Inflation jumped higher in June to annual rate of 2.7%

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

As economists expected, U.S. all-items inflation moved higher in June, up 0.3% for the month and 2.7% year over year, well above the annual rate in May of 2.4%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported.

Core inflation, which removes food and energy, was up 0.2% for the month and 2.9% for the year, up from 2.8% in May. These numbers are seasonally adjusted.

The monthly increases may be showing some effects of U.S. tariffs, but the annual increases can also partly be explained by weak inflation a year ago in June 2024, which surprisingly dipped into deflation at -0.1%. So this year’s annual increase can partly be explained by that low base number a year ago.

Let’s dive into the June details:

  • Shelter costs rose a moderate 0.2% in June, helping to keep a lid on core inflation. But these costs are up 3.8% over the 12 months.
  • Costs of medical care services increased 0.6% for the month and are up 3.4% for the year.
  • Gasoline prices rose 1.0% for the month after falling 2.6% in May. Over the 12 months gas prices have declined 8.3%.
  • Electricity costs rose 1% for the month and 5.8% for the year.
  • Food at home costs rose 0.3% for the month and are up 2.4% for the year.
  • The index for coffee rose 2.2% in June. (Tariffs?)
  • Costs of fruits and vegetables increased 0.9% for the month. (Tariffs?)
  • Apparel costs rose 0.4% in June after falling 0.4% in May. (Tariffs?)
  • Costs of household furnishings rose 1.0% for the month. (Tariffs?)
  • Costs of new vehicles fell 0.3% in June, same as in May and are up only 0.2% year over year.
  • Costs of used cars and trucks fell 0.7% for the month.

Overall, this is a fairly tame inflation report, matching expectations. There does appear to be some tariff effect in these price increases, but at this point it is not substantial. Eventually, I’d expect to see prices for new and used vehicles to begin rising, as permanent tariff rates settle in.

Here is the trend in annual all-items and core inflation over the last 12 months, with all-items inflation showing a clear upswing higher.:

And this trend could continue for several months because of “base-effect” increases from weak inflation a year ago. It seems likely that all-items inflation could rise above 3.0% in coming months:

What this means for TIPS and I Bonds

Investors in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and U.S. Series I Savings Bonds are also interested in non-seasonally adjusted inflation, which is used to adjust principal balances for TIPS and set future interest rates for I Bonds. For June, the BLS set the inflation index at 322.561, an increase of 0.34% over May’s number.

For TIPS. The June inflation index means that principal balances for all TIPS will increase by 0.34% in August, after a 0.21% increase in July. Here are the new August Inflation Indexes for all TIPS.

For I Bonds. June marks the mid-point of a six-month stretch that will determine the I Bond’s new inflation-adjusted variable rate, which will be reset on November 1. So far, three months in, inflation has increased 0.86%. That translates to a variable rate of 1.72%, but it’s too early to make any judgments, especially because of coming tariff uncertainty. Here are the data:

View historical data on my Inflation and I Bonds page.

What this means for the Social Security COLA

June inflation sets the baseline for determining Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment for 2026. The actual calculation depends on the average of a different index — the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) — over the months of July to September.

As of June, CPI-W has increased 2.6% year over year. That’s the baseline and it most likely will NOT be next year’s increase. I will be writing more on this topic in coming days. You will soon see a lot of projections in the media — most of them should be ignored.

What this means for future interest rates

I’d say “not much.” The core inflation monthly number — at 0.2% — was below expectations, even though the annual rate ticked higher to 2.9%. This isn’t a horrible inflation report, but it is showing hints of the effects of U.S. tariffs, which could magnify in future months. Plus, the weak inflation numbers from summer 2024 are going to put 2025 inflation on a higher track.

From Bloomberg’s Anna Wong:

Monthly core CPI inflation picked up from very soft to soft in June as firms passed tariff costs through to consumer prices at a brisker pace. Those gains were offset by disinflation for vehicles and hotels as consumers pull back on non-essential expenses. …

While the soft CPI might appear to boost the odds of a September rate cut, we expect a hot June print for the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge — the core PCE deflator, due out July 31. PCE prints may stay elevated all summer.

