gamb00ler

On 7/3/2025 at 12:58 PM, JimGant said:

Thus, you’re of the Bernie Sander’s school of accounting, where the negative cash flow, paid by Chinese dollars, isn’t a problem because the Trust fund doesn’t run out of IOU’s until 2033 or so

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.

On 7/2/2025 at 3:51 PM, gamb00ler said:

The end result is that SS trust funds do increase their T-bill holdings with every FICA collection.

@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.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

No, because they know that intragovernmental debt is a non player when it comes to reporting a meaningful deficit number. And that only public debt, e.g., those bonds sold to China should be considered.

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.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

The SSA wouldn't invest in a new T-bill without positive cash flow -- the SSA pays out its total cash flow in to beneficiaries

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.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

which is: the Trust fund is just an accounting entity, trying to match cash flow in with cash flow out -- to make sure Social Security pays for itself. What's going on now, and since 2010, is: It isn't paying for itself, when you look at cash flow in vs. cash flow out.

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.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

And, for sure, this increases the deficit - in cash terms (in return for decreasing the deficit back in the years loaned for aircraft carriers)

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.

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

So, let's stick with cash flow -- for a balanced discussion. 

If you include EVERY cash flow, but you don't.  You selectively ignore what doesn't fit with Cato misinformation.

54 minutes ago, JimGant said:

So, the real question is: What's the definition of debt?

 

 

I guess that sums it up....it comes down to accounting vs. reality. I agree with Cato, that the increase in public debt due to cash flow deficits is the key factor -- not that, when netted with intragovernmental debt (those Trust Fund IOU's) that there is no increase in debt. That conclusion just papers over the fact that negative cash flows ARE a problem. 

 

Anyway, probably time to move on. 

 

 

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.

24 minutes ago, JimGant said:

That conclusion just papers over the fact that negative cash flows ARE a problem. 

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.

1 minute ago, JimGant said:

 So you're saying the following is BS?

 

 

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.

34 minutes ago, JimGant said:

gambooler, please critique the below article, as it parallels what I've been saying.

Please note that the article points out that Bernie Sanders doesn't understand how the system works either -- so you're running with some interesting company.

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/social-securitys-41-trillion-hidden-government-deficit

 

One germane quote from the article:

 

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'.

On 6/29/2025 at 9:01 AM, JBChiangRai said:

Unless you take population into account, it’s a meaningless statistic.

 

 

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'

Just now, Mike_Hunt said:

Yes.  How much?

asked and answered

4 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

It’s an easy question.  Is the term billionaire a measure of wealth or income?

Here is the version of your post that I answered:

How much does a billionaire make in income?

You subsequently edited your question.

2 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

None of you lefties want to answer this question.  Why?

there is no answer simple enough for you to understand

14 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

How much does a billionaire make in income?

the first step on the path to comprehension requires asking the right questions

34 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Thank you. Love our northern cousins, having worked in a US-located NORAD command post for four years, where it was one/third Canadian. The CF-101 squadron at Comox, on Vancouver Island, had the world's best, and rowdiest parties. A quick flight from our HQ at McChord AFB in Washington. 

Canadians get a lot of opportunity to perfect their partying during the long and cold Canadian winter.  No so much of a nasty winter in Comox but further inland it gets tough.  I grew up just about as far as possible from any ocean, so the winters were very cold and long.   It didn't help.... I was never any good at partying.

57 minutes ago, JimGant said:

And am I "implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold" -- of course I am! How else can the Treasury get the hard cash to pay off the Trust fund IOU's -- other than by selling T-bills to Joe Blow or Ahha Wong -- since there haven't been any positive tax collections in decades. And will all these annual payouts for cashed in IOU's increase annual deficits? Yep, dollar for dollar.

 

Nope... still wrong.  Instead of the SS trust funds buying a few T-bills, the Treasury did have to sell the same amount in T-bills to another investor.  That's the only thing that changed when the SS intake did not fully pay the SS benefits.  In other words, the Treasury still borrowed the exact same amount of money they would have borrowed but it now was borrowed from non-governmental borrowers.

