Patong2021

Yes. If you wanted to really press the point, you could go back to the 1980's when the issue was critical. Allan Greenspan had the commission on funding. It's easy to blame politicians though. Every time they want to reform, people come back and complain that they won't contribute more or accept reduced payments. maybe it's time for the US population to put on their big boy pants and deal with the issue and accept the changes of increased contributions and/or limited benefits.

It most certainly can. The US Congress decides the funding for the Social Security administrative budget. The 2025 administrative budget is $75.7 billion. This money comes form the US taxpayer. You have confirmed that the Social Security payments program is supported by the payroll tax and a self-employment tax. You do not deny that excess contributions were required to be invested in US debt. The interest on the debt is paid by US taxpayers. The investment principal is guaranteed by US taxpayers. Yes, Social Security payments would be required to be reduced if the Trust fund is exhausted. However, the reality is that while there is no law in place that requires taxpayers to make up the difference, the economic impact of a shortfall would be devastating. The US experience has shown that there would be a bail out using taxpayer money. This was done for the auto industry and the banking industry. The Social Security payments represent 5% of the US GDP. It is considered a too big to fail part of the economy. 90% of the elderly income is derived from social security payments.

You seem so focused on trying to show me up that you are ignoring what I wrote; Canada will not pay the supplemental Old Age Security guaranteed income to non residents. What part of SUPPLEMENTAL did you not understand? And FYI, The GIS is indeed part of Old Age Security. The government says so. It states this on the website. It is one of 3 additional Old Age Security benefits. And yes, I stated that the GIS is not paid to people living outside canada. And as per the OAS website, there are conditions for non residents to collect, because it is not universal - have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada - have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18 The last condition is rather critical for those who have been living in Thailand since the age of 18 and have not legally resided in Canada for at least 20 years.

Ok. And then there are those who become a burden on others. I am weary of carrying that burden and then being criticized when i say enough.

Ok. You left out a large number of critical facts. What was this? A technical school, a quality university with international accreditation? If it was one of the mediocre Thai educational facilities, it would make sense not to see foreigners, because hopefully, that could do better. Technically, all non Thais are farangs. You may have missed the Myanmar, Malaysian and Chinese foreign students in attendance. There are 30,000+ foreign students in Thailand. Not a lot, but they are there. The capable western foreign students, like many of the Thai students who can afford it, leave Thailand for graduate and post graduate education. Some also leave for undergraduate studies. The Thaksin clan made sure to complete their education at US universities. In respect to the "place" that farangs hold, it is no different than in your home country. Socio economic characteristics determine one's position in the hierarchy. Don't expect uneducated and retirees of limited financial means to occupy high social status. Nor will IT gig workers, day traders and generic day trippers from border countries occupy high status. The foreigners with wealth and status jobs such as diplomats, scientists, senior business executives have status. They always have and they socialize in circles that the typical western foreigner never breaches. The top layer of foreigners engages in a self preservation type of segregation, avoiding and excluding anyone who is not of perceived acceptable status. It can be intimidating to be invited to dinner at someone's palatial home filled with servants. Certain foreigners also occupy a higher status just because of their nationality and location; For example Japanese people are typically treated with more respect than the run of the mill Australian. It's all about personal presentation, politeness, deference and visual image. This is why the experienced westerners warn others to dress appropriately when interacting with the police or immigration.

She is rather pathetic. She is asking the public to pour more scorn and ridicule on her incompetent self. No patriotic citizen will agree with her. One need only look at the critical errors underway in the USA to understand her folly.

What large Israeli jewish population? Didn't the immigration and government confirm that on any given day, no more than 84 Israelis are in Pai?

Oh look at what you did, with that. You are not particularly cleaver. On the contrary, the comment demonstrates that you are not familiar with the issue, nor willing to consider the actual facts. BTW the country you think you are laughing about both raises swine and exports pork products. And no they are not the exclusive domain of Christians. On any given day, no more than 84 people of the nationality that you claim are an overload, are present in Pai. On any given day, none are the subject of an arrest or a court case. On the the other hand there are a number of western people who are. Perhaps if Pai made bathing and being lice free a requirement, it might reduce tourist overload from certain origins. If a requirement for an education and proper dental hygiene was added, it might further slash numbers.

And label all British visitors as drug traffickers and repeatedly write, deport, deport, deport and then make generalizations about British passport holders, you know stuff like colonial savages, and money lusting demons who control the banking system.

So let's see: It initially worked, but stopped after collecting data on 50 million visitors. If it was 50 million individuals or just 50 million visitors, many of whom are repeat visitors and doesn't this sound like a memory issue?