At this point, I’d say the Fed will continue to be on hold through the summer as it waits to see how the tariff rollout proceeds.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without

Posted in Federal Reserve, I Bond, Inflation, Investing in TIPS, Social Security, Tariffs | Tagged , , , , , , | 14 Comments

A 10-year TIPS is maturing July 15. How did it do as an investment?

Answer: Very well, in keeping with recent trends.

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

Back on July 23, 2015, the U.S. Treasury auctioned a fairly routine 10-year TIPS, CUSIP 912828XL9, generating a real yield to maturity of 0.491% and a coupon rate of 0.375%.

That’s a low real yield by today’s standards, but fairly normal during the Federal Reserve’s era of bond-buying quantitative easing. A real yield of 0.491% was actually a nice step up from the negative-yield depths of 2012 to mid 2013.

Treasury estimates, close of market. Click on image for larger version.

In my preview article for this auction, I noted, “This auction is shaping up as ‘upper middle of the recent pack.’ Not exciting, but also not horribly unattractive.”

Inflation breakeven rate. At the auction’s close, a 10-year nominal Treasury note was trading with a yield of 2.29%, setting up an inflation-breakeven rate of 1.79%, which I noted back then was “solidly in the ‘cheap’ range for a 10-year TIPS.”

Now, 10-years later, that low inflation breakeven rate made CUSIP 912828XL9 a very attractive investment, at least compared to the nominal 10-year Treasury of the time. Annual inflation over that decade averaged 3.1%, well above the inflation breakeven rate. The TIPS was easily the superior investment.

The final investment results for this TIPS were set by the May inflation report released June 11. Data from Eyebonds.info show this TIPS generated a 10-year nominal annual return of 3.529%, easily exceeding the comparable T-note at 2.29%.

For its time, CUSIP 912828XL9 was a very good investment.

TIPS versus an I Bond

An I Bond issued in July 2015 had a fixed rate of 0.0%, which means its return should be lower than a TIPS with a real yield of 0.491%. According to Eyebonds.info, that July 2015 I Bond will have had, through January 2026, an annual nominal return of 2.91%. That is better than the nominal Treasury at 2.29%, but lags behind the TIPS.

TIPS versus other alternatives

The total bond market, defined by Vanguard’s Total Bond ETF (BND), has had an average annual return of 1.69% over the last 10 years. This lagging performance was primarily triggered by a -13.1% total return in 2022 as the Fed began aggressively raising interest rates.

The TIP ETF, which hold all maturities of TIPS, has had an average total return of 2.49% over the 10 years. VTIP, the short-term TIPS ETF, had an average return of 2.84%.

Thoughts

There is an obvious lesson here: TIPS do well when inflation is higher than expected, and that is exactly why we invest in TIPS — to protect against that possibility. When compared to similar investments, buying this 10-year TIPS in July 2015 and holding to maturity was a sound move. (I nibbled into this TIPS with a very small investment at the July 2015 auction.)

TIPS have been on a winning streak for several years, caused by the surge to 40-year high inflation that peaked in June 2022 at 9.1%. Even today, annual inflation (2.4%) is running higher than the auctioned breakeven rates of 2015. And so TIPS have been the winners versus nominal Treasurys in recent years.

10-year TIPS vs nominal
Click on image for larger version. More data on my TIPS vs. nominal page.

Notes and qualifications

My chart is an estimate of performance comparing inflation breakeven rates versus actual inflation.

Keep in mind that interest on a nominal Treasury and the TIPS coupon rate is paid out as current-year income and not reinvested. So in the case of a nominal Treasury, the interest earned could be reinvested elsewhere, which would potentially boost the gain. For certain, we don’t know what the investor could have earned precisely on an investment after re-investments.

