• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Hidden Social Security Math Nobody Shows Retirees

Good thread.
I did the math for myself based on average life expectancy of men in my family and it is 85 so if I start collecting at 67 which is my full retirement age I will make max $ in the long run vs. waiting till 70 to start. I could start collecting at 66 and it would not be much different so depending on my health in 3 years we will see. ( so far God has blessed me in the good health department )
I have a SARSEP Ira that was started in the late 80's and has done very well.
Bottom line for me is I am self employed and have been most of my life and I love drawing house plans and I plan on doing that till I drop like my dad did ( he was 85 ) so I will have a steady income to boot.
 
I did the math long ago and I would have to be in my 80s before losing money by taking it at 62. At by the time I was 80 if I lived that long I will have collected over $600k. Investing 1/3 of that in tax free IRAs would make more money. Take it now. They are counting on you dying.
 
No Tax on SS. Just picked up about $600 @ Month. My bracket!
I don’t understand, SS is taxed as income. Actually taxed twice. Once out of your paycheck and then again when they give it back to you. Anything you make over your deductions is taxable.
 
I’m an outlier on this issue. But I have a family tree with scary longevity. My doctor and my lawyer told me to go long. I worked full time until 69, took SS at 70. Drew my investments down to make it happen.

Result is a benefit of 50k per year. Even if I live to 100, and adjusted for inflation. Not for everyone, but I’ve always been a bit of a freak, and managed accordingly.

It also gets taxed at a lower rate than income from other sources. If I predecease my spouse, she can switch to my benefit. It’s more than she made when she worked full time.
can you please explain what you mean by "drew my investments down to make it happen"? I'm 8yrs out from 62 and planning to start drawing SS at 62 as I've also seen so many videos explaining the overall cash coming out better if you start early at 62 instead of waiting.
 
can you please explain what you mean by "drew my investments down to make it happen"? I'm 8yrs out from 62 and planning to start drawing SS at 62 as I've also seen so many videos explaining the overall cash coming out better if you start early at 62 instead of waiting.
I’m not sue what he means but I retired at 59 1/2 when I could draw my IRAs without the 10% penalties. That was last year. I had money saved from work and I also drew down $14k from IRAs for this year 2025. That’s what my standard tax deduction is so I won’t pay taxes on it. I’ll be 61 in a few weeks and I’ll draw down again come January for 2026. In December 2026 I will receive my first SS check and won’t have to draw down any more IRAs until it’s mandatory at I think age 72.
 
I've heard a lot of conflicting stories about no tax on SS. Now that the dust has settled, what's the real scoop?
Taxed. If you’re 65 and over you get up to an additional $6000 tax deduction when you file, expires in 2028. So when I start drawing social security next year at age 62 I don’t get the deduction. When I am 65 and eligible for the deduction it will have expired. I got really f**** over on this one.

The 2025 Act does not exempt Social Security benefits from taxation. In fact, the taxation of Social Security benefits hasn’t changed at all post-2025 Act—and, unfortunately, believing otherwise could prompt planning choices that end up increasing the amount of benefits subject to tax.

Back to Basics: How Social Security Benefits are Taxed​

The taxation of Social Security benefits is very much dependent on a beneficiary’s “provisional income,” which is a combination of adjusted gross income (AGI), tax-exempt interest and half of the social security benefits [IRC Sec. 86]. Simply, the higher the income, the greater the federal income tax liability on Social Security benefits:

  • For single filers with provisional income less than $25,000 and joint filers with provisional income less than $32,000, Social Security benefits are not subject to federal income tax.
  • For single filers with provisional income between $25,000 and $34,000 and joint filers with provisional income between $32,000 and $44,000, up to 50% of their Social Security benefits could be taxed.
  • For single filers with provisional income exceeding $34,000 and joint filers with provisional income exceeding $44,000, up to 85% of their Social Security benefits could be taxed.
Married taxpayers who file separate returns are subject to tax on their benefits without a $25,000/$32,000 floor.

