2025 2026 2027 Medicare Part B IRMAA Premium MAGI Brackets

Comments

1. R. Stubb says

   January 15, 2025 at 5:26 pm

   Last post showed a mfj range for 2026 of 216k @ 0% inflation to 218k @ 3% inflation.

   This post showed a mfj range for 2026 of 216k @ 0% inflation to 216k @ 3% inflation.

   I dont understand how this could be.

   Reply

   • Harry Sit says

     January 15, 2025 at 11:20 pm

     It’s like running. You were told if you run at a 10:00/mile pace, you would run 6 miles in an hour. After 10 minutes, you actually ran 0.9 miles. Now you’re told if you run at a 10:00/mile pace for the remaining 50 minutes, you will run 5.9 miles for the hour.

   • Jeff Enders says

     January 16, 2025 at 4:37 am

     R. Stubbs – it’s really a function of how the underlying calculations work.
     Let me rip away the rounding factor and then I think you’ll see what is occurring.

     a month ago, the underlying measurement at 0% inflation was $107,577, which rounds to $108,000 and then is doubled to achieve $216,000. This month that same underlying measurement was $107,606 which once rounded and doubled is the same $216,000.

     a month ago, the underlying measurement at 3% inflation was $108,593, which rounds to $109,000 and then is doubled to achieve $218,000. This month that same underlying measurement was $108,418 which once rounded and doubled is the now $216,000.

     Assuming inflation remains between 0% and 3% for the rest of the measurement year, $216,000 will be the tranche cutoff. The measurement based on 0% will continue to rise while the measurement based on 3% will continue to fall, and they will converge at the end of the measurement year (August)

   • Nancy Memmel says

     January 16, 2025 at 6:28 am

     The 0% and 3% inflation projections are for ongoing inflation from the moment to the end of the measurement period. The inflation for the last months is already baked in. Since inflation has dropped in the last few prior months , inflation from right now to the end of the measurement period would have to be about 3.4% for the calculation to get back to yielding the 218 K value

   • R. Stubb says

     January 16, 2025 at 6:08 pm

     Thanks for explaining the calculations. I am still marveling at how the algorithm converges
     to the zero percent inflation MAGI when the lowest inflation has been is 2.4% in the last year. See graph at:

     https://tipswatch.com/2025/01/15/u-s-inflation-rose-0-4-in-december-higher-than-expected/

     So the 2027 projection in this article gives for mfj

     0% Inflation 216k
     3% Inflation 224k

2. R. Stubb says

   January 17, 2025 at 4:35 am

   My previous comment got cut off.

   So the 2027 projection in this article gives for mfj

   0% Inflation 216k
   3% Inflation 224k

   Normally, I would aim for the midpoint (220k) as I dont believe inflation will be less that 1.5 % (before my 9k safety margin). But the 2026 projection gives me pause.

   Reply

   • The Wizard says

     January 17, 2025 at 8:44 am

     It’s good to have a basic plan in mind for dealing with IRMAA.
     But I don’t actually DO anything until sometime after Halloween each year. By then, I’ve got a pretty good idea what my AGI will be for the year, including any additional QCDs and a modest Roth conversion.

     I keep those preliminary numbers on scratch paper and then wait until mid December when my taxable dividend estimates are available and the final monthly inflation number for the year is out. After a final check on my numbers, I then log into my Vanguard account around 3:30 pm and do an in-kind Roth conversion close to my target amount. Great fun…

   • GeezerGeek says

     January 17, 2025 at 9:18 am

     Wiz,
     I agree. Last year is a done deal and most of my adjustments to income (Roth Conversions, QCDs, etc.) won’t happen until the end of the year. So there is no point in monitoring the numbers month by month until the end of the year draws nigh.
     However, if the market heads south bigtime, I will look at the numbers and to see how much of a Roth conversion I can do at that time. I did that in October of 2022 and I was able to convert a larger percentage of my IRA at that time than I would have been able to do if I had waited until the end of the year. I converted a conservative amount in October and topped it off with a smaller conversion at the end of the year.

   • Henry Waldron says

     April 15, 2025 at 11:00 am

     I appreciate greatly that you have presented various scenarios. It seems that one tiny detail might be missing. What is the minimum average inflation needed over the next 5 months to get 2026 IRMAA from the $108k / $216k level to the $109k / $218k level? I know 0.0% monthly won’t get there, and I know 0.25% monthly will get there. But I don’t know the precise cutoff.

   • GeezerGeek says

     April 15, 2025 at 11:15 am

     Henry Waldron: How many decimal points do you want for the tipping point? An inflation rate of 0.21% will still keep the limit at $109k but an inflation rate of 0.22% pushs the limit up to $110K. Of course that will change when next month’s COLA is posted, which means a precise measurement of the breakpoint is rather useless.

3. Nancy Memmel says

   January 17, 2025 at 8:02 am

   At a 1.5% inflation rate from right now to the end of the measurement period for setting 2027 brackets (August 2026), the calculation would give a threshold value of 220 K.
   Inflation of 2.2% ( or more, up to 3%), over that period would yield a 222 K threshold.
   At 3.0% inflation you’d first get to 224 K.
   Do you mean you’d typically aim for 220 K – 9K (for safety) = 211 K ?

   Reply

4. Paul Kinney says

   January 18, 2025 at 9:48 am

   At the top is the sentence, “The MAGI for IRMAA doesn’t include untaxed Social Security benefits.” Please verify what that means. Is it the portion of my SS payments not subject to tax? Another interpretation is the SS benefit before taxes, meaning all if it.

