Republicans have it right: Here’s why the Social Security tax shouldn’t be repealed | Opinion

President Donald Trump campaigned on cutting taxes on Social Security benefits. During a campaign stop last August in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trump said, “Seniors should not pay taxes on Social Security and they won’t.”

For retirees who live in states with a high cost of living such as Florida, removing the tax on Social Security sounded promising. But it’s not feasible, nor would it help the seniors who need financial relief.

The income tax on Social Security benefits should not be repealed. In fact, it should remain.

In 1984, the tax was introduced in an effort to fix the program’s finances. Currently, about 27 million — roughly 40% — of Social Security recipients pay taxes on benefits, according to the Social Security’s board of trustees annual report. The taxes generate about $50 billion in revenue for Social Security and Medicare programs, keeping them solvent.

Cutting these taxes would hurt a key funding component Social Security relies on.

The program is facing financial shortfalls and Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates the Social Security’s trust fund could be insolvent by 2032, a year earlier than previously projected.

Once the trust fund is out of money, millions of recipients would see their benefits cut by 25%, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. And for seniors already struggling to live on a fixed income, cutting a quarter of their monthly income could make the difference between buying groceries or paying bills.

Critics argue it’s unfair to tax seniors who have already paid into the system. But the reality is a majority of seniors — specifically those in the low-to-middle-income tax brackets — aren’t paying takes on their Social Security benefits, according to Van de Water. So repealing the tax would only benefit upper middle-class and wealthy seniors.

To sum it up, eliminating these taxes would help a relatively small number of seniors in the short term while jeopardizing the program’s solvency that millions depend on. According to the Peter G. Petersen institute, eliminating taxes on Social Security would significantly reduce federal revenue by more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s a serious funding windfall to a program already financially strapped.

Delivering a tax break shouldn’t end with the elimination of a safety net to those who need it the most. That’s not how this is supposed to work.

Social Security faces challenges because Americans are living longer and the cost of living has risen. The last time Congress implemented meaningful reform to the program was in 1983, when Republicans and Democrats worked together on the Social Security Amendments of 1983. The amendments included gradually increasing the retirement age and created the tax on benefits.

More than 40 years have passed and Social Security is continually touted on the campaign trail as broken and in need of reform. So it was only natural for voters to support a candidate who said he was committed to removing the benefit tax.

However, Trump’s promise has found itself on the sidelines, as do a lot of campaign promises. And that isn’t a bad thing.

Repealing the tax on Social Security benefits is not the answer to fixing the program or solving the affordability problem currently plaguing Americans.

It’s a catchy campaign slogan but makes for lousy policy.

Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@miamiherald.com

This story was originally published May 22, 2025 at 5:00 AM.