Example: S has $20,000 in taxable dividends, $2,400 of tax-exempt interest, and Social Security benefits of $9,000. So, S’s income plus half S’s benefits is $26,900 ($20,000 plus $2,400 plus 1/2 of $9,000). S must include $950 of the benefits in gross income (1/2 ($26,900 − $25,000)).

Caution: If a Social Security beneficiary isn’t paying tax on their Social Security benefits now because their income is below the applicable floor or is paying tax on only 50% of those benefits, an unplanned increase in income can have a triple tax cost. The beneficiary:

(1) must pay tax on the additional income;

(2) must pay tax on (or on more of) their Social Security benefits (since the higher the income the more Social Security benefits that are taxed); and

(3) may get pushed into a higher marginal tax bracket.

This situation might arise, for example, when a beneficiary receives a large distribution from a retirement plan (such as an IRA) during the year or has large capital gains. Careful planning might be able to avoid this stiff tax result. For example, it may be possible to spread the additional income over more than one year, or liquidate assets other than an IRA account, such as stock showing only a small gain or stock whose gain can be offset by a capital loss on other shares.

New Temporary 65+ Deduction​

The 2025 Act introduced a temporary senior deduction for tax years 2025–2028: individuals age 65 or older can claim $6,000 ($12,000 for joint filers), whether they itemize or not. Both spouses can qualify on a joint return. The deduction is reduced by 6% of any MAGI over $75,000 (single) or $150,000 (joint), and it is in addition to the regular standard deduction for seniors and the blind.

Notably, this new deduction is not directly related to Social Security benefits—whether a person aged 65+ receives Social Security benefits or not, they will still be eligible for the deduction. More specifically, the new deduction is a “below-the-line” deduction (i.e., taken after calculating AGI); thus, the deduction doesn’t impact the taxability of Social Security benefits (which is calculated in part using AGI).

For tax planning purposes, remember the new deduction is not linked to Social Security benefits, and the tax rules for those benefits remain unchanged after the 2025 Act. If seniors mistakenly think Social Security is now tax-free, they may make choices—like Roth conversions—that raise taxable income and increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to tax. For example, converting $100,000 from a 401(k) to a Roth adds $100,000 to income, which can make more of their Social Security benefits taxable. Beneficiaries should understand that the new law does not change this outcome.

Conclusion​

Despite widespread confusion, the 2025 Act did not eliminate federal income taxation on Social Security benefits. The longstanding rules governing the taxability of Social Security benefits remain unchanged. While 2025 Act introduced a new, temporary deduction for individuals 65 and older, this deduction is not specific to Social Security benefits. Clarity and careful planning are essential to avoid unintended tax consequences in the post-2025 Act landscape.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Taxes suck and we will never get what we paid in. I’ll pay my taxes but give me my SS money back or to my wife when I go. I don’t understand why a tax on top of a tax ,it just isn’t right. It’s ridiculous I just hope you guys all get it because it will probably be a dry well by the time I get there..
It hits a nerve for me...
 
I don’t understand why a tax on top of a tax ,it just isn’t right. It’s ridiculous

Off topic, but certain cars have a gas guzzler tax built into the price & when you buy the car, the states that charge sales tax will tax you on top of that tax.
 
Off topic, but certain cars have a gas guzzler tax built into the price & when you buy the car, the states that charge sales tax will tax you on top of that tax.
If you live in Virginia they tax you just for the privilege of owning you vehicle based on the assessment of the value of your vehicle. I just got my bill for my 2021 4-Runner for this year. $1100. I paid taxes on it when I bought it too. If it sells the buyer has to pay taxes on the sale and then assume property taxes on it. It’s not just cars. It’s any recreational vehicle. Boats, dirt bikes, ATV’s, campers, jet skis, etc. that’s on top of property taxes I pay for the pleasure of owning my own home. It’s out of control.
 