   Reply

   • Jeff Enders says

     January 18, 2025 at 4:45 pm

     Paul – if you look at your tax return, it means that the difference between Lines 6a and 6b is NOT added back to MAGI.

5. Teresa Durden says

   January 18, 2025 at 10:01 am

   Your Federal modified adjusted gross income includes usually 85% of your social security income (if you’re over a certain amount) so IRMAA would also follow this, because they look at adjusted gross income line.

   Reply

   • The Wizard says

     January 18, 2025 at 10:33 am

     Correct, AGI plus any tax-exempt interest…

6. nick r says

   January 22, 2025 at 11:37 am

   There are hundreds of very repetitive questions and follow up comments in the past years about why 0% and 3% lead to the same IRMAA number.
   If Harry would feel comfortable displaying the first decimal, every month, for all the brackets, ie 107 .6 rather than 108 (rounded), I feel many of these repetitive comments would go away, since there is almost a 1% difference between 107.6 and 108.4, but rounded, both lead to 108.
   I tend to believe one decimal reporting would not overly complicate Harry’s life in providing reliable, consistent, and excellent work for all his many followers . And much easier for us to judge whether on the low or high side of 108, to better predict our own IRMAA situation.

   Reply

   • Jeff Enders says

     January 25, 2025 at 5:21 am

     Nick R – I guess I don’t understand the benefit of your proposal. Regardless of the number of decimal places presented, the two numbers reflecting 0% projected inflation and 3% projected inflation are going to MERGE by August in any event.

     Given the small inflation rate assumption (3%) and the rounding rules for IRMAA, some of these datapoints are going to merge well before 12 months have occurred. That true for $108,000 for 2026 IRMAA.

     Lastly, as 2024 is in the rear view mirror, there is not much most any taxpayer can do to reduce their 2024 MAGI at this point to get back under $108,000 for 2026 IRMAA charges.

     Adding any number of decimal points would add confusion in my view as it does not reflect how IRMAA is really calculated. Harry’s forecast is consistent with how IRMAA is calculated.

7. Kali says

   January 31, 2025 at 1:27 pm

   Is a deferred comp payment treated as MAGI for calculating IRMA or can it qualify as reason for appeal?

   Reply

   • Nancy Memmel says

     January 31, 2025 at 5:50 pm

     There are a limited number of reasons for appeal due to things that have caused you income to DROP after the year of the income used to make the IRMAA assessment you are appealing.
     Having gotten a deferred comp payment but not getting it anymore isn’t one of them, much like having sold a house , but not continuing to sell one every year or having a large one time capital gain are not a basis for an appeal.

8. Robert Hoppe says

   January 31, 2025 at 1:34 pm

   Kali. Yes, a deferred compensation payment is considered part of your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and would be used to calculate your IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount), meaning it could potentially increase your Medicare premiums (2 years henceforth) if your total MAGI exceeds the threshold for the surcharge. MAGI calculation includes total gross income, along with other additions like tax-exempt interest from municipal bonds, etc. The sum then determines if an IRMAA surcharge will be applied.

   Reply

9. The Wizard says

   January 31, 2025 at 6:22 pm

   Just be glad you are a high income retiree.
   I certainly am…

   Reply

10. Robert Hoppe says

    February 9, 2025 at 7:09 am

    Please advise how you arrived at $224,000 (3% inflation) for MFJ MAGI for 2025 (to impact 2027 Medicare Part B & D premiums), given that the website shows $216,000 for both 0% inflation and 3% inflation for 2024 MAGI (to impact 2026 Medicare Part B & D premiums). How can there be an increase of $8K (3.7%) between $216K and $224K 2025 MAGI?

    Reply

    • Harry Sit says

      February 9, 2025 at 7:30 am

      $108,499 rounds down to $108,000 and doubles to $216,000. $111,501 rounds up to $112,000 and doubles to $224,000. It’s only a 2.77% increase between $108,499 and $111,501.

11. Mike D says

    February 12, 2025 at 1:55 pm

    Is there any site that gives the Core CPI monthly numbers out to 3-decimals? I believe that the IRMA uses that in its calculations, but the numbers seem to be rounded to 2-decimals?

    Reply

    • Harry Sit says

      February 12, 2025 at 2:06 pm

      IRMAA uses the “normal” all-inclusive CPI numbers, not the Core CPI (without food or energy).

    • Gary says

      February 12, 2025 at 2:47 pm

      Mike D, I use the following U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website for all my CPI data. The following link will take you to the CPI-U series, which I use for personal spreadsheet projections of IRMAA brackets (which, hopefully, are consistent with Medicare and Harry!).

      https://www.bls.gov/regions/midatlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm

      These are shown to 3 decimal places. Hope this helps!

    • Jeff Enders says

      February 12, 2025 at 2:49 pm

      https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm

    • Tom P says

      February 12, 2025 at 2:55 pm

      CPI-U numbers are used for the IRMAA calcs, the latest being 317.671 as shown on this website: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t01.htm

12. Susan says

    March 14, 2025 at 3:24 am

    Is there anyway to get Congress to eliminate IRMAA. It seems very unfair for a small group of taxpayers.

