere to is limited. Frankly I'll gladly pay a temporary bump on what could be a miniscule amount to get an extra 48k (-22% tax) per year.
 
Last edited:
Ok, SevenUp. That booglehead link I understood. IMHO the bump up that OP is trying to alert someone somewhere to is limited. Frankly I'll gladly pay a temporary bump on what could be a miniscule amount to get an extra 48k (-22% tax) per year.
And that may be the correct plan for your situation.

For someone earning the maximum SS benefit of $2788/mo, and a $30K/yr pension, things may look different:
screenshot_391.png
 
I suggest making a simple spreadsheet from IRS pub 915. It's only 19 lines long and not complex.

If line 6, 8, or 12 is 0, your SS benefit is not taxable and you can increase income (from MRDs or whatever) until it gets above 0 with no bump in the marginal tax rate.

If line 15 is smaller than line 14, you're being taxed on 50% of some of your SS. Every $100 of income you add will push an extra $50 of SS benefits into being taxed until line 15 = line 14. So your marginal tax rate in that range goes up 50%, probably from 12% to 18%.

After line 14=line 15, if line 19 is less than line 18, you're being taxed on 85% of some of your SS. Every $100 of income you add push an extra $85 of income into being taxed until lines 18 and 19 are equal. So your marginal tax rate goes up 85%, from 12% to $22.2% or 22% to 40.7%.

Once line 18 = line 19, your SS benefits are taxed to the max, so the marginal rate drops back down.

Making the spreadsheet lets you play with numbers to see how different MRD levels affect your marginal rate, and also what happens if you take your SS benefits at any point between 62 and 70. You can also keep adding income to see how long you stay in the hump.

I see a lot of people say "I'm in the 12% bracket now and will be in retirement even with MRDs, so why should I bother converting now?" The answer might be that your marginal rate for some of the MRDs might be a lot more than 12%.

The marginal rate in any case can be further compounded if you are pushing LTCGs and QDivs into being taxed.
 
If doing extra conversions at 22% avoids paying 40%, then the extra conversions will have been helpful.

So if I have to convert 500k or more at the 22% tax rate over time to(110k in taxes paid up front ) to eliminate $1386 per. What if someone needs to convert more? It would take 79+ years make up for the 110k in taxes
 
So if I have to convert 500k or more at the 22% tax rate over time to(110k in taxes paid up front ) to eliminate $1386 per. What if someone needs to convert more? It would take 79+ years make up for the 110k in taxes
Are you really looking for a quick answer? Do you even know if you're affected by that? If you are, it depends on how much SS you're getting, how much other income, divs, LTCGs, etc.

Don't get hung up on the taxes paid up front if the tax rate turns out to be the same or less. If you don't pay them now, your IRA keeps growing and you pay taxes on a larger amount later, vs. paying the tax now and letting it grow tax free. That's mostly a wash, with a slight gain to paying now if you use outside funds to pay the taxes.

In any case, it's not going to take 79 years to make up the taxes. You're going to be paying some taxes on MRDs, right? Probably quite a bit. That's what you compare against. You have to do a lot more thinking about all the factors and parts than what you are doing.
 
Are you really looking for a quick answer? Do you even know if you're affected by that? If you are, it depends on how much SS you're getting, how much other income, divs, LTCGs, etc.

Don't get hung up on the taxes paid up front if the tax rate turns out to be the same or less. If you don't pay them now, your IRA keeps growing and you pay taxes on a larger amount later, vs. paying the tax now and letting it grow tax free. That's mostly a wash, with a slight gain to paying now if you use outside funds to pay the taxes.

In any case, it's not going to take 79 years to make up the taxes. You're going to be paying some taxes on MRDs, right? Probably quite a bit. That's what you compare against. You have to do a lot more thinking about all the factors and parts than what you are doing.
I disagree with your last paragraph, but I see where you are coming from. I have a plan to do roth conversions... ok I've actually started and have decided I have to take it to higher tax brackets. But none of this was to avoid the tax hump. From my perspective the comparison should be from where I stop roth converting by plan and do conversions to miss the hump.

I just guessed numbers on this thread.

I don't want to post too much personal info, but was hoping there was some kind of guidelines.
 
What are those 2 50% rate spikes caused by and how wide income-wise are they (what $ amount is involved in each of those spikes)
The spikes (actually more than 50% but that's the y=axis scale) are IRMAA (Medicare premium) tier changes.


See https://www.healthmarkets.com/resources/medicare/what-is-irmaa/ for the various tier costs. Not huge (that's why the cumulative number change is relatively small) but annoying at least if one goes just above one when it could have been prevented with foreknowledge.
 
So if I have to convert 500k or more at the 22% tax rate over time to(110k in taxes paid up front ) to eliminate $1386 per. What if someone needs to convert more? It would take 79+ years make up for the 110k in taxes
And what if $1386 is not the correct number, but much higher?

Unless you plan to die with a large traditional balance and leave all that money to charity, the higher tax rate will have to be paid eventually if you take no action now.

Whether you can avoid the higher rates completely or not depends on your individual situation. If you have too much money, well, that's a problem...of sorts. ;)
 
I disagree with your last paragraph, but I see where you are coming from. I have a plan to do roth conversions... ok I've actually started and have decided I have to take it to higher tax brackets. But none of this was to avoid the tax hump. From my perspective the comparison should be from where I stop roth converting by plan and do conversions to miss the hump.

I just guessed numbers on this thread.