It's always about the money. I took my SS at 62. I did the math years ago and one thing is for sure, if the government thinks 70 is better, it's about them, not you. I get 2064.60 and Theresa gets 1601.10. I never liked using my money when it's wiser to use others. My investments, since I started at age 22, have averaged 8.3 percent. This house I have now is not paid for, 20 percent down is all I did. The loan is 2.67 percent. I made enough yesterday for my broker to make that payment for the next 10 months. My hobbie has made a ton of money for the government in my life because of taxes and they throw it to the wind. SS will never go away, but at this rate, they'll probably be cutting benefits by 20 percent in ten or so years. They manage OUR money like a drunken sailor and can't be trusted. It's a game to them, to me, it's one of my hobbies ......................... For me, yes, it's always about the money. Now I'm spending MY money like a drunken sailor.
 
can you please explain what you mean by "drew my investments down to make it happen"? I'm 8yrs out from 62 and planning to start drawing SS at 62 as I've also seen so many videos explaining the overall cash coming out better if you start early at 62 instead of waiting.
After my corporate tour ended, and I went back to driving a truck full time, I spent $2000 per year to maintain my law license. I had to take 12 credit hours of CLE annually. For five years I attended nothing but elder law seminars, in preparation for retirement. In the process, I got access to inside information on social security claiming strategies, at a fraction of the cost of the presenter's hourly rate, which would have approached $1000 per hour. The attorney with the good stuff had a triple threat resume. He was a licensed stock broker, a CPA, and an attorney with an LLM degree in taxation. His primary client base was estates with a net worth exceeding $10 million.

He dumbed his presentation down for the audience of lawyers. Most of us fell into the "lower class," net worth between $1-3 million. He had a good sense of humor about it, saying we were wealthy by most standards, but needed to have different priorities than the elite one percenters. He stressed "longevity risk" as something we needed to manage. He used $3 million as the line where the risk of outliving one's assets diminished rapidly, and he placed $1 million as the level of assets needed to implement his strategies. He had a macabre quote on the subject, "dead people don't have money problems."

I followed his advice, and drew money from my IRA accounts during the 12 months before I claimed my benefit at 70, it was a fairly small amount, enhanced by cash on hand by selling my truck, and collecting five weeks of receivables. Ironically, the stock market took off with bang during that period. I would have been marginally better off to have claimed at 69. Purely an academic point, not even a decimal point in the big picture. Many of the arguments for claiming at 62 factor investment gains into the mix. As a practical matter, few individuals do that well over time. I have, but I also weathered the aftermath of the dot com bust.

The seminars featured another attorney, who taught the entry level course on social security benefits. He was a lawyer for a legal aid office in Philadelphia, and laughed about "the guy across the hall" and his strategies for "rich people." His take was get it as early as possible, most people need the money now. And the "rich guy" lawyer agreed that most clients will die before it becomes an issue. His advice was for those who want to protect against the alternative. Different strategies for different situations. Neither right or wrong, and no one has a crystal ball.

Like @Hey-O, l started investing early, and got a better return over time than most people. I would have done way better investing on my own, rather than paying into social security. It really hurt making double fica payments when self employed. But I feel more comfortable, knowing my "longevity risk" is covered.
 
Last edited:
After my corporate tour ended, and I went back to driving a truck full time, I spent $2000 per year to maintain my law license. I had to take 12 credit hours in CLE annually. For five years I attended nothing but elder law sessions, in preparation for retirement. In the process, I got access to inside information on social security claiming strategies, at a fraction of the cost of the presenter's hourly rate, which would have approached $1000 per hour. The attorney with the good stuff had a triple threat resume. He was a licensed stock broker, a CPA, and an attorney with an LLM degree in taxation. His primary client base was estates with a net worth exceeding $10 million.

He dumbed his presentation down for the audience of lawyers. Most of us fell into the "lower class," net worth between $1-3 million. He had a good sense of humor about it, saying we were wealthy by most standards, but needed to have different priorities than the elite one percenters. He stressed "longevity risk" as something we needed to manage. He used $3 million as the line where the risk of outliving one's assets diminished rapidly, and he placed $1 million as the level of assets needed to implement his strategies. He had a macabre quote on the subject, "dead people don't have money problems."

I followed his advice, and drew money from my IRA accounts during the 12 months before I claimed my benefit at 70, it was a fairly small amount, enhanced by cash on hand by selling my truck, and collecting five weeks of receivables. Ironically, the stock market took off with bang during that period. I would have been marginally better off to have claimed at 69. Purely an academic point, not even a decimal point in the big picture. Many of the arguments for claiming at 62 factor investment gains into the mix. As a practical matter, few individuals do that well over time. I have, but I also weathered the aftermath of the dot com bust.

