Advertisement

Prof G says 10% to 30% of these on Social Safety don’t want it and are hurting younger Individuals. Is he proper?


Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Scott Galloway speaks at the Prof G Markets live podcast at the Vox Media Podcast Stage
Rick Kern/Getty Photographs

Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC might earn fee or income via hyperlinks within the content material beneath.

The way forward for Social Safety advantages is a prime concern for Individuals, however Professor Scott Galloway isn’t satisfied this system is crucial for everybody.

“Someplace between 10% and 30% of people that get Social Safety proper now shouldn’t obtain it. As a result of they don’t want it,” the New York College professor, who is understood for his controversial takes, stated in an episode of his podcast, The Prof G Pod.

“I will go as excessive as a 3rd of senior residents shouldn’t be getting Social Safety.”

Galloway suggests this not simply as a method to cut back financial inequality within the U.S., but in addition as a possible answer to chop prices in a program that faces insolvency points because of shifting demographics. With out reform, the Social Safety belief funds shall be depleted by 2035. Because of this, advantages for all recipients could be routinely lower by 17%.

Right here’s why Galloway thinks critical reform and dramatic profit cuts are required.

Galloway described American seniors as “the wealthiest era within the historical past of this planet,” elevating issues concerning the equity of the present Social Safety system.

Annually, roughly $1.2 trillion is transferred from youthful staff — a lot of whom are scuffling with debt, rising dwelling prices and stagnant wages — to retirees, in line with Galloway. In 2025, round $1.6 trillion in advantages shall be distributed, with about 80% going to retired staff and their dependents.

Galloway argues that this switch locations an unfair burden on Gen Z and millennials, who shoulder many of the Social Safety prices via payroll taxes. To assist right this imbalance, he proposes reducing or eliminating advantages for the wealthiest 10–30% of retirees.

“I believe it’s known as the Social Safety tax — not the Social Safety pension fund — as a result of we don’t even have a assured proper to it at 65,” Galloway stated.

“The concept that ‘I paid in, so I ought to get it again’ doesn’t maintain up, since most individuals find yourself withdrawing way over they ever contributed.”

With the highest 10% of Individuals holding a median internet value of $7.8 million, in line with latest Federal Reserve information, many on this wealth bracket doubtless wouldn’t be considerably affected if their Social Safety advantages had been diminished or eradicated.