The U.S. Capitol is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 7, 2025.
Nathan Howard | Reuters
House Republicans’ “one, big, beautiful” tax bill includes a new temporary $4,000 deduction for older adults.
The change, called a “bonus” in the legislation, is aimed at helping retirees keep more money in their pockets and provides an alternative to the idea of eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, which President Donald Trump and other lawmakers have touted.
The bill provides a “historic tax break” to seniors receiving Social Security, “fulfilling President Trump’s campaign promise to deliver much-needed tax relief to our seniors,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Elizabeth Huston said via email.
The proposal calls for an additional $4,000 deduction to be available to adults ages 65 and over, whether they take the standard deduction or itemize their returns. The temporary provision would apply to tax years 2025 through 2028. The deduction would start to phase out for single filers with more than $75,000 in modified adjusted gross income, and for married couples who file jointly with more than $150,000.
More from Personal Finance:
House Republican bill calls for bigger child tax credit
Medicaid work requirements kick hardworking people off health coverage: Senator
House Republicans advance Trump’s tax bill — but ‘SALT’ deduction still undecided
As a tax deduction, it would reduce the amount of seniors’ income that is subject to levies and therefore reduce the taxes they may owe. Notably, it is not as generous as a tax credit, which reduces income tax liability dollar for dollar.
A median income retiree who brings in up to about $50,000 annually may see their taxes cut by a little less than $500 per year with this change, noted Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
“It’s not nothing, but it’s also not life changing,” Gleckman said.
New deduction vs. eliminating taxes on benefits
The $4,000 senior “bonus” deduction would help lower-income people and would not help higher-income individuals who are above the phase outs, Gleckman said.
In contrast, the proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits would have been a “big windfall” for high-income taxpayers, he said.
“If you feel like you need to provide an extra benefit to retirees, this is clearly a better way to do it than the original Social Security proposal that Trump had,” Gleckman said.
Social Security benefits are taxed based on a unique tax rate applied to combined income — or the sum of adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of Social Security benefits.
Beneficiaries may have up to 85% of their benefits subject to taxes if they have more than $34,000 in combined income individually, or more than $44,000 if they are married and file jointly.
Up to 50% of their benefits may be taxed if their combined income is between $25,000 and $34,000 for individual taxpayers, or between $32,000 and $44,000 for married couples.
Beneficiaries with combined income below those thresholds may pay no tax on benefits. Therefore, a policy to eliminate taxes on benefits would not help them financially.
The proposed $4,000 tax deduction for seniors may help some retirees who are on the hook to pay taxes on their Social Security benefit income offset those levies, according to Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation.
However, the impact of that change would vary by individual situation, he said. For some individuals who pay up to an 85% tax rate on their benefit income, “that $4,000 deduction can make a difference,” Watson said.
‘Bonus’ would be less costly to implement
The Senate is prohibited from including changes to Social Security, including the proposal to eliminate taxes on benefits, in reconciliation bills like the tax package now up for consideration.
Notably, the proposed $4,000 deduction for seniors would be less expensive.
If that change were made permanent, it would cost around $200 billion over 10 years, Watson said. In contrast, eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits would cost more than $1 trillion over a decade, he said.
“It’s actually probably less than 20% of the size of the tax cut that was initially pitched during the campaign,” Watson said.
Moreover, the cost for the $4,000 deduction would come out of general revenue for income tax, which means it would not directly take money from Social Security’s trust funds, which already face a funding shortfall.
