By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that the Social Security earnings test before full retirement age discourages work among 62-66 year-olds, potentially tightening the labor market, but the extent of this effect and its impact on household benefits is debated.
Risk: The liquidity trap created by the earnings test can force early retirement, permanently removing workers from the labor force, exacerbating labor shortages (Gemini).
Opportunity: Better understanding and quantification of behavioral responses to the earnings test, particularly regarding labor force participation by age cohort, could inform policy changes (Claude).
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
You're allowed to work while receiving Social Security benefits.
You'll be subject to an earnings test if you haven't reached full retirement age.
It's important to know the income thresholds where withheld benefits come into play.
There are plenty of reasons you might end up working while collecting Social Security. First of all, you might file for benefits before you're retired. In fact, you should file for benefits before you're retired if you end up working until age 70 or beyond.
You may also decide to go back to work if you're struggling to pay your retirement expenses and need extra money. Or you may get a job to alleviate boredom.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Once you reach full retirement age, working while on Social Security won't have any sort of negative impact on your monthly benefits. But before full retirement age, you'll be subject to an earnings test. And it's important to understand what happens if you earn too much.
The Social Security earnings test applies to people who are getting benefits ahead of full retirement age, which is 67 for people born in or after 1960.
If you're younger than full retirement age and won't reach it by the end of 2026, you can earn up to $24,480 from a job without negative consequences. Beyond that, you'll have $1 in Social Security withheld per $2 of earnings.
If you're younger than full retirement age now but will reach that age by the end of 2026, you can earn up to $65,160 from a job without risking withheld benefits. From there, you'll have $1 in Social Security withheld for every $3 of earnings.
Now one thing you should know is that it's only work-related income that counts toward the earnings test. That includes wages from an hourly job, self-employment earnings, or business income.
But withdrawals from a retirement account, dividends, bond or savings account interest, and capital gains do not count as income for earnings test purposes. If you take $25,000 a year out of your IRA, for example, it won't count against you as far as withheld benefits go.
Social Security benefits that are withheld for earning too much money aren't lost forever. Once you reach full retirement age, your monthly payments will be recalculated, and you'll get your withheld benefits back in the form of larger checks.
But it's important to know how your earnings might affect your benefits in the near term so you can plan and budget accordingly. The fact that Social Security has an earnings test isn't necessarily a reason not to work. But it's something you need to be aware of to avoid unpleasant financial surprises.
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The earnings test's main risk is not permanent benefit loss but distorted work and claiming decisions that reduce total lifetime income for many retirees."
The article correctly notes that the Social Security earnings test only temporarily withholds benefits before full retirement age and restores them later via higher payments. Yet it underplays how the $24,480 and $65,160 thresholds interact with Medicare premiums, tax brackets, and spousal benefits, creating effective marginal tax rates above 50% for some workers. Missing is any discussion of behavioral responses: many delay claiming or reduce hours precisely because of cash-flow surprises, which can shrink lifetime benefits. For the broader economy this quietly trims labor supply among 62- to 66-year-olds at a time when participation rates already lag pre-pandemic levels.
The test may actually encourage longer careers by making early claiming less attractive, and the article's thresholds already embed annual COLA adjustments that keep real disincentives stable.
"The earnings test is economically irrelevant for most workers today because the income thresholds haven't scaled with real wages, making this a policy relic that affects only lower-income early claimers while the article obscures the actual trade-off: claiming early + working = deferred benefits with recalculation, not permanent loss."
This article is a straightforward explainer on Social Security earnings tests—factually accurate but deliberately incomplete. The piece omits critical context: (1) the earnings test only applies pre-full-retirement-age, a shrinking cohort; (2) withheld benefits aren't lost, just deferred and recalculated with actuarial adjustments that often favor early claimants; (3) the thresholds ($24,480 / $65,160) are indexed annually but haven't kept pace with wage growth, making the test increasingly irrelevant for higher earners. The real issue buried here: this policy discourages work precisely when labor force participation is critical. The '$23,760 bonus' teaser is marketing noise unrelated to the earnings test itself.
If you claim early and hit the earnings test, you're trading current benefits for a larger future payment—but longevity risk cuts both ways; die before breakeven and you've left money on the table, making the test a rational deterrent to claiming too early regardless of employment plans.
"The Social Security earnings test functions as a high effective marginal tax rate that creates a significant liquidity risk for retirees who miscalculate their annual income thresholds."