The amount of money the Treasury raises through T-bill sales is solely determined by how much interest they pay on the national debt, how much deficit between expenditures and tax intake in the current fiscal year and investor sentiment.  The balance between intragovernment purchases of T-bills and outside purchasers does change, but the total of T-bills sold matches the amount the Treasury determined with no attention paid to SSA's needs.  THERE IS ZERO flow of funds from the Federal budget to SSA, except the special circumstances I described in a previous post.  There can't be any flow..... because the SSA plays NO role in the Federal budget per the 1990 change in law.

If you work through a concrete example, you'll see where you've made your mistake.

Another link with related content:

https://seniorsleague.org/the-law-that-would-prohibit-payment-of-your-full-social-security-benefits/

On 6/4/2025 at 4:22 PM, JimGant said:

And, I alluded to your Canadian connection. Any meaningful comparisons of US SS with the Canadian equivalent? That might be enlightening.

The Canadian version (Canada Pension Plan, CPP) is much less generous than US SS, but of course that is because the 'premiums' are much less.  When I first moved to US from Canada, I was still working for the same Canadian IT consulting firm.  In that situation, I was given the choice of contributing to CPP or SS.  Being financially unsophisticated at the time, I chose the cheaper plan... LOL.  Canada also has an additional small senior's benefit (Old Age Supplement,OAS) that is not based on taxed earnings, instead it is based solely on citizenship, age and length of residence in Canada.

The combined benefits may be sufficient for basic needs, but I am not well informed as I haven't lived in Canada for 40 years.  For those seniors with very low income and CPP, the OAS will be augmented substantially.  My family remaining in Canada all had solid educations and careers so they had good incomes and substantial pensions.  I have a poor understanding of the quality of life that Canadians with lower income and pensions can achieve.

The Wiki for CPP seems to be comprehensive and accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#:~:text=This system is a hybrid,contributions from rising any further.

Here's info about how the CPP is funded and the investments managed:

https://www.cppinvestments.com/faqs/

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

But, come 2010, the Treasury finally had to trade some Trust Fund IOU's for hard cash

Where does this notion come from?  How do you propose that the Treasury conducts such a trade?  The Treasury doesn't hold any Trust Fund T-bills.  The SS trust funds hold those special T-bills.  If you're implying that the Treasury had to increase the amount of T-bills sold..... that's completely illogical.

The amount of T-bills sold is dependent on the current Federal deficit.  The T-bills held by the SS trust funds are indeed helping finance the Federal deficit.  But, if SSA didn't buy those special T-bills the Treasury would just sell an equivalent amount of regular T-bills to a different investor.   The amount of interest paid on the national debt would be identical regardless if SS trust funds bought any T-bills.

The amount of T-bills sold is ALWAYS determined by the Federal budget and SSA's activity as a T-bill buyer has ZERO effect on that amount.  As I describe below.. SSA is NOT a part of the Federal budget since 1990.

The Treasury has been handing cash to the Trust fund for decades as payment for interest.  The cash that the Treasury handed over for 2010 through 2021 was ALL due to interest payable.    As far as the Treasury is concerned it matters not wether SS trust funds consider that cash to be interest or capital. 

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

Nope. It had to borrow more in 2010 -- and more ever since, because the Trust Fund had to cash in some IOU's to get hard cash to cover the cash flow deficit.

100% incorrect.  The SS trust funds are completely isolated from the Federal budget.  Every facet of the SSA is completely separate from interaction with the Treasury... except in a very typical lender/borrower relationship.  That's why there has not been a single $ (in cash or any other asset class) paid by the Treasury to support SSA.  The SSA/Federal budget got mostly divorced in 1986 and completely divorced by 1990. 

If there were anything but a lender/borrower relationship, a line item in the Federal budget would have to show the allocation of non-FICA  tax dollars to the SSA.  That hasn't happened except in unusual circumstances such as when the Feds gave taxpayers a break on FICA taxes for a year or two.  When that happened the Feds compensated the SSA trust funds for that taxbreak so that OASI balances were not affected.

