Scott Galloway Sends Strong Message on Social Security

Monday, April 07, 2025

Galloway, who earns $16 million annually, believes that Social Security benefits should not be available to people with that much wealth, including himself. He supports the idea of using means-testing to determine eligibility for the monthly payments.

Posted by Corky at 12:33 PM | 18 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Any billionaires who tries to say that not all billionaires are bad should let their actions speak louder than their words. Maybe they should start by agreeing to pay the same tax rate as everyone else, with the same proportional social security contributions. No caps. No ceilings. Just equality.
-- Kelly Barnhill (@kellybarnhill.bsky.social) April 2, 2025 at 11:23 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Galloway also believes exceptionally wealthy people are not taxed at a high enough rate that pays their fair share to fund the federal program.

He explains that he pays $9,000 in Social Security taxes each year, which is the same amount paid by someone with an annual income of $160,000."

"The author says generating passive income is the key to building wealth, and that the amount of money one needs for financial security varies per individual.

That money total comes down to a simple plan: Generate more passive income than the rate at which you burn money. Galloway calls this a person's "burn rate."

He explains the math in the following way:" more at the thread link

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-06 10:57 PM | Reply

"Galloway, who earns $16 million annually, believes that Social Security benefits should not be available to people with that much wealth, including himself."

Reagan taught poor people it was unfair to rich people if rich people don't get something back for what they paid in, to Social Security, which is for poor people.

They don't see the problem with that reasoning.

But, they did pay in, so they should get paid out.

I'm fine with taking the lowest of the five highest earning years and reducing the benefit percentage by the amount of income percentage over the cutoff level.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-06 11:17 PM | Reply

If we don't let millionaires get their social security, how will they afford another yacht?

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-04-07 11:38 AM | Reply

Another classic case where the government want's full participation on the contribution side but not the distribution side. It's an example of the unspoken reality that SS needs the funds and desperately needs successful people to bow out quietly rather than participate - because our politicians have mismanaged our money - again...

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-07 03:14 PM | Reply

"Another classic case where the government want's full participation on the contribution side but not the distribution side."

Lol not even close.

You only fully participate in the contribution side if your wages are under $168,800.01.

And you only participate in the distribution side if you earned the required minimum wages for forty quarters. Which is why my cousin's family got no survivors benefits from Uncle Sam when he died; he didn't work ten years in the US.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I read the article describing Scott's plan but would it actually be enough to guarantee SS will be solvent when someone who is entering the workforce today will be able to rwhen ecieve benefts when they reach retirement age; whatever age that will be then? Did I miss something?

#6 | Posted by danni at 2025-04-07 03:47 PM | Reply

because our politicians have mismanaged our money - again...
#4 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

In SS?

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a very low error rate in its payments, with improper payments accounting for less than 1% of total payments, according to a 2024 report from the agency's inspector general.

In the recent court case regarding Trumpy's attack on the CPA the judge assign to the case said this:

The administration, she wrote, "was so disingenuous that the court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything

And that applies to Trumpy's rabid followers like you. You maga maroons just repeat Trumpy's lie like scripture and don't care whether any of it is true or not. You are not capable of telling the truth about anything.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-04-07 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"the court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth"

Yeah this needs to be the default judicial temperament to anything the Untied States government says in court.

The United States routinely lies in court. It's a shame it took Trump for judges to finally notice.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 03:56 PM | Reply

Has anyone bothered to draft a funding formula for SS that reflects ideas/strategy such as the one Galloway mentions?

Anything more than just "wealthy shouldn't be receiving SS".

As if that helps. What's "wealthy"? How do we measure that? I could ask a dozen more questions that have no answer.

Is anybody serious about this?

#9 | Posted by eberly at 2025-04-07 04:01 PM | Reply

"Is anybody serious about this?"

We'll have to wait for the midterms to find out?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 04:10 PM | Reply

Means testing is one of three keys to stabilizing and strengthening Social Security. The others are (1) raise the tax limit on contributions, and (2) raise the minimum age for both partial and full benefits.

Americans (for now) are living longer, so are drawing on more benefits. Many are working past what was once considered 'retirement age', either because they want to (like me) or they need to because they did not save on their own. As for means testing, I agree that those very wealthy folks who would otherwise qualify for full SS benefits should get something--after all, they did contribute to the program. But unlike all at the low end of the personal wealth spectrum who need SS to live, rich folks do not need the money. Give them back what they paid in with some nominal return on their funds invested, but keep the rest for others in greater need. Socialism? Perhaps? Will it keep a lot of people from eating dog food from a can in their old age? Yes...

#11 | Posted by catdog at 2025-04-07 04:54 PM | Reply

People who didn't contribute all year shouldn't get checks all year.

Do the same thing Social Security does now to determine your benefit, which is your max earnings across five years.

Whatever portion of those earnings were above the cutoff for paying into Social Security, your Social Security benefit is reduced proportionately.

Admittedly this would be very bad for people who made tons when they were young and squandered it and never regained those kinds of earnings. So maybe do the last five calendar earning years for such cases.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 05:01 PM | Reply

You only fully participate in the contribution side if your wages are under $168,800.01.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Everyone participates until they crest the $176,100 mark.

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-07 08:45 PM | Reply

In the recent court case regarding Trumpy's attack on the CPA the judge assign to the case said this:

The administration, she wrote, "was so disingenuous that the court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-04-07 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're focusing on errors, I'm focusing on the stupid ---- they did on purpose... Big difference.

#14 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-07 08:46 PM | Reply

"I'm focusing on the stupid ---- they did on purpose"

What did they do?

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-07 08:54 PM | Reply

The Democrats will never allow "means-testing" because then SS will be viewed in the light of what it actually is - a welfare program. Thus, they will require 100% participation regardless of it being a horrible return for its participants. Take your 2% return and like it!

#16 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-07 09:36 PM | Reply

"The Democrats will never allow "means-testing" because then SS will be viewed in the light of what it actually is - a welfare program."

That is why since FDR's time Democrats have not wanted means testing but it is no now and never has been welfare. It is paid forexclusively by payroll taxes on employees and employers. It has never been paid out of the other revenue streams of the federal government and back in the 1980's, during the Reagan Presidency we doubled the SS tax to insure that .ehe SS Reust Fund would be large enough to fund our retirements.

"Take your 2% return and like it!"

If you become disabled and can't wotk you probablt will like SS disability SS isn't an investment it's insurance.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2025-04-08 10:00 AM | Reply

"SS isn't an investment it's insurance."

They don't see the value of insuring the poor.

Look at how they cheer the speed of COVID and Measles.

Anything that hurts the poor, they support it. Anything. Tariffs, tax cuts for the rich, decline in median household income since 2000. To them, these are all things that Make America Great Again.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-08 10:12 AM | Reply