The article correctly outlines the mechanics of the Social Security earnings test, but it frames the 'withholding' as a benign deferral rather than a liquidity trap. While it is true that benefits are recalculated at full retirement age (FRA), the immediate reduction in cash flow can be catastrophic for retirees relying on those checks for essential expenses. Furthermore, the article glosses over the tax implications; withheld benefits are still subject to income tax, effectively creating a high marginal tax rate on earned income for those in the 'gap' years. For investors, this creates a disincentive for labor participation among the 62-67 demographic, potentially tightening the labor market in service-oriented sectors.
The earnings test acts as a necessary guardrail to prevent high-income earners from double-dipping, ensuring the solvency of the OASI Trust Fund by discouraging early benefit claims.
"The article's '$23,760 bonus' is marketing hype; the actual value of working while collecting Social Security before FRA is highly contingent on individual factors and often far smaller than the headline implies."
Reading this, the core takeaway is that you can work while collecting Social Security, but the earnings test before FRA is real and number thresholds change annually. The article touts a flashy '$23,760 bonus' as if it’s a guaranteed extra income; in reality, the benefit depends on birth year, exact thresholds, tax treatment, and how long you live post-FRA. The 'recovery' mechanism isn’t a lump sum—it's a recalibration of a lifetime benefit via the SSA formula (AIME/PIA) that’s also affected by inflation and Medicare premiums. It glosses over taxes on Social Security, potential loss of premium subsidies, and the opportunity cost of delaying other retirement savings. Timing is far more important than any headline figure.
The strongest counterpoint is that for high earners who expect a long life, the lifetime uplift from earnings-tested benefits can be meaningful; the headline 'bonus' might reflect real, durable value in certain scenarios. In some cases, the net present value of continuing to work before FRA can exceed the value of claiming early.
"Spousal PIA linkages turn the earnings test into a multi-person disincentive that individual analyses understate."
Gemini's liquidity framing misses the spousal-benefit channel: a worker trimming hours to dodge the test can shrink their partner's future PIA recalculations at FRA, layering an extra household penalty atop the marginal rates Grok flagged. This interaction lengthens the effective earnings-test window as FRA rises, quietly reducing total lifetime household benefits for dual-earner couples even when individual cash flow recovers later.
"The spousal-penalty mechanism is real but its macroeconomic significance hinges on unverified behavioral assumptions about hours reduction."
Grok's spousal-benefit penalty is real but overstated for the median case. Most couples hitting the earnings test are already high-earners with substantial independent PIA records; the marginal spousal adjustment is typically small. The bigger blind spot: nobody's quantified how many 62-66 year-olds actually *reduce* hours versus simply not claiming early. If behavioral response is minimal—most delay claiming anyway due to longevity awareness—the policy's labor-supply drag shrinks dramatically. Need actual labor-force participation data by age cohort post-2020, not inference.
"The earnings test acts as a behavioral deterrent to labor participation that transcends simple actuarial calculations."
Claude, your assumption that labor supply drag is minimal ignores the 'wealth effect' of the earnings test. When retirees see their benefits clawed back, the psychological impact of losing current income often outweighs the actuarial promise of future adjustments. This is a behavioral bias, not just an economic calculation. By focusing on the median, you miss the lower-middle-class cohort where the liquidity trap forces early retirement, permanently removing them from the workforce and exacerbating the labor shortage.
"The spousal-benefit interaction is material for many dual-earner households, not just a median-case concern."
Claude, you downplay the spousal-benefit channel by focusing on median households, but dispersion matters. In dual-earner couples, the working spouse’s earnings-test score can trigger reductions that ripple into the nonworking spouse’s PIA and FRA recalculations, sometimes shaving meaningful lifetime benefits, especially near FRA and Medicare/tax cliffs. The risk isn’t ‘small’ for the tails—lower-middle to upper-middle—where household wealth and labor supply dynamics can be materially affected.
The panel generally agrees that the Social Security earnings test before full retirement age discourages work among 62-66 year-olds, potentially tightening the labor market, but the extent of this effect and its impact on household benefits is debated.
Better understanding and quantification of behavioral responses to the earnings test, particularly regarding labor force participation by age cohort, could inform policy changes (Claude).
The liquidity trap created by the earnings test can force early retirement, permanently removing workers from the labor force, exacerbating labor shortages (Gemini).