NEWSLETTER
Many Americans who work that prepare for retirement (regardless of their age) have questions about saving and investing for the future, social security and future viability of the federal program.
Author and Podcast Galloway firmly addresses a detail of social security policy with a brief statement that explains his controversial opinion.
Do not miss the movement: register in the free daily newsletter
A question that people often have about Social Security implies whether their benefits are enough to trust only during retirement.
The consensus among retirement experts is that the answer is no; Other savings and investment vehicles must be planned during the years of work.
Related: Scott Galloway warns Americans about Social Security, retirement money
The most common retirement savings tools that Americans use to release them from the future dependence of monthly social security payment checks are 401 (k) s sponsored by the employer and go with tax advantages (individual retirement accounts).
Many wonder which of these is more effective for retirement savings. The answer is that both, used in combination, is an intelligent approach.
Because a 401 (k) generally involves an employer coincidence to a certain percentage of an employee's income, a good recommendation is to bring the couple to the maximum and invest the rest in an anger.
Rsth IRA is often recommended, because taxes are paid in advance, allowing retirement withdrawals to be tax free.
Another concern that people have about Social Security is whether they will be present when they retire. Without legislative actions, it is reported that its an old and survivors' insurance fiduciary fund (OASI) will run out of money in 2033.
At that time, the continuous income of Social Security would only be sufficient to pay the recipients 79 percent of its expected benefits.
Galloway, however, has a strong opinion on another policy problem on how Social Security is financed.
Shuttersock
Scott Galloway explains the Social Security Tax in 6 words
Galloway explained a blunt opinion in a different fight that would choose on how Americans should pay for social security.
“I mean, the Social Security Tax,” Galloway said in a statement that he <a target="_blank" href="https://www.instagram.com/profgalloway/reel/CvNl96ZtFzm/”>aware to instagram. “Let's say you are earning $ 150,000 per year. Pay $ 9,000 per year or approximately 6% in social security taxes. If I do $ 1.5 million a year, I pay, I hope, $ 9,000 a year. The Social Security Tax exceeds 160k.”
Galloway then made his opinion about the Social Security Tax to a very brief statement.
“That makes it a regressive tax,” he said.
In general terms, a regressive tax is more a load for low -income persons, because the tax amount applies uniformly, regardless of the income level.
More about personal finance:
- Tony Robbins has blunt words about anger, 401 (k) sys
- Scott Galloway warns US workers about Social Security, retirement failure
- Dave Ramsey explains a truth Roth Ira, 401 (k) Blunt Truth
“So this only reflects what has happened in all industries and that is the inequality of income within the industry,” Galloway continued. “CEO compensation is out of control. I don't know if there is something you can do about it.”
“What you can do is at least make you pay their fair part of taxes.”
Related: Scott Galloway has a 6 -words response to the mortgage, rent, home crisis
Scott Galloway believes that Social Security must be tested
In the past, Galloway has expressed an opinion that he believes, as someone who earns $ 16 million for hearing, should not be eligible to collect social security.
“They call it a Social Security Tax,” he said. “There are many taxes that I pay where I do not record the benefits. It is not called the Social Security Pension Fund.”
Galloway explained that, over time, most people who raise Social Security end up taking the amount of money they pay through the Social Security Tax two or three times.
This, Galloway said, is an argument for media test.
The thought is that the monthly social security benefits mean much more for a person for whom it is a higher percentage of their general retirement income than for a person for whom it is only a small percentage.
That being the case, Galloway believes that for people at a certain level of income, social security payment checks are simply not necessary.
Related: The veteran fund manager presents a striking prognosis S&P 500
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js”>