    Reply

    • John Sullivan says

      March 14, 2025 at 6:21 am

      Eliminate IRMMA? very unlikely. I’d be happy if Congress would:
      remove retirement account (401k/IRA) ‘income’ from MAGI for Medicare. Using your own savings is not ‘income’. The current situation discourages saving for retirment, and penalizes those of us who have done so. Congress sold us on IRA/401k in lieu of pensions, and for many of us Roth wasn’t an option for many years.

      I think for many of us, this would be as helpful or more than eliminating taxes on Social Security. The question is, how to approach Congress to do so?

    • R.T. Stubb says

      March 14, 2025 at 6:28 am

      Your youthful naïveté is refreshing.

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 14, 2025 at 7:35 am

      John Sullivan;
      Your 401 K / IRA savings most certainly ARE income; perhaps you forget that it was untaxed when you “saved ” it in those tax favored accounts all those years ago. If getting tax breaks in Year 1 through 29 for retirement savings but having to pay tax on distribution in Year 30 is going to discourage your saving for retirement, you always have the luxury of saving in an after tax account , where you pay a tax on gains on a yearly basis , and where withdrawals are not counted as income.

    • LiftLock says

      March 16, 2025 at 2:10 pm

      Susan wrote: “Is there anyway to get Congress to eliminate IRMAA. It seems very unfair for a small group of taxpayers.”
      That might depend on what Congress thinks is fair.
      According to the Medicare Trustees Report, about 4.9 million Medicare beneficiaries paid Part B IRMAA surcharges in 2024, amounting to about 7% of the 67 million total enrollees.
      Who has the ability to pay the costs?:
      The nations wealth is highly concentrated in the top 20% of income earners:
      https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/compare/chart/#quarter:140;series:Assets;demographic:income;population:all;units:levels
      https://dqydj.com/top-one-percent-united-states/
      Here is an interesting calculator If you want to consider where your wealth and income ranks:
      https://wid.world/income-comparator/

    • GeezerGeek says

      March 16, 2025 at 5:28 pm

      If it was up to me, I modify IRMAA as follows:
      Have the IRS collect IRMAA instead of CMS. Instead of the IRS sending a file of income reported to CMS, CMS would send a file of current year Medicare enrollees to the IRS. When you file your income taxes, your IRMAA penalty would be assessed and added to your tax bill. Instead of paying for exceeding the IRMAA brackets two years ago, the penalty would be assessed on current year income, which really makes a lot more sense. Also, if you exceed a bracket, instead of paying a lump sum, you would pay an additional percent on the money that exceed the bracket.
      I think that would be a better way of collecting IRMAA. It would eliminate the two year lag and the problem with being charged a lump sum for being one dollar over the bracket limit.

13. John Sullivan says

    March 14, 2025 at 7:50 am

    I fully agree it’s certainly income, and we should pay taxes on it. However, the gain should be taxed as long term capital gain, not ordinary income. Of course, what we put in tax free (so long ago) should be taxed as ordinary income.

    My point is that Medicare IRMMA should exclude it as part of the MAGI for Medicare. that would encourage savings. iIt’s not right to have a small group of people underwrite Medicare, just because they managed to save for retirement. (I’m not talking about the ‘ultra-rich’)
    Other traditional high income should be part of the Medicare MAGI. That’s why I wouldn’t lobby for the elimination of IRMMA (the thread I was reacting to)

    I appreciate the discussion.

    Reply

    • The Wizard says

      March 14, 2025 at 9:01 am

      I like the refreshing youthful naivete comment!

      401(k)/403(b)/tIRA money is what I prefer to call Deferred Compensation, taxed as Ordinary Income same as in your working days.
      Smart retirees start taking funds out of Deferred Compensation immediately upon retirement, one way or another. And once age 70.5+, you can do QCDs from your tIRA up to a high limit.

      Once you’ve paid income tax on Deferred Compensation, the remainder becomes legitimate savings, whether in a Roth or taxable account.

      IRMAA is simply a backward way of creating a DISCOUNT for Medicare for poor low-income folks, of which there are many.
      Do you want to be a low-income retiree? I certainly don’t…

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 14, 2025 at 1:41 pm

      John;
      What you propose would require too much record keeping over decades of time and calculations at the point of distributions; the system that exists let you trade the convenience of deferring, taking a tax break, then paying up in the fullness of time. That was the deal. The capital gains -for-growth option would require the record keeping and tax paying over the decades. Having taken the deal on offer you can complain about it , but not with the expectation of any sympathy, especially as you seem to be fine with the idea of an even smaller group of people to have to underwrite Medicare!

    • Steve A says

      March 19, 2025 at 2:03 am

      Note that you paid FICA tax which includes a social security and Medicare component on all of the income that went into your traditional IRAs. When I convert money from my traditional IRA to a Roth, or take an RMD from my IRA that is certainly not what anyone rational would call “current income”. The income was earned decades ago, and the income tax was deferred until the transfer. IRMMA says, “well you likely paid a lot more to Medicare in the past, therefore you should pay quadruple to receive this”. To add insult to injury, the amount of Social Security that I received after the IRMMA deductions is less than the amount of Social Security which I must pay tax on! I think there is a place for means testing benefits, but they means testing the portion of SS that was taken away as part of a Medicare means test.
      To me the greatest Injustice of IRMMA is that you cannot rationally adjust your income in the current year because the tripwire tax bracket will only be determined in year N+1.

