Scott Galloway has bold words for Americans on Social Security

As retirement security concerns intensify and entitlement programs' long-term viability faces mounting scrutiny, a new conversation is emerging around how to preserve Social Security for future generations.

Scott Galloway, the outspoken professor and entrepreneur known for his sharp critiques of economic inequality, focuses on a bold remedy for Social Security.

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

He argues that affluent retirees — those with substantial assets and income — should voluntarily decline their benefits. It’s a provocative stance that reframes retirement not just as a personal milestone, but as a civic responsibility.

Galloway’s proposal seems to be a call to rethink the social contract in an era defined by demographic shifts and widening financial disparities.

Galloway’s viewpoint emerges amid growing uncertainty about the longevity of Social Security. With Social Security Administration projections indicating that the program’s trust fund could run dry within the next decade, automatic reductions in benefits loom unless lawmakers take decisive action.

On this point, Galloway expresses his view that legislators will at some point act to save Social Security from being forced to reduce monthly payments to retired Americans.

“Old people keep living longer, and they vote, so we're more likely to get rid of schools, the space program, and half the Navy before we fail to fund Social Security,” he wrote in his book, “The Algebra of Wealth.”

While traditional reform proposals tend to revolve around measures such as raising the retirement age or boosting payroll contributions, Galloway introduces a compelling ethical angle: Should financially secure individuals opt out of receiving benefits to help safeguard the system for those who truly rely on it?

His suggestion confronts the ingrained notion of entitlement and opens the door to a deeper conversation about equity, long-term viability, and the role of personal responsibility in public policy.

At the heart of Scott Galloway’s argument is the idea that Social Security should evolve from a universal benefit into a more targeted safety net.

Means-testing — where benefits are reduced or eliminated for individuals above a certain income or asset threshold — has long been politically toxic.

The Brookings Institution argues that the popular narrative that social programs targeted by income are politically unpopular may be overstated.

Galloway suggests that affluent retirees, especially those with significant investment income or business assets, should opt out of receiving benefits as a gesture of solidarity and pragmatism.

Social Security remains a financial challenge for retirees in the U.S. — and New York University professor Scott Galloway has intriguing thoughts on how to fix the federal program.

Shutterstock.

Younger Americans are increasingly questioning the long-term viability and fairness of Social Security.

Many Millennials and members of Gen Z, weighed down by educational debt and navigating unpredictable career paths, doubt that the program will offer them the same level of support it provided to previous generations.

In this context, Galloway’s suggestion can be interpreted as a generational gesture — an opportunity for financially comfortable retirees to contribute to the system’s stability for those who genuinely rely on it.

More on personal finance:

Galloway’s critique of Social Security is part of his larger philosophy about personal finance and retirement planning.

He advocates for simplicity, discipline, and long-term thinking — principles that are increasingly relevant in a volatile economic landscape.

With inflation eroding purchasing power and market uncertainty rattling investors, traditional retirement strategies are being reevaluated.

Galloway encourages individuals to focus on low-cost index funds, avoid high-fee financial products, and prioritize financial independence over early retirement fantasies.

Scott Galloway's ethical challenge to affluent retirees

What makes Scott Galloway’s position compelling is not just its economic logic, but its ethical undertone.

It challenges affluent Americans to reconsider their relationship with public resources and to ask whether receiving benefits they don’t need is consistent with their values.

As the retirement crisis deepens and policymakers search for solutions, voices like Galloway’s offer a new lens through which to view entitlement reform.

His proposal may not become law, and it may not be embraced by all, but it introduces the narrative that those who have benefited most from the system have a role to play in preserving it.