Planning for the Slowest Tax Hike in American History
Quick Take
Several long-standing tax thresholds, some dating back to 1984, have never been adjusted for inflation, meaning more people cross them every year without any change in the law.
The provisions most likely to affect retirees and long-term savers include the Social Security taxability formula, the home sale exclusion, Medicare's IRMAA surcharge, and two surtaxes introduced in 2013 that have sat frozen since.
None of this requires a legislative fix to plan around, but it does require knowing where the lines are before the tax bill tells you.
There's a version of retirement that looks exactly like success. The mortgage is paid off. The accounts are funded. Social Security is coming in. The portfolio is generating income. By almost any measure, it's what decades of careful planning were supposed to produce. And then the tax bill arrives. Not because anything went wrong. Not because of a legislative change or a bad year in the market. Just because some numbers in the tax code haven't moved in a very long time, and everything else has.
Five provisions in particular are worth understanding, because together they form a kind of slow-moving tax increase that never required a debate, a floor vote, or a presidential signature. They just required patience.
Frozen in 1984: Social Security's taxability thresholds
Before most of today's retirees finished college, Congress decided that Social Security benefits would become taxable once a retiree's income crossed certain levels. The threshold for individuals was set at $25,000. For married couples, $32,000. An upper tier, added in 1993, pulls up to 85% of benefits into taxable income once provisional income exceeds $34,000 (single) or $44,000 (joint).
The lower thresholds have never changed. The upper ones have never changed. The calculation hasn't changed. The only things that have changed are the inputs.
Social Security benefits receive cost-of-living increases most years. Required minimum distributions grow as account balances grow. Pensions pay what they pay. There is no mechanism by which a retiree's income naturally stays below a threshold set forty years ago. Crossing it is, for most retirees, simply a matter of time.
What's less intuitive is that some perfectly ordinary planning choices make this worse. Muni bonds feel like a tax-free source of income, and in most contexts they are. But they count toward provisional income in this calculation. A retiree holding a large muni portfolio may be triggering more Social Security taxation than they'd expect from an ostensibly tax-advantaged investment.
Qualified charitable distributions from an IRA, available at age 70½, work the other direction. They come out of the IRA without touching adjusted gross income and without adding to provisional income. For charitably inclined retirees sitting on significant IRA balances, that's a meaningful planning tool, and one that doesn't get nearly as much attention as it deserves.
The house that outgrew its exclusion
In 1997, Congress established that homeowners could sell a primary residence and exclude up to $250,000 in gain from taxes, $500,000 for married couples, provided they'd lived there long enough. At the time, it was a generous provision that sheltered nearly any realistic home sale gain.
In many parts of the country, $500,000 in appreciation isn't a ceiling anymore. It's a starting point for anyone who bought before 2010 and stayed put. Long-term homeowners, particularly those approaching retirement and considering a sale, can find themselves sitting on gains that run well past what the exclusion was designed to cover, on a home they've lived in for thirty years and never thought of as a tax problem.
Two things affect the math here, and only one of them is still controllable.
The first is timing. When a home sale falls relative to other income in a given year can shift the tax rate applied to any gain above the exclusion. That's plannable.
The second is basis. Every capital improvement made to a home over the years- the addition, the full kitchen remodel, the structural work that required permits- adds to the property's cost basis and reduces the eventual taxable gain. A dollar spent on improvements in 2008 can reduce taxable gain dollar-for-dollar at sale. But it only does that if the documentation exists. Permits, contractor invoices, receipts. They're not glamorous. For a long-term homeowner, they can be worth a meaningful amount of money.
The Medicare surcharge you won't see coming until it's already here
IRMAA, the premium surcharge applied to higher-income Medicare beneficiaries, functions on a two-year lag. This year's premium is calculated on two-years-ago income.
For most years, that's a minor administrative detail. For years that include a large, one-time income event, it becomes something more consequential. A substantial Roth conversion, a business sale, a year with outsized capital gains: any of these can trigger premium surcharges that arrive two years later, long after the money has moved on. At the top tier, those surcharges can exceed $10,000 annually for a couple.
The lag cuts both ways. It creates the exposure, but it also creates the lead time. Someone who can see a large income year coming has roughly two years of runway to understand what's downstream.
Two underused pieces of this: first, beneficiaries who experience a significant life change can appeal an IRMAA surcharge using Form SSA-44. Most people don't know the appeal exists. Second, and this one is easy to underestimate: when a spouse dies, the survivor doesn't just lose a companion. They lose the tax advantages of a joint filing. Income that fit comfortably within married thresholds can push a single filer into a substantially higher IRMAA bracket, with no change in actual dollars coming in. The filing status does all the damage.
That conversation, about what the surviving spouse's financial picture actually looks like, is one that's much more useful before the loss than after it.
Frozen in 2013: The investment income surtax
The Affordable Care Act introduced a lot of things. One of them was a 3.8% surtax on investment income for households earning above $200,000 (single) or $250,000 (married). It went largely unnoticed at the time by most savers.
That was thirteen years ago. The thresholds are identical today.
What's not identical is the income landscape. A household earning $230,000 in 2013 was genuinely upper-income. A household earning $230,000 today, after more than a decade of wage growth and asset appreciation, is considerably more ordinary. The IRS data bears this out: the tax captured roughly 3 million returns in 2013. By 2022, that figure had grown to about 7 million, entirely through drift, not policy.
The nature of what this tax touches makes it especially relevant for long-term investors. It applies to dividends, capital gains, and interest income, the precise outputs of a well-built taxable portfolio. Someone who spent thirty years doing everything right, diversifying, reinvesting dividends, holding through volatility, may now find that their portfolio's success has a surcharge attached.
Planning around this isn't about avoiding the tax entirely. It's about not paying it unnecessarily. The calendar year matters. So does the sequence of decisions: when gains are taken, when losses are harvested, how conversions are timed.
The couple who didn't know they owed it
The 0.9% Medicare surtax on earned income above those same thresholds has been frozen since 2013 as well. But it has a mechanical quirk that catches dual-income households more than any other.
Your employer withholds the surtax once your own wages clear $200,000. That's where their obligation ends. They have no access to, and no responsibility for, what your spouse earns. The tax code, however, looks at the household.
Two people each earning $185,000 will see no special withholding on either paycheck. But at $370,000 combined, they're $120,000 over the joint threshold. The surtax on that gap doesn't appear anywhere until the return is filed. For households where both spouses work and each earns a solid but not exceptional income, this is a predictable gap that often goes unaddressed until the first time it stings.
It's correctable. But it requires looking at income as a household number, not two individual ones.
What all five have in common
Each of these provisions reflects a different era's sense of what a high income, a valuable home, or a comfortable retirement looked like. In most cases, that was a reasonable estimate at the time. The problem is that nothing was built in to update them.
Wages grew. Markets compounded. Home prices climbed. The thresholds sat.
The effect, accumulated across five provisions over four decades, is a tax system that has quietly become more costly for people whose financial lives have grown, not because they crossed into genuine wealth, but simply because the math of time caught up with rules that stopped moving long ago.
None of that is likely to change soon. These thresholds have survived multiple rounds of tax legislation without much attention. Planning around them, rather than waiting for Congress to fix them, is the only practical approach.
That means looking at where each of these lines falls in your own situation before a return is filed or a premium notice arrives. Sometimes it's a timing adjustment.
Sometimes it's better documentation. Other times it's running a multi-year income projection to see where the exposures actually land.
If you're not sure how any of this intersects with your own picture, that's worth a conversation.
Contact us at 865-584-1850 or info@proffittgoodson.com