In the case of a TIPS, the inflation adjustment compounds over time, and that will give TIPS a slight boost in return that isn’t reflected in the “average inflation” numbers presented in the chart.

Now is an ideal time to build a TIPS ladder

Confused by TIPS? Read my Q&A on TIPS

TIPS in depth: Understand the language

TIPS on the secondary market: Things to consider

TIPS investor: Don’t over-think the threat of deflation

Upcoming schedule of TIPS auctions

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Federal Reserve, I Bond, Inflation, Investing in TIPS, TreasuryDirect | 14 Comments

Vanguard launches VTP, a new full-range TIPS ETF

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

Vanguard’s lineup of bond exchange-traded funds has long had a missing piece: An ETF that indexes the performance of the full spectrum of maturities for Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities.

Vanguard’s only option was VTIP, its Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities ETF, which has been around since October 2012. It is based on index that includes all TIPS maturities of less than 5 years.

I like VTIP because volatility is held down by its short duration. For that reason it tends to track changes in inflation better than longer-term funds, which offer more potential for capital gains, or losses. VTIP also has an Admiral Shares mutual fund version, VTAPX.

In addition, since June 2005, Vanguard has offered a mutual fund with the full range of TIPS maturities: VAIPX is the Admiral Shares version. Now it is launching VTP, a new ETF that is similar to, but not a clone of, VAIPX.

In its press release for this ETF (one of several new issues) Vanguard notes:

VTP provides long-term investors with a robust tool designed to protect their portfolios from inflation risk. It offers exposure to the full spectrum of the U.S. TIPS market, complementing our existing Vanguard Short-Term Inflation Protected ETF (VTIP). VTP has a broader investment universe and a longer duration profile, launching with an expense ratio of 0.05%. It could be a valuable addition for those looking to hedge against inflation over extended periods.

If you are interested, here is the prospectus.

In most cases, I’d caution against investing in a brand-new ETF, but Vanguard has a lot of experience in this sort of index investment. Most investors would prefer to go with a similar ETF over the Admiral Shares mutual fund, which requires a minimum investment of $50,000 and actually has a slightly higher expense ratio, 0.10% versus 0.05% for VTP.

The only issues are:

  • Would you prefer to invest in a TIPS ETF versus buying individual TIPS and holding to maturity? And then …
  • If you want to go the ETF route, would you prefer to go with the lower-volatility shorter duration VTIP versus the longer-range scope of VTP?

We can’t do a direct comparison of the ETFs yet, but let’s look at how VTIP and VAIPX have performed, with the addition of the full-range iShares TIP and Schwab SCHP ETFs:

This information, gathered from Vanguard’s site, shows that VTP is not an exact duplicate of VAIPX. It is holding fewer issues, and its average duration is shorter. There are 53 TIPS currently trading in the secondary market.

Also, as you can see, VTIP has out-performed the full-maturity VAIPX over 1-year, 5-year and 10-year periods, during a time of high volatility in the Treasury market. However, if we entered another era of quantitative easing, with strongly lower real yields, VAIPX and VTP (along with TIP and SCHP) would likely outperform VTIP.

Thoughts

I don’t currently invest in any TIPS mutual funds or ETFs. I have used VTIP in the past as a holding fund while waiting to make future investments. I favor VTIP because of the lower volatility. The new ETF, VTP, should over time closely track TIP, the biggest TIPS ETF, which has a higher expense ratio of 0.18%.

My preference, as always, is to build a ladder of TIPS investments to be held to maturity, providing inflation-protected cash for future needs.

Now, here is a bonus. Morningstar’s Long View podcast this week featured Salim Ramji, one year into his tenure as CEO at Vanguard. He talks about the firm’s efforts to simplify investing and improve customer service:

Now is an ideal time to build a TIPS ladder

Confused by TIPS? Read my Q&A on TIPS

TIPS in depth: Understand the language

TIPS on the secondary market: Things to consider

TIPS investor: Don’t over-think the threat of deflation

Upcoming schedule of TIPS auctions

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Inflation, Investing in TIPS | Tagged , , , , , | 20 Comments

A retirement planning expert dives into the Big Beautiful Bill

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

Just to give you an idea of how complicated taxes are: For my last post, discussing the tax on Social Security benefits, I made 27 edits and revisions within a day of publishing as I received new information from commenters and other sources.

