Scott Galloway reveals real Social Security problem — and the fix | Official Website of Louis Velazquez, entrepreneur, finance guy and tech innovator

Republican lawmakers are preparing to advance President Trump’s sweeping Big Beautiful Bill in the coming days, with the Senate expected to hold its first procedural vote as early as June 28.

According to the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office, which considers variables such as interest rates, inflation, and projected economic performance, the estimated cost is $2.8 trillion.

New York University professor and popular podcaster Scott Galloway says Democrats have criticized the bill but have failed to offer alternatives, which he believes is a missed opportunity.

That being the case, Galloway has a few thoughts of his own on problems with the bill and some suggested solutions, including how to handle increasingly pressing problems with Social Security.

💵💰Don’t miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet’s free daily newsletter💰💵

Despite earning $16 million annually, Galloway believes he shouldn’t receive Social Security benefits in retirement. He argues that means-testing — evaluating financial need — should be used to determine eligibility.

He points out that although he makes millions, he still pays only about $9,000 a year into Social Security, the same amount as someone earning $160,000 due to the payroll tax cap.

In Galloway’s view, many Social Security recipients end up collecting two to three times what they contributed over their lifetimes.

He suggests that high earners such as himself, while technically eligible, don’t necessarily need or deserve Social Security benefits simply because they paid into the system.

Galloway explains further views on Social Security and what the Big Beautiful Bill might have included given different leadership in Congress.

A retired couple is seen holding hands and walking on a beach. New York University professor and popular podcaster Scott Galloway explains his proposed solutions for unfair taxes on the young and Social Security solvency.

Shutterstock

Scott Galloway explains Social Security trends, offers a fix

Galloway lays out some key facts that he believes should be driving the conversation about what should be done to fix Social Security.

“Since 1957 the share of Americans who are 65 and older has nearly doubled from 9% to 17%,” Galloway wrote in his “No Mercy / No Malice” newsletter on June 27.

“At $1.5 trillion dollars, Social Security is the largest expenditure in the federal budget. U.S. seniors are the wealthiest cohort in history and the recipients of the largest redistribution in history, he added.”

More on personal finance:

Galloway points out that Social Security, which currently provides benefits to around 69 million Americans, is facing a looming funding shortfall expected to hit within the next eight years.

He attributes this financial strain to a combination of factors:

The growing number of Americans entering retirement (a positive sign of longevity and economic success)
Longer life expectancies that mean people collect benefits for more years (also positive from a human perspective)
A troubling dip in workforce participation, which results in fewer workers paying into the system to support current retirees

“If/when Social Security becomes insolvent, America’s grandparents will likely put their retirement on their grandkids’ credit cards,” Galloway wrote.

“The fix is straightforward, but politically fraught: Means-test benefits and raise the retirement age (exempting people in physically demanding professions),” he added.

According to a CBO analysis, Galloway explained, an increase in full retirement age by two months per birth year until it reaches age 70 for Americans born in 1978 or later would decrease total federal outlays by $122 billion through 2032.

Scott Galloway suggests another Social Security change

Galloway explains his belief that phasing out benefits for those with more than $150,000 of non-Social Security income would save an estimated $600 billion to $700 billion over the course of a decade.

“We now spend $5 on seniors for every $1 on children,” Galloway wrote. “Enough already. Seniors who need Social Security should get it, but it shouldn’t mean an upgrade from Carnival to Crystal Cruises for NaNa and PopPop.”

“At current rates, within a decade, we’ll spend half our federal budget on programs for seniors,” Galloway added.

Galloway also explains his views on an issue he believes to be a tax on the youth.

He argues that tax policies such as reduced rates on long-term capital gains and mortgage interest deductions disproportionately benefit older and wealthier Americans — essentially moving resources from younger, lower-income individuals to those already financially secure.

He highlights the fact that asset ownership — stocks and real estate — is largely concentrated among the wealthy and older population, while younger and poorer Americans are more likely to rent and earn most of their income from wages.

In his view, this creates an unfair dynamic where those with the least are indirectly subsidizing the wealth-building of those with the most.

Galloway advocates eliminating both the preferential tax treatment for capital gains and the mortgage interest deduction, proposing that investment windfalls be taxed at the same rate as regular income.

According to his estimates, doing so could generate an additional $117 billion in annual government revenue.