Should rich Americans still get Social Security?

At a time when U.S. entitlement programs face growing fiscal pressure, one high-profile voice is voluntarily stepping away from benefits: Scott Galloway. The tech entrepreneur, NYU professor, and podcast host—who reportedly earns over $16 million annually—has publicly argued that he should not receive Social Security in retirement. His position? America should apply means-testing to determine eligibility for payouts, not just the fact that someone contributed.

It’s a provocative idea. Especially now, as President Trump’s sweeping $2.8 trillion Big Beautiful Bill moves closer to a Senate vote with no mention of structural Social Security reform. Galloway’s argument lands like a challenge—one not just to politicians, but to the broader assumptions many Americans hold about fairness, contributions, and retirement security.

Means-testing is a policy tool that limits access to benefits based on financial need. If adopted for Social Security, it would reduce or eliminate payouts to retirees above a certain income or wealth threshold—those who, in theory, don’t “need” the support. This is already the norm for programs like Medicaid and food assistance. But Social Security has always been different: a universal system where everyone contributes and everyone gets something back.

Critics of means-testing argue that changing this universal nature undermines long-standing trust in the program. It opens the door to politicizing benefits and risks eroding middle-class support. Supporters counter that it’s financially responsible. Why should multimillionaires receive monthly checks when the system faces insolvency within a decade?

In his June 27 No Mercy / No Malice newsletter, Galloway laid out his case. Despite his wealth, he only pays around $9,000 a year into Social Security—the same as someone earning $160,000—because the payroll tax is capped. Yet in retirement, he could collect benefits worth two to three times what he paid in. His argument is simple: that’s not sustainable, and it’s not equitable. “At $1.5 trillion, Social Security is the largest expenditure in the federal budget,” Galloway wrote. “U.S. seniors are the wealthiest cohort in history and the recipients of the largest redistribution in history.”

His proposal? Phase out or significantly reduce benefits for the top 5% to 10% of earners. Not as punishment, but as stewardship—ensuring the system lasts for those who actually rely on it.

Demographically, the timing is critical. The share of Americans aged 65 and older has nearly doubled since 1957—from 9% to 17% today. And that cohort is living longer, drawing benefits for decades, and voting in record numbers.

Financially, the Social Security Trust Fund is on track to run out by the mid-2030s unless Congress acts. If that happens, current law mandates an automatic reduction in payouts by about 20%. And politically? Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill focuses on massive fiscal restructuring but steers clear of tough entitlement questions. This leaves reform advocates like Galloway to fill the void—raising ideas that could become policy fodder after the election.

If policymakers were to adopt Galloway’s vision, several models could emerge:

• Tiered Reductions Based on Income: Similar to Medicare Part B premiums, benefits could be gradually reduced for those with higher adjusted gross income.
• Wealth-Based Cutoffs: Payouts could be capped or removed for retirees with assets above a certain threshold (e.g., $2 million in retirement accounts).
• Delayed Eligibility: High earners might be required to wait longer to access benefits.

Each approach comes with administrative complexity and political risk. But in budget terms, even partial implementation could ease pressure on the system.

Whether or not means-testing becomes law, the larger takeaway is this: Social Security is no longer a guaranteed anchor. That has major implications for anyone planning retirement in the next 20–30 years.

To build a more resilient plan, consider this three-tiered projection model:

1. Full Payout Scenario: Use SSA’s official calculator for your retirement age and income.
2. Reduced Payout Scenario: Model a 20% benefit cut based on current projections.
3. Means-Tested Scenario: Remove Social Security from your plan if you expect to have high taxable retirement income.

The goal isn’t to assume the worst—but to ensure you’re not over-reliant on a single, politically vulnerable source of income.

Critics of Galloway’s approach warn of a slippery slope. If benefits can be taken away from one group, they argue, it becomes easier to reduce them for others. And if rich Americans no longer benefit from Social Security, they may be less inclined to support it politically. But Galloway isn’t advocating for defunding the program—he’s advocating for preserving it. In fact, his stance may be one of the few cases where a wealthy American argues for less personal benefit in favor of long-term public value.

Still, his proposal raises real questions about where to draw the line. Is it $250,000 in retirement income? $2 million in assets? Would someone just above the cutoff feel punished for saving? These are policy decisions. But they also underscore a personal reality: retirement security will increasingly depend on personal strategy—not federal consistency.

Means-tested Social Security may not happen this year. But the conditions that make it appealing—fiscal pressure, demographic shifts, growing inequality—aren’t going away. If you're in your 30s, 40s, or even early 50s, this is the time to rethink your assumptions. Diversify your retirement income, optimize your savings rate, and stress-test your long-term plan. Because when it comes to public benefits, eligibility can change—but your preparedness is in your control.

Or as Galloway might put it: just because you paid in doesn’t mean you should cash out—especially if it helps keep the system solvent for those who truly need it.