Bill Overview
Title: Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act
Description: This bill repeals the inclusion of any Social Security or tier I railroad retirement benefits in gross income for income tax purposes. The bill also (1) appropriates funds to cover reductions in transfers to the Social Security and Railroad Retirement Trust Funds resulting from the enactment of this bill, and (2) expresses the sense of Congress against using tax increases to provide revenue necessary to carry out this bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]
Target Audience
Population: Senior citizens receiving Social Security benefits
Estimated Size: 56000000
- The bill directly impacts individuals receiving Social Security or tier I railroad retirement benefits.
- As of 2020, about 65 million people receive Social Security benefits, but not all are senior citizens or rely on it as their gross income.
- The most affected group will be senior citizens in the United States who rely on Social Security as a part of their taxable income.
- In 2023, there are an estimated 56 million individuals over the age of 65 in the United States, many of whom are likely to be impacted by changes to Social Security taxation.
- Globally, many countries have similar retirement systems, but this bill is U.S.-specific, meaning non-US citizens are not directly affected.
- The aspect of reimbursing the Social Security and Railroad Retirement Trust Funds suggests older individuals benefiting from these programs will not see reduced benefits due to the tax repeal.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily benefits senior citizens who rely on Social Security benefits for a significant portion of their income.
- Approximately 56 million individuals over age 65 in the U.S. might be influenced, though not all have taxable Social Security benefits.
- The policy aims to improve financial wellbeing for seniors by reducing their taxable income, potentially increasing their self-reported wellbeing scores.
- The strategy of covering reductions in trust funds prevents a negative impact on future benefit payouts.
- Individuals who are not heavily reliant on Social Security or have other income-higher than the exemption threshold may see no direct impact from this policy.
Simulated Interviews
retired (Florida)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will alleviate a financial burden from my limited income.
- It allows me to allocate funds saved from taxes towards essentials like healthcare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
retired (California)
Age: 81 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The high cost of living in my area makes small tax breaks very beneficial.
- Extra funds will help cover medical expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
retired (Texas)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is a welcome change for both me and my spouse.
- We can use the saved funds for improving our quality of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
retired railroad worker (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see support specifically for railroad retirees.
- This will allow me to manage my living expenses better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired (Ohio)
Age: 90 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Affect is minimal as my property taxes are still high.
- Better than nothing, but more structural help is needed for seniors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired (Illinois)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my additional business income, this policy is a small help.
- Good to see government thinking about seniors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
retired (Michigan)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a step to ease financial stress.
- This change will allow me to cover basics more comfortably.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
retired (New Jersey)
Age: 83 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might not have a large impact, but every bit helps.
- It's good that there are no cuts to other benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired (Pennsylvania)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an advantageous policy as I begin my retirement.
- It ensures a better start without overwhelming tax worries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
retired (Georgia)
Age: 74 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy eases my monthly budget constraints.
- It could reduce dependence on free community resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000000 (Low: $20000000000, High: $30000000000)
Year 2: $25500000000 (Low: $20500000000, High: $30500000000)
Year 3: $26000000000 (Low: $21000000000, High: $31000000000)
Year 5: $27000000000 (Low: $21500000000, High: $32500000000)
Year 10: $30000000000 (Low: $24000000000, High: $36000000000)
Year 100: $40000000000 (Low: $32000000000, High: $48000000000)
Key Considerations
- The necessity to maintain Social Security and Railroad Trust Funds will require consistent appropriations.
- The shift in tax revenue might prompt a reevaluation of federal revenue strategies.
- Potential political implications due to the explicit decision against compensating lost revenue via tax hikes