gamb00ler

You may be referring to the rate you get from an ATM after you have chosen to have the withdrawal amount denominated in your home currency. Of course the ATM will only dispense the local currency but the ATM owner determines the exchange rate in that case. I think that is called Dynamic Conversion. You should never choose to have the withdrawal amount denominated in your home currency.

for sure.... have you seen how effective the Thai government isn't?

Just copy this and paste it into the browser address bar, then add your browser name to it and then search for it: "safe browsing mode"

The truth is NOTHING about the SSA affects the national debt..... you'll have to wait until they change the law for that to be anything of interest. The SSA numbers have been off budget since 1990.... if something is not on the Federal budget.... it can't affect the national debt. Even when the SS trust fund is depleted.... the Antideficiency law prevents the Federal government for taking money from its budget to sustain payment of SS benefits at 100% of what was promised.

there's no hope for you.... LOL

Have you accidentally enabled the safe browsing option?

Here's some simple questions for you. If you miss any of these, you'll never understand why you're wrong about the SS trust fund and the national debt. Are the T-bills held by the SS trust fund real assets? They're definitely a real liability on the Treasury balance sheet, so they have to be a real asset on somebody's balance sheet. If not on the trust balance sheet, then where? Are all T-bills and other debt obligations sold by the Treasury part of the national debt? If you don't agree then what determines if a debt obligation is included or not? (I've given you the Treasury's answer). If a bank customer has a significant interest bearing savings balance (no overdraft protection) but goes through a long period with no deposits but a lot of withdrawals.... is the bank losing money or adding debt ? (I mean other than the point spread they lose by not being able to lend out the withdrawn funds).

You must have received a 'special' email.... that's not what mine said. The fecal GOP bill added an additional exemption for ANY kind of income for the 65+ crowd. It could be used to exempt income from drug dealing. You are reporting yours, right? 😆😆

The banks do not set the exchange rate you get through debit/credit card used for foreign purchases or ATM withdrawals. VISA and MasterCard (or whatever card company processes the transaction) set the exchange rates. https://usa.visa.com/support/consumer/travel-support/exchange-rate-calculator.html https://www.mastercard.us/en-us/personal/get-support/convert-currency.html

I'm sorry your tear-soaked paper bag fell apart and your beer hit the ground.

I don't like the part that is not true! Oh wait.... that's 100% of his promise that's not true!

I never said the shortfall wasn't going to create a problem with benefit payment in the future. Of course I know that come 2032 that SS benefits will be cut by about 20% unless the government makes changes in the funding of SS. You aren't paying attention. My disagreement with you, @TedG and the Cato institute is that the national debt has not yet been impacted by that shortfall. You three... just keep yelling that I'm wrong supported with nothing but opinion pieces by misinformed authors. Show me some actual proof! Give a concrete example of what happens when FICA revenue doesn't cover benefit outlays. A concrete example will detail at each step where the money goes. There is no hand waving allowed. If as you claim, that you understand the process.... that should be a simple task. I put forth my concrete example within the last few days. The only change in the national debt due to the 2010 and onward shortfall is that the portion of the debt FUNDED by the SS trust fund is decreasing. That decrease each year will cause the SS trust fund to cease funding a portion of the national debt in 2032. Since 2010 the Treasury has been slowly switching a portion of the national debt from the SS trust fund to other T-bill purchasers, but the total owed is unchanged. Just like any other portion of the revolving national debt, the matured/retired T-bills held by the trust fund, are replaced by newly sold T-bills with the same face value. The overall effect is a wash. I've provided plenty of proof from SSA websites that your understanding of the interaction between the national debt and the SS is WRONG! There is NO interaction and there never has been. Come 2032.... that may change.

@JimGant Here's the exact procedures Treasury uses to invest FICA funds in governments national debt: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2025/III_A_cyoper.html#:~:text=By law%2C the Department of,the needs of the funds. My prediction of the Treasury's procedures was pretty close.

LOL a golden moment for the sycophants and the rich but a golden shower for everyone else.

Then they ignore the facts. The SS trust funds are FUNDING the national debt. That's indisputably a fact. Essentially ALL government borrowing is included in the national debt. Et voilá. Although the numbers are now dated, this article does not ignore any details like the Cato article does: https://www.epi.org/publication/social_security_and_the_federal_deficit/ Who do you choose to believe? Here's the Treasury's listing (MSoft word format) of who owns the national debt: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/treasury-bulletin/2025/b2025-2fd.doc

@JimGant The SS trust funds have two relationships with the Treasury. The Treasury serves as a bank for the SS trust funds. Here is how the Treasury fulfills that role: Since the Treasury is the payer of every SS benefit AND the initial recipient of ALL FICA taxes, it makes sense that the SSA trust fund does not transfer any funds to or receive any funds from the Treasury. FICA funds received become increases in the SS trust fund T-bill balance and all SS benefit payments become decreases in that balance. Also the interest payable on the T-bill balance is delivered via an increase in the trust fund's T-bill balance. The SS trust doesn't move any funds around. That work is all done by the Treasury. This is the same everyday processing done on your chequing account at a bank. I'm pretty sure typical banking functions don't involve sleight of hand or dirty little secrets. The second relationship between the Treasury and the SS trust funds is strictly as lender/borrower. Here is the description of that relationship: When the SSA trusts buy T-bills they fulfill the same role as EVERY other T-bill owner fills. They become lenders that fund the US national debt. As a T-bill owner the SS trust funds have the same limited relationship with the Treasury as any other investor. The SS trust fund's effect on the Treasury is not greater or less than that of any other T-bill investor. Where the Cato Institute and many others, go wrong is conflating the two relationships between the Treasury and the SS trust funds. This is a serious mistake. The two relationships are completely separate and independent. I wonder why the Cato Institute ignores the fact that the reduction in amounts owed to the SS trust fund offsets the extra borrowing required to cover the shortfall in FICA taxes.... political bias maybe? Just for fun, I'll be calling the Cato Institute to see if I can reach Romina Boccia the author of the Cato article you linked in a previous post. I already emailed them.

