Oleh Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
Apa yang dipikirkan agen AI tentang berita ini
The panel generally agreed that while working in retirement can potentially increase Social Security benefits, the current system presents significant risks and disincentives. These include immediate cash-flow gaps, potential tax bracket creep, and the 'earnings test' acting as a regressive tax on labor for the middle class. The panel also highlighted the uncertainty around future policy changes, which could further impact retirees' benefits.
Risiko: The 'earnings test' acting as a regressive tax on labor for the middle class, potentially disincentivizing continued workforce participation.
Peluang: Potential increase in Social Security benefits for those who can work longer and earn enough to exceed their low-earning years.
Analisis ini dihasilkan oleh pipeline StockScreener — empat LLM terkemuka (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) menerima prompt identik dengan perlindungan anti-halusinasi bawaan. Baca metodologi →
Penerima Jaminan Sosial mungkin ingin bekerja untuk menambah jumlah cek mereka.
Penting untuk memahami aturan kerja, karena manfaat Anda bisa terpengaruh.
Manfaat bisa meningkat atau sementara menurun, tergantung usia dan pendapatan Anda.
Bagi banyak orang lanjut usia, pensiun tidak berarti sepenuhnya meninggalkan dunia kerja. Itu bisa berarti mengurangi jam kerja, beralih ke posisi yang kurang menuntut, atau dengan cara lain memilih untuk tetap bekerja dalam kapasitas tertentu.
Sementara beberapa orang terus bekerja karena mereka menginginkannya, yang lain membutuhkan untuk terus mendapatkan gaji karena pendapatan gabungan mereka dari Jaminan Sosial dan rencana pensiun tidak akan mencukupi.
Apakah AI akan menciptakan triliuner pertama di dunia? Tim kami baru-baru ini merilis laporan tentang satu perusahaan yang kurang dikenal, yang disebut "Monopoli yang Tak Tergantikan" menyediakan teknologi penting yang dibutuhkan oleh Nvidia dan Intel. Lanjutkan »
Namun, sebelum Anda mulai bekerja di tahun-tahun pensiun Anda, Anda harus memahami bagaimana mendapatkan penghasilan dari pekerjaan dapat memengaruhi manfaat Jaminan Sosial Anda. Tergantung pada usia dan penghasilan Anda, pekerjaan Anda dapat menyebabkan peningkatan atau penurunan sementara dalam manfaat, dan Anda ingin tahu apa yang diharapkan.
Jika Anda berencana untuk menerima Jaminan Sosial dan gaji secara bersamaan untuk membantu Anda memenuhi kebutuhan, Anda harus menyadari bahwa ini tidak selalu mungkin.
Jika Anda sudah mencapai usia pensiun penuh (FRA) Anda, bekerja sebanyak yang Anda inginkan tidak akan menjadi masalah, karena cek Jaminan Sosial Anda tidak akan terpengaruh. Tidak ada batasan berapa banyak yang dapat Anda hasilkan.
Namun, jika Anda belum mencapai FRA, ada batasan tergantung pada apakah Anda akan mencapai tonggak sejarah ini selama tahun tersebut atau tidak sama sekali. Secara khusus:
Administrasi Jaminan Sosial dapat menahan cek penuh ketika Anda melampaui batas penghasilan.
Sekarang, jika Anda melewatkan manfaat karena Anda melampaui batas ini, manfaat bulanan Anda dihitung ulang pada usia pensiun penuh Anda. Anda mendapatkan kredit untuk manfaat yang terlewat, dan cek di masa mendatang menjadi lebih besar.
Namun, fakta tetap bahwa Anda tidak akan dapat menghasilkan jumlah uang yang tidak terbatas dari pekerjaan sambil menerima manfaat. Dan jika Anda diharapkan untuk memiliki kedua sumber pendapatan, ini dapat mengacaukan perencanaan pensiun Anda.
Bekerja juga dapat meningkatkan manfaat Jaminan Sosial Anda dalam beberapa kasus, terlepas dari apakah Anda sudah mencapai FRA atau belum.
Manfaat bulanan Anda didasarkan pada rata-rata gaji selama 35 tahun, yang disesuaikan dengan inflasi. 35 tahun penghasilan tertinggi Anda dimasukkan dalam perhitungan.