The seminars featured another attorney, who taught the entry level course on social security benefits. He was a lawyer for a legal aid office in Philadelphia, and laughed about "the guy across the hall" and his strategies for "rich people." His take was get it as early as possible, most of your clients need the money now. And the "rich guy" lawyer agreed that most clients will die before it becomes an issue. His advice was for those who want to protect against the alternative. Different strategies for different situations. Neither right or wrong, and no one has a crystal ball.

Like @Hey-O, l started investing early, and got a better return over time than most people. I would have done way better investing on my own, rather than paying into social security. It really hurt making double fica payments when self employed. But I feel more comfortable, knowing my "longevity risk" is covered.
Well done!! A good read! Not every shoe fits every foot. I learned that years ago and most importantly, money can't buy health or longevity. We pray for that.
 
Well done!! A good read! Not every shoe fits every foot. I learned that years ago and most importantly, money can't buy health or longevity. We pray for that.
The "rich guy" lawyer also emphasized that health was the most valuable asset. His experience with wealthy clients had shown that once it was gone, so was quality of life, no matter how large the balance sheet.
 
Here's one, of many, scenarios. You take your SS at full retirement age. That $$ means you can leave other funds ( IRA, 401k, etc. ) continually invested rather than depleting that same amount. That $$ would/should continue to grow better than the added SS amount at 70.
 
If you live in Virginia they tax you just for the privilege of owning you vehicle based on the assessment of the value of your vehicle. I just got my bill for my 2021 4-Runner for this year. $1100. I paid taxes on it when I bought it too. If it sells the buyer has to pay taxes on the sale and then assume property taxes on it. It’s not just cars. It’s any recreational vehicle. Boats, dirt bikes, ATV’s, campers, jet skis, etc. that’s on top of property taxes I pay for the pleasure of owning my own home. It’s out of control.
That’s why I tag my cars in Florida. Save about $800 a year per sticker. Just had to give up TRACPAC.
 
I followed his advice, and drew money from my IRA accounts during the 12 months before I claimed my benefit at 70,
thanks for this info, it's very helpful.
What is the reason for drawing money from the IRA accounts 12 mo prior to claiming SS at 70? Did you quit working at 69 and this was to bridge a one year gap in income or for some other reason?
 
thanks for this info, it's very helpful.
What is the reason for drawing money from the IRA accounts 12 mo prior to claiming SS at 70? Did you quit working at 69 and this was to bridge a one year gap in income or for some other reason?
It was to bridge a one year gap, I quit working on my 69th birthday, and it was planned. I paid income tax on the liquidation of the business in the 2022 tax year, fairly big nut, had a good kick to the finish line. The next year, I was in a low bracket, so the IRA withdrawals were taxed at only 12%, and as a retiree, not subject to state or local tax in PA.

My social security benefit increased by 8% during that year, my investments did significantly better. So technically, I might have done better to claim earlier, and not touch the investments. However, future investment return in the stock or bond markets is far from guaranteed. Social security is indexed for inflation, no guarantees with private investment.

When I was riding high in the 90s, with a big job, and double digit returns on my retirement savings, I thought I would retire early, and not have to rely on social security. That blew up when my job went way, and my savings were decimated in the dot com bust. I rode it out, and eventually increased my holdings exponentially with some good moves after the 2008 financial crisis.

Having lived through all of that, I was motivated to max out my social security benefit. Others will have different priorities.

When comparing personal investment holdings to social security benefits, many people don't realize the lump sum required to produce a reliable income stream comparable to social security benefits over time. In my case, it's about double what my wife and I hold in our tax deferred accounts, and we are way better off than most retirees.
 
Last edited:
Taxed. If you’re 65 and over you get up to an additional $6000 tax deduction when you file, expires in 2028. So when I start drawing social security next year at age 62 I don’t get the deduction. When I am 65 and eligible for the deduction it will have expired. I got really f**** over on this one.