To be brief.... NO. You don't seem well informed on SSA's practices and procedures. They don't make any payments. The Treasury makes every SSA benefit payment. My bank account tells me that Social Security paid me but a quick Google search will reveal the processing is done by the Treasury. Those payments are 'on behalf' of the SSA. In actuality, I believe that all FICA taxes are received by the Treasury and just credited to the SSA's 'bank account'. Proper accounting entries will ensure correct attribution of funds received. This is a much simpler transaction than unneeded transfers back and forth between different government agencies just to buy T-bills. The end result is that SS trust funds do increase their T-bill holdings with every FICA collection. I agree... the SS trust funds are just an accounting entity. They don't handle any funds directly. All that work is handled by the Treasury's accountants. That doesn't mean that SSA doesn't have an impact on all contributors and beneficiaries, after all they are the ones in charge.... Treasury is just a flunky doing the paperwork. How can you just ignore the SS trust funds interest income? Is it that you don't think it's real because there isn't any direct transfer from Treasury identified solely as T-bill interest? Or is it because you considered it to be only a value on paper because it is entirely held in T-bills? I'm sure you count the compounded interest accumulated in your retirement accounts as an asset belonging to you and solely for your use as you see fit. Are all your retirement assets real or only paper? The SSA trust fund, including accumulated interest is definitely REAL and effective. You should know this because it has been used to ensure that beneficiaries receive 100% of their benefits since 2010 despite a shortfall from FICA collections. SSA trust fund is just a complicated retirement account (earning interest) shared by millions. The money belongs to the contributors for their collective use per the benefit schedule. NO, No and no. When the SS trust fund was growing.... it DID NOT REDUCE the deficit. What it did reduce is the amount of T-bills sold to other investors. The T-bills the SS trust fund purchased played the same role as every other T-bill sold to buyers..... they FUNDED the deficit.... but did not reduce it. Same as for any year, the Treasury sold sufficient T-bills to cover the interest on the national debt and the gap between Federal gov't expenditures and tax revenue for the current fiscal year. The Treasury did NOT reduce the amount of T-bills sold due to SSA purchases.... just that some portion of the T-bills sold were purchased by a different arm of government instead of an investor. If you include EVERY cash flow, but you don't. You selectively ignore what doesn't fit with Cato misinformation.

You're making an emotional choice not a logical one because the figures don't lie. You cannot deny that the amount owed to the SS trust funds (by the Treasury) is declining. And since the balance is held in essentially T-bills and T-bills represent the national debt...... the only possible conclusion is that the share of the national debt held by the SS trust funds is declining. So... that portion of the national debt absolutely is declining. You should view the balance of T-bills held by the SS trust funds as a bank balance. It is after all, invested in one of the safest asset classes. When Treasury makes a benefit payment, it reduces that balance to match the benefit. If in 2010 the benefits paid was $200 but the FICA taxes were only $100, the Treasury would reduce the SS T-bills balance by $200, but would receive $100 from the SSA to invest in a new T-bill. That leaves a net reduction in the national debt of $100 .... .but the Treasury needs to cover the shortfall from SS funding ($100) by selling a T-bill to another investor for $100.... so the national debt goes back up $100. The interactions between SS trust fund and the Treasury in 2010 did NOT increase the national debt. This is ultra simple once you discard all the hype and misdirection, and don't get confused by the seemingly incestuous dealings between different sectors of the government.

They are definitely a problem for the longer term, but I believe the SS trust fund was intended to handle them in the short term. Nothing has been papered over. In 1982 the SS Trustees already acknowledged the problem in their annual report.

@JimGant.... I have understood this for quite some time..... but... I couldn't explain it well. Our discussion has definitely improved how well I understand it and hopefully how well I explain it. I hope it's more clear now. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

well.... the short quote you gave is 100% correct.... it just doesn't include a crucial consequence. That consequence is that the Treasury also simultaneously reduces what it owes to the SS trust fund. Since the trust fund T-bills are actually already funding the national debt.... the effect on the debt is a wash.

I was comfortable with what that article was saying..... until this point: This myth gives a false sense of security about the program’s financial stability and obscures the urgent need for reforms while the “trust fund” has a positive balance, to be depleted by 2033. This is the critical misconception: the existence of the Social Security Trust Fund does not make it easier to pay benefits when they come due. The Trust Fund’s assets are not tangible savings but IOUs from the federal government to itself. When Social Security needs to redeem these bonds to cover benefit payments, the Treasury must find the money somewhere other than from the trust fund—either by collecting more in taxes, redirecting other spending, or increasing the national debt. The national debt is NOT increased. The statement is partially correct. The Treasury must find the money and they do so by selling more T-bills to other investors..... BUT at the same time they redeem the special T-bills held by the SS trust fund in exactly the same amount. The net result is that the national debt remains the same because the T-bills held by the SS trust fund were actually funding a portion of the national debt. The transaction that occurs is a sale of new T-bills and simultaneously a redemption of older T-bills (held by trust funds) of equal value. After the dust settles, Treasury owes the SS trust funds less and owes other investors more. Maybe the simplest way to describe how the combination of SS trusts and Treasury works is to say 'every time Treasury pays a SS benefit, it reduces the amount it owes to the SS trust funds'.

If you're referring to the figures in my post, do you understand any of the Latin phrases commonly used in English? Please look up 'per capita'

asked and answered

Here is the version of your post that I answered: How much does a billionaire make in income? You subsequently edited your question.