Jika Anda bekerja dengan tingkat pembayaran yang lebih tinggi sekarang daripada yang Anda lakukan di awal karir Anda, terus bekerja lebih lama dapat menghasilkan peningkatan manfaat. Tahun-tahun penghasilan yang lebih tinggi di akhir karir Anda dapat menggantikan beberapa tahun penghasilan yang lebih rendah di awal karir Anda dalam 35 tahun yang digunakan untuk menghitung manfaat. Ini dapat meningkatkan pendapatan Anda.
Penting untuk memahami aturan ini, karena Anda mungkin membuat keputusan berdasarkan aturan tersebut, seperti berpotensi memutuskan untuk bekerja satu atau dua tahun lagi untuk meningkatkan cek Jaminan Sosial Anda dan membuat diri Anda kurang bergantung pada 401(k) atau IRA Anda.
Sekarang Anda mengetahui detailnya sehingga Anda dapat membuat pilihan yang lebih tepat.
Jika Anda seperti kebanyakan orang Amerika, Anda tertinggal beberapa tahun (atau lebih) dari tabungan pensiun Anda. Tetapi beberapa "rahasia Jaminan Sosial" yang kurang dikenal dapat membantu memastikan peningkatan pendapatan pensiun Anda.
Satu trik mudah dapat membayar Anda hingga $23.760... setiap tahun! Setelah Anda mempelajari cara memaksimalkan manfaat Jaminan Sosial Anda, kami pikir Anda dapat pensiun dengan percaya diri dengan ketenangan pikiran yang kita semua inginkan. Bergabunglah dengan Stock Advisor untuk mempelajari lebih lanjut tentang strategi ini.
Lihat "rahasia Jaminan Sosial" »
The Motley Fool memiliki kebijakan pengungkapan.
Pandangan dan opini yang diungkapkan di sini adalah pandangan dan opini penulis dan tidak selalu mencerminkan pandangan Nasdaq, Inc.
Empat model AI terkemuka mendiskusikan artikel ini
"Earnings-test withholding before FRA creates interim liquidity shortfalls that often trigger taxable retirement-account draws, an interaction the article omits."
The article correctly flags the 2026 earnings thresholds ($24,480 pre-FRA all year, $65,160 in FRA year) and the later PIA recalculation, yet it downplays timing risk: withheld benefits create immediate cash-flow gaps that retirees often bridge with taxable IRA withdrawals, locking in higher ordinary-income rates and potential IRMAA surcharges on Medicare premiums two years later. Higher late-career wages do replace low early years in the 35-year AIME, but only if those new wages exceed the indexed prior minimums after inflation adjustment; many part-time roles fail this test. No mention is made of state tax treatment or spousal-benefit interactions.
Most retirees who exceed the limits still receive the withheld amounts via higher future checks within 12-18 months, so the liquidity hit is largely a planning inconvenience rather than a permanent loss.
"The article correctly explains earnings limits and benefit recalculation but omits that working longer only increases benefits if current earnings exceed your lowest 35-year average—a condition that becomes rarer the longer you've already worked."
This article is primarily educational, not news-driven, and contains a critical omission: it doesn't address the 2024-2025 policy environment around Social Security solvency or potential rule changes. The earnings limits cited ($24,480 and $65,160 for 2026) are real but the article treats them as static. What's missing: discussion of whether these thresholds will tighten if Congress acts on solvency concerns, or conversely, whether delayed-retirement credits (8% annual boost post-FRA) make working longer financially superior to claiming early. The '$23,760 bonus' teaser is clickbait—vague and unsubstantiated. For retirees, the core insight is sound: working can increase benefits via recalculation, but only if new earnings exceed prior low years. The article doesn't quantify how rare that is for someone already retired.
The article assumes Social Security rules remain stable, but if Congress moves toward means-testing or benefit reductions for higher earners, the 'work longer to boost benefits' strategy could backfire—especially for those in peak earning years who might face clawbacks.
"The SSA's earnings test creates a significant liquidity risk for retirees that isn't fully offset by the long-term benefit recalculation."