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 19, 2025 at 8:20 am

      Steve wrote
      IRMMA says, “well you likely paid a lot more to Medicare in the past, therefore you should pay quadruple to receive this”.
      Pretty much; the IRMAA assessments are the government looking to get funds and looking in places where funds can be gotten. Govt. programs have more demand than supply so they are always robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whether you will see this as fair or unfair likely depends largely on whether you are Peter or Paul.
      The years of lag reflect the time required for SS to know what your prior income was, but the system was not set up as a sporting proposition so that the clever planner can skirt paying his “fair share”, whatever that is considered to be in the moment.
      I agree that different people paying different amounts for the same product would get insurance executives frog marched in front of TV cameras, but when it is government it’s different…

14. Frustrated by IRMMA says

    March 14, 2025 at 3:13 pm

    Hi Folks,
    We finished our 2024 taxes and just wish to review the safe harbor method of paying estimated taxes for 2025 as we prefer not to withhold taxes from our 2025 Roth conversion (which we plan to do towards the end of this year).
    Our understanding is that we take 100% of 2024 tax obligation ( 110% if AGI over 150K) and divide by 4 and make quarterly tax payments, if we had no source from which to withhold taxes. But in our case we have taxes withheld from our pensions. So do we subtract our expected tax withholding from our 2025 pensions from the 2024 tax obligation (as explained above) prior to dividing by four? In other words do we pay 100 or 110 percent of our 2024 tax obligation though a combination of tax withholding in 2025 along with 4 equal estimated tax payments starting April 15 (that are reduced by our expected 2025 tax withholding from our pensions)? Thanks again for all you help!

    Reply

    • Jeff Enders says

      March 14, 2025 at 3:33 pm

      work your way through lines 1-9 of this form .
      lines 1-7: use your estimates for 2025
      line 8 – use your tax liability for 2024 (form 1040 line 24) and if your AGI exceeds $150,000, multiply line 24 by 110%

      https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2210.pdf

      then you know how to approach ; it’s not that difficult.

    • Tom P says

      March 14, 2025 at 3:37 pm

      In one word, kinda. I’ve been doing this for years. Just subtract the ACTUAL withholding from your 2024 pensions from the 100 or 110% of 2024 obligation, divide by 4 and round to the nearest dollar. Turbotax or other software would calculate this for you.

    • LiftLock says

      March 14, 2025 at 4:13 pm

      Frustrated by IRMMA,
      Think of it this way. You can avoid under payment penalties for 2025 by satisfying the safe harbor amounts using any combination tax withholding and estimated tax payments. You can avoid tax payment timing issues payments by making 4 equal quarterly estimated tax payments. The IRS considers tax withholding payments to be made equally throughout the year, regardless of when the payments are actually made.
      You can also satisfy safe harbor rules by paying 90% or more of your 2025 tax obligation, or by owing less than $1,000 when filing your 2025 tax return.
      So subtract your 2025 withholding from the safe harbor amount you want to use, and divide the remaining amount by 4 to arrive at a safe quarterly estimated tax payment.

    • The Wizard says

      March 19, 2025 at 8:21 am

      In reply to Steve A, money that you put into a 401(k) or tIRA is what I call Deferred Compensation. You weren’t required to do this; you could have paid taxes up front and invested the rest in your taxable or Roth account.
      Now that you’re retired with a decent Deferred Compensation amount, it’s time to switch gears and start withdrawing maybe 5% of that balance each year and pay taxes on it. No whining necessary.

      And IRMAA actually is fairly easy to plan for using projections in this article by Harry. I sit down each year after Thanksgiving and total up my numbers for the year. This allows me to decide how large a Roth conversion to do in December without getting my AGI too close to the next higher IRMAA threshold. It’s been working out fine…

    • Joe Taxpayer says

      March 25, 2025 at 7:12 am

      Quarterly payments aren’t needed.
      I am retired and my wife and I are taking IRA withdrawals. Tax withheld during the year is considered to be withheld without regard to timing. As compared to seperate quarterly payments that have to be made on time or there may be a penalty, those who withhold from their IRA withdrawals have no timing issue. Tax software is typically released towards the end of November. That’s when I plan for our December distributions to withhold enough tax to cover enough federal tax to avoid penalty. I know the goal of many is to get a refund and celebrate the fact that they lent the government money at no interest only to get it in March or April. That’s their choice, but it makes no sense to me.
      A bit of planning during the year so I still avoid the next IRMAA cliff.
      This approach seems far simpler than the need to look at this every quarter.

    • tjk144 says

      March 25, 2025 at 7:48 am

      Joe Taxpayer, Nothing wrong with your strategy and it is simple as you say. The amount of taxes withheld is included in your RMD amount so hopefully you are taking this into consideration when determining your RMD and not taking a larger RMD than required — unless you don’t mind doing so . Personally, I don’t mind making quarterly estimated tax payments which I make online using a cashback credit card and am able to earn cashback doing so. I just make certain that the cashback earned exceeds the processor’s fee for paying with a credit card. Paying quarterly does take a bit of work as you say as I have to estimate my tax for the year or pay 110% of prior year tax if I think that I might have some large capital gains or other abnormal income.