I don't want to post too much personal info, but was hoping there was some kind of guidelines.
Not sure which part of my last paragraph you disagree with, but the 79 year payoff is certainly wrong, and just by saying it not just once, but twice, if you've really thought about the cost of paying taxes now vs. later you aren't displaying it. You're comparing apples to nothing: paying taxes now on conversion vs. not at all with MRDs. Common sense should tell you that's not right. That's the last I'll say on that.

For guidelines, there's no simple way. There are too many factors for a simple rule of thumb. I did my best to show it in post #60. You have to make estimates and do calculations with that spreadsheet, then do more calculations to figure out how that influences more conversions now vs MRDs later. I haven't bothered with the last part because I've determined that I should not have an SS hump.

I would seriously take a shot at that spreadsheet I mentioned or just do the form with pencil and paper. All you have to provide is your SS benefit income and estimate of all other income. If you have a decent sized pension or large taxable account throwing dividends, you may very well find with a rough estimate that you aren't affected by this and you can stay with your plan. Otherwise you've got more work to do. I definitely wouldn't blindly try to avoid the SS hump at all costs. You may very well be right that the hump savings isn't enough to overcome the higher conversion tax rate now. I don't really understand that annuity option S&S mentioned. Seems like annuity income would also be taxable and wouldn't be that different than MRDs. But again, it's not an issue I need to solve so I haven't looked into how it would work.
 
The spikes (actually more than 50% but that's the y=axis scale) are IRMAA (Medicare premium) tier changes.

.........................................................

Thanks,kinda makes sense now..........I was going to say delta function but the plot spike maxed at 50%. Might be useful to have the spike go higher if possible and notate IRMAA at those income levels.
 
I suggest making a simple spreadsheet from IRS pub 915. It's only 19 lines long and not complex.

If line 6, 8, or 12 is 0, your SS benefit is not taxable and you can increase income (from MRDs or whatever) until it gets above 0 with no bump in the marginal tax rate.

If line 15 is smaller than line 14, you're being taxed on 50% of some of your SS. Every $100 of income you add will push an extra $50 of SS benefits into being taxed until line 15 = line 14. So your marginal tax rate in that range goes up 50%, probably from 12% to 18%.

After line 14=line 15, if line 19 is less than line 18, you're being taxed on 85% of some of your SS. Every $100 of income you add push an extra $85 of income into being taxed until lines 18 and 19 are equal. So your marginal tax rate goes up 85%, from 12% to $22.2% or 22% to 40.7%.

Once line 18 = line 19, your SS benefits are taxed to the max, so the marginal rate drops back down.

Making the spreadsheet lets you play with numbers to see how different MRD levels affect your marginal rate, and also what happens if you take your SS benefits at any point between 62 and 70. You can also keep adding income to see how long you stay in the hump.

I see a lot of people say "I'm in the 12% bracket now and will be in retirement even with MRDs, so why should I bother converting now?" The answer might be that your marginal rate for some of the MRDs might be a lot more than 12%.

The marginal rate in any case can be further compounded if you are pushing LTCGs and QDivs into being taxed.

Thanks RunningBum, that is a good form to look at. Since I am a computer geek, the math is simple on that form, so I might try to create the spreadsheet and publish the formulas for everyone to copy.

Line 11 of Publication 915 is very interesting, “Enter $12,000 if married filing jointly; $9,000 if single…”!

A very interesting way of stating the second half of the Social Security “Marriage Penalty”!

The “Basis” for the taxability of your benefits is the same if you are married or single, half of your SSB (lines 1 and 2) plus your other taxable income (lines 3 thru 8).

The first half of the marriage penalty is shown on line 9, enter $32,000 if you are married filing jointly or $25,000 if you are single.

Line 11 is another way of saying that 85% taxability starts at $44,000 for a married couple and $34,000 if you are single.

Since the married couple gets more of their benefits tax free from line 9 ($32,000) than the single individual does ($25,000), why is this a Marriage “Penalty”? The $32,000 requires that you are filing “jointly”, two people. If two individuals are domestic partners, like we are, the combined taxation of our combined benefits starts at $50,000, $25,000 each.

Here is the some data on the penalty for a married couple vs a domestic couple with each couple getting a combined SSB of $50,000, $25,000 per individual:


FromToSizeMarriedTaxableSingleTaxable
$32,000$44,000$12,00050%$6,0000%$0
$44,000$50,000$6,00085%$5,1000%$0
$50,000$68,000$18,00085%$15,30050%$9,000
$26,400$9,000
$68,000$86,941$18,94185%$16,100
$68,000$107,412$39,41285%$33,500
$42,500$42,500
The penalty is not the total amount of taxable SSB on the last line, the penalty is that a married couple’s benefits become taxable at lower income levels. They are being taxed on $11,100 of their SSB at the $50,000 basis level while the domestic couple’s benefits are still tax free. Over the next $18,000 they are being taxed 85% instead of 50% which increases their penalty up to $17,400.

The penalty finally ends at $107,412 when the domestic couple reaches their full 85% taxable SSB level.

Not to throw salt on it, but the domestic couple does have half of a way around this. You take a large amount out of your IRA on the odd years and I’ll do the same on the even years. My SSB is tax free this year yours is tax free next year!


PS: I never though this thread would go this far when all I was asking for the proper accounting term for the deferred or delayed taxation of our Social Security Benefits!
 
Last edited:
Thanks,kinda makes sense now..........I was going to say delta function but the plot spike maxed at 50%. Might be useful to have the spike go higher if possible and notate IRMAA at those income levels.
Not a bad idea, but then I'm just using it as a "for example" in this situation. ;) Anyone can download the spreadsheet and adjust the chart as desired.

The developer has a thread at Case Study Spreadsheet updates "for updates, questions, comments, suggestions, etc. about the spreadsheet tool itself."
 
Back
Top Bottom