Older Americans who collect Social Security while still earning a paycheck face a withholding rule that can cut into their monthly benefits. Sen. Rick Scott, Republican of Florida, introduced legislation during the 119th Congress that would eliminate that penalty entirely. The bill, S. 4184, known as the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act of 2026, was announced at a Senate hearing focused on keeping seniors in the workforce, and it would repeal the retirement earnings test that currently reduces benefits by $1 for every $2 earned above $24,480 for those below full retirement age.
How the earnings test hits working seniors right now
The retirement earnings test is a formula the Social Security Administration applies to beneficiaries who claim before reaching full retirement age and continue working. In 2026, anyone in that group who earns more than the annual threshold of $24,480 per year sees $1 withheld from benefits for every $2 above the limit. For someone earning $40,000 while collecting early benefits, that means roughly $7,760 withheld annually. The money is not permanently lost; the Social Security Administration recalculates benefits upward once a person reaches full retirement age. But the immediate reduction discourages many people from working additional hours or taking higher-paying jobs during their early to mid-60s, because the short-term hit to their checks feels like a tax on labor.
Scott, who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, framed the earnings test as a direct work disincentive when he announced his proposal at the committee’s hearing titled “Experience Matters: Seniors and the Workforce.” He introduced the bill alongside Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama. Ranking Member Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, also provided written testimony at the same hearing, though the committee page does not include her position on the specific bill.
What repealing the test would change for workers aged 62 to 69
If enacted, the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act would amend Title II of the Social Security Act to remove the earnings test altogether. The text of Scott’s legislation specifies that benefits could no longer be withheld based on wages or self-employment income for retirees under full retirement age. That means a 63-year-old collecting benefits could earn any amount without triggering a reduction in monthly checks. The practical effect would be most visible among people between 62 and their full retirement age, typically 66 or 67, who currently limit their hours or turn down work specifically to stay under the exempt amount.
A reasonable expectation is that repeal would produce a measurable short-term increase in hours worked by people in that age range who are already claiming benefits. Federal labor force data collected through the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey track employment rates by age group, including workers 55 and older. If the bill became law, shifts in work patterns among early claimants could show up in monthly survey microdata within a year of enactment, offering a concrete way to gauge whether removing the penalty actually changes behavior or simply reshuffles existing work arrangements.
The distinction matters because the earnings test already includes a payback mechanism. Benefits withheld before full retirement age are restored through higher monthly payments later. Critics of repeal argue that eliminating the test does not increase lifetime benefits; it just changes the timing. Supporters counter that the timing still matters to household budgets, especially for seniors with limited savings who rely on each month’s check to cover rent, utilities, and medical costs. From that perspective, letting beneficiaries keep their full benefit while they work can make the difference between maintaining employment and dropping out of the labor force altogether.
Policy debate at the Senate Aging Committee
The broader policy context surfaced during the Special Committee on Aging’s hearing on older workers. Lawmakers and witnesses at the “Experience Matters” session discussed how demographic shifts and labor shortages intersect with seniors’ desire or need to stay employed. Scott used the forum to argue that the earnings test sends the wrong signal at a time when many industries are looking for experienced staff and when inflation has eroded the purchasing power of fixed incomes.
Opponents of repeal, including some Social Security advocates and budget hawks, worry that eliminating the test could raise near-term program costs. Because the current system withholds benefits and then increases them later, ending the test would front-load payments for those who keep working, even if lifetime benefits remain similar. That could accelerate cash outflows in the coming decade, when Social Security’s trust funds already face strain.
Supporters respond that any additional cost must be weighed against higher income tax revenues from increased work, as well as the broader economic value of keeping experienced workers in jobs longer. They also emphasize that the earnings test is poorly understood; many people believe they are permanently losing benefits, not simply deferring them. Removing the provision, they argue, would simplify the program and remove a psychological barrier that keeps some older Americans on the sidelines.
For now, S. 4184 represents a clear marker in the debate over how to treat work after claiming Social Security. As Congress weighs the bill, the core question is whether the program should continue to penalize earnings for early claimants, or whether encouraging work – even at the cost of higher short-term outlays – better serves both seniors and the broader economy.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