15. The Wizard says

    March 14, 2025 at 4:20 pm

    LL is correct.
    My AGI and resulting tax obligation inches up slowly each year lately. So I focus more on the 90% of current year amount rather than the 110% of last year’s amount.
    That works fine for me; I have no desire for a large tax refund each year at this time…

    Reply

    • Robert says

      March 14, 2025 at 4:42 pm

      I believe that most taxpayers are not going to know the total MAGI for the current year until the year is almost over. Therefore, rather than follow the 90% of current year’s tax approach, I calculate my quarterly estimated tax payments at the start of the year based on 110% of the previous year’s total tax liability, since our MAGI for the previous year is over $150K. My wife and I are retired and don’t have any withholding taxes. Unless you believe that your current year’s MAGI is going to be significantly lower than in the previous year, I think it’s better to base the quarterly estimated taxes based on 110% of the previous year’s total tax liability. If the current year’s MAGI is higher than last year’s, then you pay the additional tax due with your current year’s tax return, but at least there will not be an underpayment of estimated tax penalty.

16. The Wizard says

    March 14, 2025 at 7:35 pm

    I’m not sure who most taxpayers are.
    What I do is withholding throughout the year and then a modest Roth conversion in early December based on my confident AGI and projected IRMAA tiers. So it’s not too hard to figure how much additional to pay, if any, for that Roth conversion…

    Reply

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 16, 2025 at 2:46 pm

      In Regard to Robert’s comment,
      I would say that it is hugely easier to predict your eventual yearly income if your income is from pension/ annuity / SS payments and distributions from retirement accounts than if it is from an operating business profits or hourly wages. Before retirement our income was much more likely to surprise. Gotta do what works for you.
      It doesn’t sound like his concern is regarding calculating tax due for conversions, just avoiding underpayment penalties.

17. Robert says

    March 16, 2025 at 2:35 pm

    Liftlock. My beef with respect to IRMAA is that the MAGI total taken into consideration (for purposes of determination of the Medicare premium surtax) includes Roth IRA conversions (transferring $ from traditional IRA to Roth IRA). I agree that the conversions should be considered taxable income (since the contributions to the traditional IRA were tax-deductible), but I believe it’s unfair to include those conversion amounts in MAGI for the purpose of determining whether a couple is liable for the Medicare premium surtax 2 years forward. The conversions are not income per se as far as contributing to the cost of living.

    Reply

    • The Wizard says

      March 16, 2025 at 2:52 pm

      Good luck on selling that change to Congress…

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 16, 2025 at 3:10 pm

      Robert
      Well, what if you have a princely salary, but save a lot?
      Should your ” income ” be considered to be what you spend, instead of what you make?
      You are accessing deferred dollars; when they stop being deferred, that’s income. Whether you spend those dollars to live on or tuck them away in a tax free account doesn’t matter to the government. (If it did , you’d probably be penalized FOR being able to tuck them into a tax free account….).
      When we’re talking about government programs, “fair” isn’t the point (except that burdening too many voters “unfairly” would have thee effect of getting the people making the decisions turned out of office).The point is getting enough revenues to maintain the program.

    • Terry says

      March 16, 2025 at 3:35 pm

      Nancy. When you convert a Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA, the funds do not stop being deferred. They are still deferred.

18. The Wizard says

    March 16, 2025 at 3:55 pm

    Incorrect, Terry.
    After you pay income tax on money, it’s no longer “deferred”, whether in a taxable or a Roth account…

    Reply

19. Mike says

    March 16, 2025 at 3:56 pm

    True in the overall sense of deferral meaning not taxed. But the key difference is money in the Roth will NEVER be taxed whereas money in your TIRA is going to be taxed and the government will force you to make it available for taxing, like forcing you to take an RMD.

    As for the expected rebuttal that the Roth benefit could be taken away by Congress any time they want to commit political suicide I have no rebuttal other than that would be like Dr. Strangelove’s exposure of the existence of a Doomsday Device.

    Reply

20. Tony says

    March 18, 2025 at 9:21 am

    With some potential storm clouds on the economic horizon, I have a question in regards to the 2026 IRMAA calculation as it is “today.”

    What happens if we were to enter a recession and saw some “deflation” between now and August?

    Happened to get a $600 more in dividends at the end of the year in 2024 than expected and based on 2025 IRMAA it would push us into a higher bracket.

    I’m curious if the 2026 forecast you are helpfully providing (thanks! Its awsome! If only the government didn’t make this so complex) as it stands right now with 0% inflation can be “trusted” or if it can back slide in a deflationary environment and if so by how much (since the 2027 brackets at 0% inflation still go up by $1,000). I guess it’d have to be pretty significant deflation to wipe out the last 6 months of inflation but would be helpful for planning purposes to understand possible scenarios.

    Reply

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 18, 2025 at 11:14 pm

      Tony,
      If the soon to be announced number reflects an annual -0.5% inflation rate, and it stays there , month over month, for the rest of the period ( thru the Aug report) the IRMAA brackets would be the same for 2026 as in 2025.

    • Nancy Memmel says

      March 18, 2025 at 11:48 pm

      Tony;
      Apologies!
      A continuing -0.5% inflation rate would yield brackets that are the SAME as those projected for the no inflation case for 2026 (Not the same as the 2025 brackets!)
      It’d have to go to an ongoing -5.5% rate to reduce the 2026 brackets ( to 214 K,270K,338 K, 404K)

21. Lou says

    April 11, 2025 at 1:18 am

    You are showing the income bracket for 2026 for the 1.4 married filing jointly to be $274,000 with zero inflation. However, with zero inflation you are also showing $274,000 for 2027. How can this be? Is there an error here? Is the 2026 number accurate?

