Overview
Title
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.
ELI5 AI
This bill wants to stop making people pay taxes on the money they get from Social Security, like how Grandma gets her check each month. It says that the government should not raise taxes to make up for the money they won't get because of this change.
Summary AI
S. 458 is a proposed legislation introduced in the 119th Congress. The bill aims to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by repealing the rule that includes Social Security benefits as part of a person's gross income for tax purposes. This change would mean that Social Security benefits are no longer taxed. Additionally, the bill ensures that the Social Security and Railroad Retirement trust funds would not lose funding due to this repeal, and it explicitly states that tax increases should not be used to offset the revenue loss.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, introduced as S. 458 in the 119th Congress, seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the inclusion of Social Security benefits in gross income for tax purposes. Known as the "Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act," the bill intends to remove the tax burden on Social Security benefits, effectively allowing recipients to keep a larger portion of their benefits. If enacted, this change would apply to tax years beginning after the bill's enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
A few key issues arise from the bill's text, particularly relating to fiscal implications and funding sources:
Fiscal Concerns: The bill does not clearly outline how the drop in revenue from repealing the tax on Social Security benefits will be offset. While it specifies that funds will be appropriated from the Treasury to compensate for reduced transfers to the Social Security and Railroad Retirement trust funds, the absence of details on sourcing these funds could lead to fiscal dilemmas.
Ambiguity and Financial Uncertainties: The language used in Section 2(b)(1) is vague as it does not specify the exact origin of the Treasury funds that will cover these appropriations. This lack of clarity raises questions about financial planning and the potential impact on federal finances.
Statement of Intent vs. Binding Legislation: Section 2(b)(2) states that tax increases will not be used to generate the necessary revenue. However, this is a declaration of intent rather than a binding stipulation, which may limit enforceability and lead to uncertainty if funds fall short.
Public Impact
The bill could have widespread implications for the public, especially for senior citizens who primarily rely on Social Security benefits. By removing the tax on these benefits, the bill aims to increase disposable income for retirees, potentially enhancing their financial well-being and quality of life.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Senior Citizens: The primary beneficiaries of the bill would be retirees, particularly those with modest or fixed incomes. The tax repeal may ease financial burdens, enabling them to manage living expenses more effectively.
Federal Budget and Taxpayers: Without a clear plan for offsetting the revenue loss, there could be a potential impact on federal budgeting. The need for additional appropriations from the Treasury might place added pressure on public funds, which could ripple out to taxpayers if alternative funding avenues, such as cuts to other programs or future tax reforms, become necessary.
Policy Makers and Finance Committees: Uncertainties in fiscal planning and the options for sourcing necessary funds could make it challenging for legislators and finance committees to balance competing priorities while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
In conclusion, while the bill's intent to alleviate tax burdens on Social Security benefits is clear, the lack of detailed planning for compensating revenue shortfalls presents substantial challenges that require careful consideration by lawmakers, particularly in terms of safeguarding long-term fiscal health and equity among taxpayers.
Issues
The repeal of the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits (Section 2) does not specify how the revenue loss will be offset other than mentioning appropriation from Treasury funds, which could be considered a fiscal concern. This might have significant political and financial implications.
The language in Section 2(b)(1) is vague as it does not specify the exact source of the Treasury funds that will be appropriated, leading to potential ambiguity and financial uncertainty.
The provision in Section 2(b)(2) that 'tax increases will not be used' is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal provision, which might limit enforceability and lead to political and budgetary concerns if funds are insufficient.
It is unclear how the 'reduction in the transfers to such fund' will be calculated in Section 2(b)(1), leading to potential ambiguity and issues in fiscal planning.
There might be concerns about the adequacy of transferring funds from the Treasury to Social Security (Section 2(b)(1)), as it could add pressure on federal finances without a clear plan for balancing these allocations.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the act states that it can be referred to as the “Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act.”
2. Repeal of inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed legislation repeals the taxation of Social Security benefits, effective for tax years starting after the law is enacted. It ensures that the Social Security and Railroad Retirement trust funds remain unaffected by this change, without increasing taxes to cover any gaps in funding.