From :

https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

So, by 1986, Social Security was technically off-budget, but it was still being used in the deficit calculations. Absent other legislative change, this would have continued until 1993. However, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 the law was changed to stop the use of the Trust Funds for any function in the unified budget, including calculations of the deficit. One sub-part of OBRA 1990 was called the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA), and it was this sub-part that specified this change in the law.

11 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think the best workaround is to have a significant amount of money transferred from your overseas account to your Thai account of your significant other, a few times a year and then just withdraw from your local account. Fewer tax implications and lower ATM fees. 

The only time I would recommend sending large sums of US$ to Thailand is if the US$ looks to be falling with respect to the Thai ฿.  The yields on deposits or the market opportunities in US are far superior to what's available here.  Normally it's better to transfer what you need for the short term but have the ability to transfer larger sums when emergencies require it.

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

No, better to point out the year that cash flow out exceeded cash flow in. And that "dirty little secret" would be 2010. And because the country was in deficit, the Treasury had to borrow from the public the cash to make up for that cash flow shortfall. Thus, 2010's deficit increases accordingly. So too deficits in years afterwards. And, of course in accumulation -- the national debt. 

 

complete bunk.  do you not include interest in the value of your IRA,401(k),SEP's?

In 2010 the government would borrow exactly the same amount if it had to repay some Chinese investor instead of paying interest to the SS trust fund.  The SS trust fund then judiciously decided to use that interest to pay benefits owed. 

I really can't believe you're so easily misled about this.

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

But since 2010, and every year hence, the Treasury has had to add to the national debt -- by selling Treasuries to the public to pay back those SS IOU's. Now, with interest IOU's no longer able to cover cash flow shortfalls -- IOU's of principal are having to be redeemed by the Treasury -- and this accounting number will be depleted in 2032 -- or earlier.

 

and some more bunk.  The Treasury borrows what it needs to service the national debt and the current fiscal year's deficit.  It would borrow that same amount regardless of what the SS trust fund does with its capital.   Therefor the national debt and the interest it accrues does not change when the SS trust fund buys a T-bill. The national debt is a continuing debt completely separate from SS funds.  As T-bills mature, the capital plus interest is sent to the buyer of the T-bill and then a new T-bill is created and sold to replace the maturing issues.  The national debt remains the same after the transition to the newly issued T-bills.

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

 

Can you not understand that a loan from the SS fund is identical to a loan from any and all other T-bill purchasers?  Like most investors with a maturing T-bill, the SS will keep its money safely invested by purchasing a new T-bill.  The SS funds are invested in a revolving loan to be used by the Treasury to cover the revolving national debt.  

21 minutes ago, JimGant said:

But forgetting the accounting slight of hand being played here

You're just being paranoid.  There is no slight of hand.  The dealings between the Treasury and the SS trust funds only differ in how the Treasury repays the T-bills principal plus interest.  Instead of two cash transactions needed for the Treasury to repay the lender (SS trust fund) and then for the lender to purchase a new T-bill.... the Treasury just sends out the benefit payments via cheques and deposits, the total of which is then deducted from the amount owed to the SS trust fund.  Other than that repayment method the dealings between Treasury and SS trust funds represent completely normal transactions between borrower and lender.

11 minutes ago, Everyman said:

I thought it was 250 already. 

 

Any fee that targets foreigners and not Thais, is popular in Thailand. 

Many jurisdictions impose fees/taxes that are almost exclusively targeting non-locals.  Hotel room and car rental tax come to mind.  Many US cities have these specific taxes in addition to sales taxes.

51 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The families of the victims are outraged at any idea of a plea deal.  Hopefully, they will have some influence on the lawyers.

Your statement seems to be at odds with the ABC News article which said:

Prosecutors said they then met with available family members last week, "weighed the right path forward and made a formal offer" to Kohberger.

I see other new sites also disagree with the ABC News on that matter.  Another reason for me to continue ignoring ABC.