    Reply

22. Lou says

    April 11, 2025 at 2:37 am

    You are showing the income bracket for 2026 for the 1.4 married filing jointly to be $274,000 with zero inflation. However, with zero inflation you are also showing $274,000 for 2027. How can this be? Is there an error here? Is the 2026 number accurate?
    PS. The $274,000 bracket is the same for zero and 3% inflation for 2026. Is this accurate? And the bracket for 2027 is also $274,000 for zero inflation. I thought with zero inflation it had to go up.

    Reply

    • Tony says

      April 11, 2025 at 3:06 am

      0% inflation from September 2025 to August 2026 would mean no adjustment in the brackets from the 2026 numbers so yes its “accurate” in so far as it can be extrapolated out using a standard rate of inflation (in this case 0%).

      There was no increased costs as a result of inflation and thus the premiums and income levels for IRMAA would also remain the same.

      You’ll note the 3% inflation rate results in an amount that is approximately 3% higher. $282,220 would actually be 3% higher but since IRMAA gets rounded, it rounds out to $282,000 or 2.92%

    • Lou says

      April 11, 2025 at 4:28 am

      Assuming the $274,000 bracket for zero inflation is correct as Harry stated for 2026 (and it accounts for the first 7 months of CPI), what would have to happen in the last five months for this amount to go below $274,000? How much deflation in the last 5 months is necessary for it to go below $269,000?

    • RobI says

      April 11, 2025 at 5:28 am

      0.4% annualized deflation for next 5 months results in $272,000
      7.5% annualized deflation for next 5 months results in $270,000

      Next step is $268,000 as MFJ must always be an even number (2x single)

      Credit to the superb spreadsheet created by contributor Tom P. Available here https://thefinancebuff.com/medicare-irmaa-income-brackets.html/comment-page-5#comment-28508

    • Harry Sit says

      April 11, 2025 at 7:55 am

      Rounding makes a range of inflation scenarios land on the same number. It’s normal.

23. Nancy Memmel says

    April 11, 2025 at 7:10 am

    Lou;
    The calculation would look at not only the next 5 months to establish 2026 rates, but then the next 12 months to get to 2027 rates.
    Lots of ways to slice & dice. Depends on what you’re projecting for inflation for a pretty long span.
    (-.05% to -4.9% )inflation for the rest of the 2026 determining cycle :
    216 K / 272 K / 340 K / 408 K – 2026 TIERS
    -5.0 % inflation for the rest of the 2026 determining cycle :
    216 K / 272 K / 338K / 406 K – 2026 TIERS no change in the lower 2 tiers
    -0.5% MOM inflation for the next 17 months would give 2027 IRMAA brackets of
    218 K / 274 K / 340 K / 408 K
    -2.0% MOM for each of the next 17 would result in
    214 K / 270 K / 336 K / 402K
    -2.5% inflation for the next 17 months would see
    212K / 268 K / 334K / 400K
    OTOH, If you had -0.5% inflation for the next 5 months, then 0% for the next year that’d give 218 K / 274 K / 342 K / 410 K
    -2.0% for 5 followed by 0% for the next 12 months would result in
    216 K / 272 K / 340 K / 408 K
    -2.5 for 5 then 12 months of 0% would get us
    216 K / 272 K / 338K / 406 K
    But -2.5% for the rest of the 2026 rate determining cycle and 3% for the next year after would get us to IRMAA brackets of
    220 K / 276 K / 344 K / 412K in 2027

    Reply

    • Lou says

      April 11, 2025 at 3:19 pm

      Thank you for the analysis. It looks like it’s a pretty safe bet the range won’t go below $272,000 for 2026. To get 5% annualized deflation for the next 5 months, does that mean -0.4% for each of the 5 months?

24. Nancy Memmel says

    April 11, 2025 at 7:18 am

    Sigh- I am a crap typist. I wrote
    (-.05% to -4.9% )inflation for the rest of the 2026 determining cycle :
    216 K / 272 K / 340 K / 408 K – 2026 TIERS
    It should be
    -0.5% to -4.9% ;
    half a % !!!
    Sorry.

    Reply

25. Nancy Memmel says

    April 11, 2025 at 3:46 pm

    Lou; To get 5% annualized deflation for the next 5 months, does that mean -0.4% for each of the 5 months?
    -5%/12 = -.0412%

    Reply

26. The Wizard says

    April 11, 2025 at 7:49 pm

    Deflation?
    Why in the heck is anyone worried about the very remote possibility of deflation???

    Reply

27. JoeTaxpayer says

    April 12, 2025 at 6:49 am

    A depression can lead to deflation. Likely? No. But possible.
    The conversation is just about “What if?” Right?

    Reply

28. R.T. Stubb says

    April 12, 2025 at 7:34 am

    I have been dabbling in Roth Conversions for several years now but did not get serious until I found out about IRMAA. Tax year 2024 (2026 IRMAA penalty) is the first year I tried to get just under the limit. Our 2024 taxes are filed hitting an 2026 IRMAA MAGI of 211k or 5k under 216k MFJ limit published in the this article.

    Not all is perfect as we were aiming for 9k under as we have some unpredictable fluctuations in our income.

    Thanks to Harry Sitt and all the posters here who try to educate.

    PS Is there anywhere on the Medicare Website I can see what Medicare thinks my previous
    MAGI is? I know what the IRS says it should be:

    https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0601101010

    Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is the sum of:
    • the beneficiary’s adjusted gross income (AGI) (found on line 11 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax filing form 1040), plus
    • tax-exempt interest income (line 2a of IRS Form 1040).

    I would be nice to see that the Medicare site has the same number.

