Moneywise
6 min read
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below.
The future of Social Security benefits is a top concern for Americans, but Professor Scott Galloway isn’t convinced the program is essential for everyone.
“Somewhere between 10% and 30% of people who get Social Security right now should not receive it. Because they don’t need it,” the New York University professor, who is known for his controversial takes, said in an episode of his podcast, The Prof G Pod.
"I'll go as high as a third of senior citizens should not be getting Social Security."
-
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
-
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis
-
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
Galloway suggests this not just as a way to reduce economic inequality in the U.S., but also as a potential solution to cut costs in a program that faces insolvency issues due to shifting demographics. Without reform, the Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2035. As a result, benefits for all recipients would be automatically cut by 17%.
Here’s why Galloway thinks serious reform and dramatic benefit cuts are required.
Galloway described American seniors as “the wealthiest generation in the history of this planet,” raising concerns about the fairness of the current Social Security system.
Each year, approximately $1.2 trillion is transferred from younger workers — many of whom are struggling with debt, rising living costs and stagnant wages — to retirees, according to Galloway. In 2025, around $1.6 trillion in benefits will be distributed, with about 80% going to retired workers and their dependents.
Galloway argues that this transfer places an unfair burden on Gen Z and millennials, who shoulder most of the Social Security costs through payroll taxes. To help correct this imbalance, he proposes cutting or eliminating benefits for the wealthiest 10–30% of retirees.
“I think it’s called the Social Security tax — not the Social Security pension fund — because we don’t actually have a guaranteed right to it at 65,” Galloway said.
“The idea that ‘I paid in, so I should get it back’ doesn’t hold up, since most people end up withdrawing far more than they ever contributed.”
With the top 10% of Americans holding an average net worth of $7.8 million, according to recent Federal Reserve data, many in this wealth bracket likely wouldn’t be significantly affected if their Social Security benefits were reduced or eliminated.