And that was just one area of the 870-page One Big Beautiful Bill. Grasping this is a challenge. Feeling daring? Read it.

Andy Panko

Now I am looking to other sources I trust for as-accurate-as-possible information. One of those is financial adviser Andy Panko, who founded Tenon Financial in 2019 and also runs Facebook’s Retirement Planning Education group, a valuable resource. Panko also has a lot of expertise in tax matters.

I’ve followed Panko’s work for at least 6 years. He admittedly is a “super nerd,” but also a straightforward communicator and — importantly — won’t try to sell you anything. His firm charges a flat fee for financial advice and management. (I am not a client and I am not connected to his firm.)

I featured Panko in an April 2022 post providing his commentary on I Bonds, unusual for a financial adviser. This week, Panko created a podcast taking a deep dive into the Big Beautiful Bill, focusing on areas that would most affect individuals nearing or in retirement.

Here is the link I posted on X:

If needed, here is a link directly to the podcast.

This is worth a listen (45 minutes), but if you don’t have the time or patience, you can read Panko’s excellent 8-page summary of the key individual income tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Panko covers a lot of ground, including “things that are not changing,” which includes the tax on Social Security benefits. He says:

Contrary to what you may have heard or read (including directly from the Social Security Administration itself), the bill makes NO changes to how Social Security is taxed. Social Security is still taxable at the federal level, and the bill makes no particular carveouts or direct exemptions to this. As such, it’s flat out false for anyone to say or insinuate the bill made Social Security not taxable.

For anyone concerned, beyond this one issue Panko is steadfastly neutral politically in his analysis. These are some of the other topics covered:

  • Permanency of the current federal tax rates
  • Permanency, and a slight increase, to the current standard deduction amounts
  • A new temporary personal exemption up to $6,000 per person 65 or older
  • Permanency, and a slight increase, to the lifetime gift and estate size exemption
  • Permanency of the current Alternative Minimum Tax exclusion amount, but reduction/reversion of its income phase out levels
  • Permanency of the $750,000 limit on residential mortgage principal against which interest can be deducted
  • Permanency of the elimination of miscellaneous itemized deductions
  • Temporary increase to $40,000 for State and Local Tax (“SALT”) deductions
  • A new permanent charitable deduction for people who use the standard deduction, beginning in 2026.
  • A new minimum AGI-based floor on charitable donations before donations can be itemized deductions
  • A temporary exclusion from income tax of up to $25,000 tip income
  • A temporary exclusion from income tax of up to $25,000 of overtime income
  • A temporary deduction of up to $10,000 of interest loans to buy cars whose final assembly was in the U.S.
  • Recissions of multiple “Green New Deal” tax credits such as electric vehicle credits and residential clean energy credits
  • Creation of new “Trump” savings accounts for children under 18

That’s an exhaustive (or maybe exhausting) list of topics to cover in a 45-minute podcast. Panko does a great job, and for later look-backs, save a link to the document form of his analysis, which closes with:

There is A LOT going on in the OBBBA, and it will take time for me and the rest of the industry to fully digest and understand it. This was my best crack at breaking it down as quickly and thoroughly as possible.

Most likely, we will learn a few more complexities — and smart ways to take advantage of the changes — but this is a great start for your tax planning for 2025 and beyond.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Retirement, Social Security, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

No tax on Social Security benefits? Not quite true.

AI-generated image for “middle-aged couple with cash.” Source: Perchance.org

By David Enna, Tipswatch.com

I sometimes watch too much CNN (stop me!) and on Thursday I heard Republican members of Congress repeatedly state that the just-approved Big Beautiful Bill would eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, fulfilling a campaign promise by President Trump.