    Reply

    • The Wizard says

      April 12, 2025 at 9:39 am

      On the SS website, not Medicare.
      And on the letter we get each November detailing the gross and net amount of SS we’ll be getting each month, they report your MAGI from two years before and the resulting IRMAA that will be deducted from your SS benefit…

    • Nancy Memmel says

      April 12, 2025 at 2:41 pm

      The SS Administration gets its information from the IRS; they only know what the IRS tells them.

29. The Wizard says

    April 12, 2025 at 2:52 pm

    Correct. Straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak…

    Reply

30. john emmert says

    May 4, 2025 at 8:59 am

    If SS being not taxed does that lower the irmaa magi ?
    Will the government change the irmaa magi to keep penalizing some medicare beneficiaries?

    Reply

    • The Wizard says

      May 4, 2025 at 9:38 am

      Hard to say.
      I suspect Congress will let us know…

    • GeezerGeek says

      May 4, 2025 at 9:45 am

      Presently, untaxed SS is not part of the IRMAA.
      Still, as The Wizard says, we don’t know until Congress makes the rules.

    • Tom P says

      May 4, 2025 at 11:58 am

      John, do you mean will the calculation method for IRMAA brackets change if SS is no longer taxed? I doubt it will change as the current formula is all based on the 2017-2018 base year (effective in 2019), and I doubt Congress would mess with that formula. If you are in a higher IRMAA bracket SS isn’t going to be a major contributor anyway, at least for MFJ couples. However, if you are a single filer no tax on SS could definitely help keep you out of the next higher tier. I guess we’ll just wait and see 🙂

    • Jeff Enders says

      May 14, 2025 at 6:30 am

      Congress will not change the current formula for determining taxable SS. That is because the tax currently collected from the portion of SS that is taxable goes to Medicare and SS trust funds. There is a whole other legislative process required to adjust that formula.

      Rather, the tax changes that Congress wrote into the first written version of the proposed law provides for an additional $4,000 deduction for Seniors as a way of making SS not taxable. It is certainly not a dollar for dollar deduction to eliminate taxable SS, but it is something. There is a phase out beginning at $75,000 (single) and $150,000 (joint) of AGI and the $4,000 is reduced by 4% of the AGI that exceeds these thresholds. Seniors would get this deduction whether they are taking the standard deduction or itemizing. It does not affect AGI. If passed, it would be effective for years 2025-2028.

      See page 35.

      https://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM00/20250513/118260/BILLS-119-CommitteePrint-S001195-Amdt-1.pdf

    • GeezerGeek says

      May 14, 2025 at 7:34 am

      Trump said he would eliminate taxes on Social Security Benefits.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2025/05/13/trump-eliminate-social-security-taxes/83594521007/

    • JoeTaxpayer says

      May 15, 2025 at 2:17 pm

      Geezer commented below that Trump promised to eliminate tax on Social Security. This can’t/won’t happen.
      I am now 62, retired, and my wife is 69 also retired. Over our working lives, no change to the tax code has been to our benefit. 2017? The lost exemptions and SALT cap cost us over $6,000 per year. Post retirement, but pre Social Security, we started Roth conversions. Our high property tax supports schools that are among the best in the country. We’ve voted to increase our own property tax to support the schools and keep good teachers who can afford to live in our community.
      I’m still 7+ years from collecting Social Security, and our combined will exceed $100K/yr. Not taxing SS would give us a $20,000 tax break. That alone is why it can’t happen.
      What they can do is change how it’s taxed. That way those with lower incomes in retirement can benefit, and we can still avoid lower taxes.

      I’m just glad the millionaires can jointly leave their kids $30M estate tax free, while our retirement savings will need to be withdrawn while our daughter is still working, so she’ll get to pay a high marginal rate for our efforts.

    • RT Stubb says

      May 15, 2025 at 2:41 pm

      Replying to JoeTaxpayer:

      I would be happy if the endstate was SS was state tax free ala gains in Treasury Bills/Notes.

    • Paul says

      May 15, 2025 at 2:58 pm

      The taxation on Social Security benefits had a noble rationale, but it has ended up being a tax on people that actually plan for their retirement and a subsidy for those that don’t.

      The first one was in 1984, with a starting threshold of $25K for singles, and $32K for joint, assessing income tax on a maximum of 50% of Social Security benefits. In 2025, those thresholds are…. still $25k and $32K. If they had been adjusted by the CPI-U, they would be about $78,700 and $100,700 today.

      In 1993, a second tier of income taxation was added for up to 85% of Social Security benefits: a starting threshold of $34K for single and $44K for joint. Adjusted by the CPI-U, they would be about $76,500 and $99,000 today. Note that these thresholds are LOWER than the first ones, after adjusting for the CPI-U.

      This is what Congress should fix, by indexing the thresholds by the CPI-U, including for the periods since they were enacted into law. I have made that suggestion to my US Representative and Senators, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Jeff Enders says

      May 15, 2025 at 3:08 pm

      Paul – the problem is that the money collected from taxing social security goes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds – it does not go to the general coffers of the federal government.

      Since the money collected is not part of the general budget, any change in the formula can’t be part of the “reconciliation process” as that is for the general budget only.

      Congress would have to separately vote on such a change and the Senate would require 60 votes to pass the bill. The reconciliation process only requires a simple Senate majority to pass the budget.

