Half of America is amazed by these Social Security payments: 'They shouldn't'

A controversial statement by Professor Scott Galloway from New York University has shaken millions of Social Security beneficiaries in the United States. During his podcast "The Prof G Show," he claimed that between 10% and 30% of retirement check recipients "shouldn't" receive them.

His argument has sparked an intense debate about the fairness and sustainability of the SSA. Galloway explained that people with more than a million dollars in assets or passive income exceeding $100,000 annually do not need Social Security.

Tremendous shock in the United States over Social Security: controversial opinion

"It's a tax, not a pension," he stated, pointing out that many wealthy beneficiaries receive two or three times more than what they contributed while working. The professor also criticized the regressive nature of the current system, where both he, who earns $16 million a year, and someone who earns $160,000, pay the same amount in taxes.

"Why don't the rich pay their share to support our seniors?" he questioned. Galloway advocates for implementing a "means-testing" system. This would involve assessing each individual's financial situation to determine if they really need to receive Social Security payments.

According to him, this measure would help ensure the program's sustainability and focus it on those who truly need it. Nonetheless, Galloway's statements have raised concerns among current and future Social Security beneficiaries.

Why has it caused such a stir in the United States? Pay attention to this

Many fear that a reform based on means-testing could reduce or eliminate their benefits. Additionally, the idea that a significant portion of recipients "shouldn't" collect has been seen by some as a lack of recognition for years of contributions to the system.

However, others support the proposal, arguing that the current system favors the "wealthy generation" and that it needs reform to ensure its long-term viability. According to a report from the Social Security Administration, if no changes are made, the fund could be depleted by 2033, resulting in a 25% reduction in monthly payments.

The discussion is on in the USA

Scott Galloway's opinion has ignited a crucial debate about the future of Social Security in the United States. While some see his proposals as a necessary solution to preserve the system, others consider them a threat to acquired rights.

The truth is that, with an aging population and growing financial challenges, the discussion about who should receive Social Security payments is more relevant than ever.