And then in his celebratory speech in Iowa Thursday evening, Trump said:

“We’re making the Trump tax cuts permanent and delivering no tax on tips. No tax on overtime. And no tax on Social Security for our great seniors. Right?”

Click on image to view email.

And I received this email from the Social Security Administration Friday morning:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.

The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation’s economy. …

The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. … Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public.

A lot of this is not true, and whoever was responsible for that email should be embarrassed. What’s even weirder: There was no reason to fudge the facts here. The bill does provide meaningful (but temporary) tax relief for most seniors, and in fact will reduce federal tax bills for most seniors. But it does not eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits, which remains intact exactly as in pre-July-4 law.

What the bill does

The Big Beautiful Bill provides a $6,000 boost to senior citizens’ standard deduction from 2025 through 2028. The new tax break — $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples — is for tax filers age 65 and older. It starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples).

This provision is aimed at middle- to upper-middle-income taxpayers. People with very low incomes won’t benefit (they already pay near-zero taxes) and high-income people will see the deduction phased out completely. This is from a Yahoo Finance analysis:

To be clear, this provision does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits as Trump promised in the campaign. It is a temporary income tax deduction, not a cut in the Social Security tax. …

In addition, under existing law, people over 65 got an add-on to the standard deduction — $2,000 for a single person and $3,200 for a couple filing jointly. The White House has issued a fact sheet that clarifies those pre-existing add-on deductions will continue:

Under current law, about 40% of people who get Social Security must pay federal income taxes on some of their benefits, according to the SSA. The tax hit begins at low levels ($32,000 for couples) and eventually caps out at $44,000, when up to 85% of the couple’s benefits may be taxable. These levels were initially set in 1983 and have not been indexed to inflation.

Again, the current tax on Social Security benefits remains intact. But the boost of $6,000 / $12,000 to the standard deduction will provide a counter-balancing tax break, potentially eliminating the effect of the Social Security tax. People who rely solely on Social Security for income will likely not pay any tax at all.

However, people under the age of 65 who have already begun collecting Social Security will be subject to the full tax — potentially on 85% of benefits — with no increase in the standard deduction.

A couple over 65 with up to $96,950 in taxable income in 2025 is in the 12% marginal tax bracket. So a boost of $12,000 to their standard deduction would provide a potential tax break of $1,400, whether or not they are collecting Social Security. A similar couple with $150,000 in taxable income is the in 22% tax bracket, and would receive a potential tax break of $2,640. That is substantial.

A couple with taxable income above $150,000 would see the deduction phase out and it would be completely gone for a couple with $250,000 income. I am assuming these people would still be eligible for the current $34,700 standard deduction for couples over 65.

The $6,000 bonus deduction would be available to taxpayers whether they take the standard deduction or itemize.

Here is an analysis from Govfacts.org:

Primary Beneficiaries: The main group to benefit are middle-income seniors aged 65 and over. These are individuals whose total income is high enough to create federal tax liability but low enough to fall below the phase-out thresholds. The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated the new deduction would benefit 33.9 million seniors.

No Benefit for the Lowest-Income Seniors: The poorest seniors, whose total income is already below existing deduction thresholds, pay no federal income tax on their Social Security benefits. For this group, an additional deduction has no effect.

No Benefit for High-Income Seniors: Wealthier retirees with incomes above the phase-out thresholds are ineligible for the deduction and see no change in their tax liability from this provision.

Harry Sit, creator of TheFinanceBuff.com, just posted a good analysis of this issue, including a chart compiling the income phaseouts:

Key takeaway: Note that some significant tax benefits remain even when a person or couple gets close to the $175,000 or $250,000 limits. Some smart income planning could result in a lower tax bill for 2025.

The new law also includes a deduction on charitable contributions, according to CNBC. The bill allows charitable taxpayers who don’t itemize to deduct up to $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for married couples filing jointly. This begins for tax year 2026 and may also apply in some form to taxpayers who itemize.