    • Paul says

      May 15, 2025 at 3:28 pm

      Jeff,

      I know where the taxes go. That’s why I commented that it was a subsidy. But, I agree that it can’t be fixed via reconciliation. If Congress wants to do so, and Democrats don’t want to resist just to spite Trump, they should enact a stand-alone bill.

      It took at least a decade, but they finally addressed the problems with the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision in the closing hour of the last Congress. I think they over-corrected, but since the primary beneficiaries were state and local government employees that tend to vote a certain way, Democrats pressed it and few Republicans objected.

31. ken says

    May 4, 2025 at 10:17 am

    Congress? This [R] congress is a particulary useless entity. It has already made very clear that it will be an obedient rubber stamp for Trump. So the issue really comes down to what Trump wants to do with IRMAA. Just saying…….

    Reply

    • Gary says

      May 4, 2025 at 12:14 pm

      Just keep in mind that the precedent has already been set with Muni Bond income being included in MAGI. Easy to politically say SS will no longer be taxed, but still included for MAGI purposes.

      As to when will we know about SS taxation? Probably right after we know about final tariffs. Heck of a way to run a railroad!!!!

    • Mike says

      May 14, 2025 at 6:05 pm

      There was no REPLY link to your last post where you repeated this one. So I’ll reply to it via this.

      The country is divided about 50.5 to 49.5 plus or minus between the Rabid Reds and the Rabid Blues.
      Over here we are about 100% on the side of understanding what determines our IIRMA and how we can all pay the least possible amount. That’s 100% Greens (not the wind, solar and EV kind, the what’s in your wallet kind even if that last phrase sounds like a Capital One ad).
      For this blog I like Green, a peaceful, relaxing aura that makes thoughts of my future a little brighter. Even if I sometimes rankle at being told I should be happy I have more money than someone thinks I need.
      As the current idiom is to note…Just Saying.

    • Mike says

      May 16, 2025 at 6:32 am

      I’ll try again as my attempt to be subtle and make a point without offending anyone apparently didn’t work. I accept the fact that Democrats hate Republicans and vice-versa. I accept the fact that Trump haters are 50 % of the population. I accept the fact that those Trump haters believe that he is responsible for every calamity from the flood in year 0 to anything he does today. But this site is focused on telling us how to attempt to arrange our finances so that we control our taxes that current laws demand. It doesn’t help to hear that IIRMA is another club to bash Trump with. In short, while politics does determine what we do to get more money to spend on questionable wants this blog can exist without being used as a political TV ad.

32. The Wizard says

    May 14, 2025 at 8:10 am

    In reply to GG, Congress determines our taxation rules, not the orange fellow…

    Reply

    • GeezerGeek says

      May 14, 2025 at 8:38 am

      The article referenced three different bills introduced by congressmen, two Republicans and one Democrat, that would eliminate the tax, so there is some bipartisan support for the idea beyond that of the orange fellow. However, there are still a few congressmen who can do math, and they would oppose the idea because of the cost and impact on the deficit.

    • Ken says

      May 14, 2025 at 3:01 pm

      I repeat a comment I made in another thread of these comments because its an important point that many people tend to ignore for some reason when trying to predict how proto-policies will move thru DC now:
      “Congress? This [R] congress is a particulary useless entity. It has already made very clear that it will be an obedient rubber stamp for Trump. So the issue really comes down to what Trump wants to do…..”
      I don’t see Trump moving to cut SS taxes. He and his people are too busy squeezing and torturing federal funds to use for tax breaks for him and his rich buddies. The behavior to date is pretty clear: the more a demographic’s budget depends on SS, the less the Orange Hump will actually care about helping that demographic.

    • Ken says

      May 15, 2025 at 4:39 pm

      To Green-minded Mike. Hate to break into your “aura”, but the Green issues of taxation and IRMAA depend intimately on the Blue and Red “auras”. People here have used the Constitutional fact that Congress holds the purse strings as a preemptive mantra to soften the current take on the various initiatives of Trump. My point is that that is a false hope. Your Green aura is now being driven by a decidedly one-dimensional Red aura.

33. ros says

    May 14, 2025 at 10:28 am

    How much would inflation have to go up or down in May, June July and August for the 109,000 to go up or down.

    Reply

    • GeezerGeek says

      May 14, 2025 at 10:45 am

      Over 11.4% to go up, less than -1.5% to go down, neither of which is likely.

34. Jim M says

    May 14, 2025 at 12:23 pm

    GeezerGeek ….. the 11.4% is for a total of 4 months. Correct? Thus, the 4 months would have to average 2.85% per month. Correct?

    Reply

35. Steve says

    May 15, 2025 at 8:18 pm

    I would ask others to respect that this is a VERY useful website giving information, advice and reasonable estimations of tax issues, and NOT a site to vent your personal partisan venom. Sadly, many of the ‘venomous’ commentators apparently haven’t bothered to examine either the tax code or the proposed changes, nor understood the personal implications. (Some few are very thoughtful and in depth).
    If the current tax regime reverts to the pre-2019 scheme, with higher rates and lower (infl adjusted) brackets, almost everyone, but esp the middle brackets, will pay more taxes. I calculate that my total fed tax bill (we’re currently in the 24% bracket) will increase by about 22%! It’s not some magical break for the uber-wealthy – and if your political talking points include that claim – then calculate YOUR taxes and do a reality check; post your results.
    If you are concerned about IRMAA premium bumps (iow a modestly high taxable income) , then a reversion of the tax code will certainly mean that you pay substantially more in tax.

    Reply