The article frames working in retirement as a flexible strategy, but it glosses over the 'tax trap' inherent in these rules. While the Social Security Administration (SSA) eventually recalculates benefits at Full Retirement Age (FRA) to account for withheld funds, the liquidity crunch in the interim is real. For retirees relying on these checks for essential expenses, a temporary withholding effectively acts as an interest-free loan to the government. Furthermore, the article fails to mention that these earnings are also subject to federal income taxes, potentially pushing retirees into higher tax brackets and reducing the net benefit of 'replacing' lower-earning years in the 35-year calculation.
The strongest counter-argument is that the 'withholding' is actually a forced savings mechanism that prevents retirees from over-leveraging their income and ensures higher baseline monthly payments for their later, more expensive years of life.
"The real economics of working in retirement are highly individual and the headline benefits cited in the article can misprice taxes, Medicare implications, and longevity risk."
The article correctly notes that working in retirement can affect Social Security, but it glosses over the real-world economics. Net gains depend on your exact 35-year earnings history, when you claim relative to your FRA, and how benefits phase in with taxes and Medicare premiums. The touted $23,760 boost is marketing-driven hype rather than a universal windfall; for many households, the incremental benefit from delaying benefits is modest and could be offset by higher taxes on benefits and potential Medicare surcharges. It also omits how inflation-driven earnings thresholds change annually and the longevity risk of outliving benefits. Overall, the advice is messy and case-specific, not a slam-dunk.
Bullish on the decision to work longer: for high earners with long life expectancy, delaying benefits and continuing to work can unlock sizable, compounding lifetime payouts that exceed the article’s modest examples.
"Solvency reforms could turn temporary withholdings into permanent cuts for higher earners."
Claude flags solvency-driven rule changes but misses their direct collision with the earnings test. Any FRA hike or means-testing would convert Grok's temporary withholdings into permanent benefit cuts, magnifying Gemini's liquidity and tax traps while eroding the longevity upside ChatGPT noted. Retirees banking on recalculation at current FRA could face clawbacks instead of credits.
"Ordinary income tax on work earnings, not future rule changes, is the immediate tax trap the article ignores."
Grok's collision thesis is sharp, but it assumes Congress moves on solvency via benefit cuts rather than revenue increases (payroll tax hikes, cap raises). That's plausible but not inevitable. More pressing: nobody's quantified the tax-bracket creep from earned income plus Social Security benefits plus RMDs for a typical 67-year-old. That three-way squeeze often wipes out the recalculation gain before any clawback happens. The article's silence on marginal tax rates is the real omission.
"The combination of the earnings test, benefit taxation, and IRMAA creates a prohibitive effective marginal tax rate that discourages work more than the article implies."
Claude is right about the three-way tax squeeze, but misses the behavioral reality: the 'earnings test' acts as a regressive tax on labor for the middle class. When you combine the 50-85% taxation of Social Security benefits with the earnings test withholding and the phase-in of IRMAA, the effective marginal tax rate for many retirees exceeds 60%. This isn't just a liquidity issue; it's a massive disincentive to remain in the workforce, which hurts broader labor participation.
"Policy solvency fixes may take multiple paths, not universal clawbacks, so Grok's 'permanent damage' framing needs scenario-based quantification."
Grok, I’d push back on the ‘permanent clawback’ framing. Solvency fixes could take multiple paths—targeted revenue hikes, higher payroll caps, or means-testing—none of which guarantees broad, durable reductions for all retirees. If Congress prefers revenue tweaks over flat benefit cuts, recalculation gains might survive for many earners. The analysis should quantify probabilities across four policy paths and their net present value, not assume a one-way, doom-loop outcome.
The panel generally agreed that while working in retirement can potentially increase Social Security benefits, the current system presents significant risks and disincentives. These include immediate cash-flow gaps, potential tax bracket creep, and the 'earnings test' acting as a regressive tax on labor for the middle class. The panel also highlighted the uncertainty around future policy changes, which could further impact retirees' benefits.
Potential increase in Social Security benefits for those who can work longer and earn enough to exceed their low-earning years.
The 'earnings test' acting as a regressive tax on labor for the middle class, potentially disincentivizing continued workforce participation.