The 2025 Act does not exempt Social Security benefits from taxation. In fact, the taxation of Social Security benefits hasn’t changed at all post-2025 Act—and, unfortunately, believing otherwise could prompt planning choices that end up increasing the amount of benefits subject to tax.

Back to Basics: How Social Security Benefits are Taxed​

The taxation of Social Security benefits is very much dependent on a beneficiary’s “provisional income,” which is a combination of adjusted gross income (AGI), tax-exempt interest and half of the social security benefits [IRC Sec. 86]. Simply, the higher the income, the greater the federal income tax liability on Social Security benefits:

  • For single filers with provisional income less than $25,000 and joint filers with provisional income less than $32,000, Social Security benefits are not subject to federal income tax.
  • For single filers with provisional income between $25,000 and $34,000 and joint filers with provisional income between $32,000 and $44,000, up to 50% of their Social Security benefits could be taxed.
  • For single filers with provisional income exceeding $34,000 and joint filers with provisional income exceeding $44,000, up to 85% of their Social Security benefits could be taxed.
Married taxpayers who file separate returns are subject to tax on their benefits without a $25,000/$32,000 floor.

Example: S has $20,000 in taxable dividends, $2,400 of tax-exempt interest, and Social Security benefits of $9,000. So, S’s income plus half S’s benefits is $26,900 ($20,000 plus $2,400 plus 1/2 of $9,000). S must include $950 of the benefits in gross income (1/2 ($26,900 − $25,000)).

Caution: If a Social Security beneficiary isn’t paying tax on their Social Security benefits now because their income is below the applicable floor or is paying tax on only 50% of those benefits, an unplanned increase in income can have a triple tax cost. The beneficiary:

(1) must pay tax on the additional income;

(2) must pay tax on (or on more of) their Social Security benefits (since the higher the income the more Social Security benefits that are taxed); and

(3) may get pushed into a higher marginal tax bracket.

This situation might arise, for example, when a beneficiary receives a large distribution from a retirement plan (such as an IRA) during the year or has large capital gains. Careful planning might be able to avoid this stiff tax result. For example, it may be possible to spread the additional income over more than one year, or liquidate assets other than an IRA account, such as stock showing only a small gain or stock whose gain can be offset by a capital loss on other shares.

New Temporary 65+ Deduction​

The 2025 Act introduced a temporary senior deduction for tax years 2025–2028: individuals age 65 or older can claim $6,000 ($12,000 for joint filers), whether they itemize or not. Both spouses can qualify on a joint return. The deduction is reduced by 6% of any MAGI over $75,000 (single) or $150,000 (joint), and it is in addition to the regular standard deduction for seniors and the blind.

Notably, this new deduction is not directly related to Social Security benefits—whether a person aged 65+ receives Social Security benefits or not, they will still be eligible for the deduction. More specifically, the new deduction is a “below-the-line” deduction (i.e., taken after calculating AGI); thus, the deduction doesn’t impact the taxability of Social Security benefits (which is calculated in part using AGI).

For tax planning purposes, remember the new deduction is not linked to Social Security benefits, and the tax rules for those benefits remain unchanged after the 2025 Act. If seniors mistakenly think Social Security is now tax-free, they may make choices—like Roth conversions—that raise taxable income and increase the amount of Social Security benefits subject to tax. For example, converting $100,000 from a 401(k) to a Roth adds $100,000 to income, which can make more of their Social Security benefits taxable. Beneficiaries should understand that the new law does not change this outcome.

Conclusion​

Despite widespread confusion, the 2025 Act did not eliminate federal income taxation on Social Security benefits. The longstanding rules governing the taxability of Social Security benefits remain unchanged. While 2025 Act introduced a new, temporary deduction for individuals 65 and older, this deduction is not specific to Social Security benefits. Clarity and careful planning are essential to avoid unintended tax consequences in the post-2025 Act landscape.
Well, this clears it up. Jesus Chrysler. Who can follow this gobbely goop. After April 15 it will shake out. This will reduce tax burden for people with multiple streams of income (me) and will vary by individual. It’s a good thing and 6k is a significant amount even today.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top