Based on excellent information provided by commenters, it appears all the new deductions will be “below the line,” meaning they will not reduce adjusted gross income, which is used to determine Medicare surcharge levels among other things. But they will reduce taxable income.

Why this is good

The bill cleverly shifts the tax break to a 4-year increased standard deduction instead of eliminating the tax on Social Security benefits. Why is that good? Because the tax on benefits is intact and goes back into the Social Security “trust fund,” helping to pay future benefits. The trust fund is currently expected to run dry in 2032 to 2034, potentially leading to a 19%+ cut in payments to all beneficiaries.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the higher senior tax deduction through 2028 would result in a loss of $66 billion in revenue over the four years. But most of that lost revenue would be outside the Social Security system.

And the downside …

Because many senior citizens will now be reporting lower adjusted gross incomes, they will in turn potentially be paying 1) less in taxes on Social Security benefits and 2) less in Medicare surcharges imposed through the Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount, or IRMAA. GovFacts.org says:

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates that the “senior bonus” and other tax changes in the bill will lower revenue collected from benefit taxation by approximately $30 billion per year. …

The CRFB projects that this revenue loss is significant enough to accelerate the projected insolvency date for the Social Security OASI trust fund (which pays retirement and survivor benefits) from early 2033 to late 2032.

The IRMAA trigger levels are not directly affected by increasing the standard deduction, because IRMAA is based on adjusted gross income, before the deduction is subtracted. But with the expanded deduction, some retired people may be making smaller taxable withdrawals or stock sales to supply current income, making it easier to stay below IRMAA trigger levels.

Thoughts

No one is a “fan” of the tax on Social Security benefits, or the Medicare IRMAA surcharges for that matter. But I understand the need for these taxes and surcharges to keep these important programs going. Not every problem can be solved with a tax cut.

So, I support the tax on Social Security benefits. The problem with the tax is that the trigger levels are much too low and have never been indexed to inflation, after 42 years. Too many people at fairly low income levels are paying the tax.

The tax is crucial to help delay insolvency of the Social Security trust fund. That day is coming and a solution needs to be found. I don’t expect anything to be done in the next three years, so the problem will simply get more severe.

Trump promised “no tax on Social Security” — an idea I did not support. Congress came up with a solution to give seniors a temporary, 4-year tax cut outside of the Social Security system, adding to the federal deficit but not putting a great deal of additional strain on Social Security.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

Under the fast-track legislative procedure that Republicans are using to pass their bill, they aren’t allowed to touch the Social Security trust funds, which is where some income taxes on benefits go. Republicans devised the senior bonus deduction as a way to give tax breaks to many of the same people who pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. …

“I would welcome any relief on taxes,” said Trump voter Peter Sullivan, 67, a retired financial executive in Strongsville, Ohio. He added: “It’s still short of my Social Security tax nirvana of having it completely tax-free.”

The tax on Social Security benefits is intact and under current law will continue after the $6,000 bonus standard deduction ends in 2028. My opinion: This is a good thing. I am sure some of you disagree. Express opinions in the comment section, but please avoid political attacks or tirades.

—————————

Donate? This site is free and I plan to keep it that way. Some readers have suggested having a way to contribute. I would welcome donations. Any amount, or skip it, your choice. This is completely optional.

PayPal link / Venmo link

—————————

Follow Tipswatch on X for updates on daily Treasury auctions and real yield trends (when I am not traveling).

Feel free to post comments or questions below. If it is your first-ever comment, it will have to wait for moderation. After that, your comments will automatically appear. Please stay on topic and avoid political tirades. NOTE: Comment threads can only be three responses deep. If you see that you cannot respond, create a new comment and reference the topic.

David Enna is a financial journalist, not a financial adviser. He is not selling or profiting from any investment discussed. I Bonds and TIPS are not “get rich” investments; they are best used for capital preservation and inflation protection. They can be purchased through the Treasury or other providers without fees, commissions or carrying charges. Please do your own research before investing.

Posted in Medicare, Retirement, Social Security, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | 77 Comments