Absolute rubbish. Canada is a nation and is far more cohesive than you assert. There are far fewer ethnic ghettos in Canada than in the USA or Russia. There are most certainly common goals and aspirations and this has been demonstrated by the ability of Canada to maintain peace and good government during the Covid crisis. Provinces and territories were helping each other sharing resources and pooling funds for purchases, while some US states were busy outbidding other states for medical supplies and others went without because they had no money. The economy is not in free fall. And no Canada is not worst in terms of productivity per capita. because Canada is a resource driven economy, the productivity will be lower as more people are needed to do mining, lumber collection etc. than are needed for other types of activity. Canada's weakness is that it allowed too many foreigners to buy up its industries. If it was smart, it would start nationalizing key industries and send bloodsuckers home.

The USA was not being bombarded daily. The USA did not have 20%+ of its nation occupied. The USA only became actively involved in the war in late 1942. The US election in November 1944 took place when the Axis was on the verge of defeat. There was no existential threat to the USA as the Axis were incapable of doing damage to the continental USA by that time. Ukrainian legislation directly prohibits holding elections under martial law. Even if it did allow them, dozens of unsolvable practical and security issues would render it literally impossible to ensure a fair electoral process in the circumstances of a total war. - 700,000+ Ukrainians are deployed in the war zone. How would they vote? - 8 million+ or 20% of the population has left Ukraine to love elsewhere temporarily. How would they vote? - Would Ukrainians in occupied Ukraine be able to participate in the election? Please get some new talking points from MAGA/Kremlin.

Please note that Social Security as of 2020 has been paying out more than it has collected from deductions and other revenue . The difference is taken from the trust funds that are intended to support the program in the future. In effect, eating into the assets that were to support future payments. Prior to 2020, there were 11 years in which benefits paid out exceeded income and so the assets of the Trust Funds had to be spent to make up the difference. This cashing-in of the Trust Fund bonds amounted to about $26 billion in those 11 years. As long as the current payments are not being paid for by the initial investments and their income generated, and the deficiency is addressed by cashing trust funds paid by other contributors (through their payroll taxes and mandatory deductions) then it can be said that the taxpayers are supporting social security. This is because the money that is intended to support those contributors future payments is being directed to pay current obligations. Note too that the he Social Security trust funds are limited by law to investing their reserves in U.S. government debt. The debt is guaranteed by the US taxpayer. The US government and the population access are ready made pool of money at a competitive interest rate. Sweet deal for the USA. Not so sweet for many SS contributors who earn a lower rate of return through this investment requirement than had the money been invested in a conventional manner.

The majority of Canadians wanted a much tougher position on the small group of protestors who terrorized residential neighborhoods. They were a collection of uneducated, ignorant bigoted bullies who were handled with kid gloves. Angus Reid Institute survey, 69% of respondents said they opposed the protesters themselves – their approach and behavior – versus just 27% who said they were supportive of the protesters. In addition, 72% said the protesters have made their point and should “go home now,” while 22% said the protesters should “stay in Ottawa and other protest sites until their demands are met.” 44% said the protests had actually made them more supportive of these vaccination requirements, while 32% the protests had no real effect. In a Leger survey in collaboration with The Canadian Press news agency, 62% of respondents said they opposed the protests’ message of no vaccine mandates and fewer public health measures versus 32% who supported that message. Sixty-five percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: “The convoy is a small minority of Canadians who are selfishly thinking only about themselves and not the thousands of Canadians who are suffering through delayed surgeries and postponed treatments because of the ongoing pandemic.”

Not yet. He will resign once the governing party elects a new leader.

Trump is forcing Zelenskyy to remain in office. If Ukrainians are given a choice of endorsing Zelenshkyy or being bullied by Trump, they will hold their noses and support Zelenskyy. Ukraine can't hold an election because a large part of the country is occupied by Russia and/or at risk of being bombed should an election be held. Russia would also attempt to sabotage the election.

The "rich" as you call them have already paid their taxes. Overpayment of taxes should go pack to those who were overcharged. The poor citizens as you term them are already collecting far more than they contribute. I again remind you that the tax burden in "progressive" countries is carried by a relatively small number of citizens. If you wish to increase the amount of tax that certain people pay, then change the tax law and increase their tax rate. it is an issue separate and distinct from returning mney that taxpayers paid in good faith. In any case, all comments are moot. Trump intends to offset the revenues lost from proposed tax cuts by cutting government expenditures.

Russia would have committed to an all out war had that occurred.

To a certain extent it did. Russia consumed large amounts of German resources. It was a war of attrition.

After the near defeat of Israel in the Yom Kippur war, Israel said it would never be surprised again.

Because they have not contributed. The money should go to the people who paid that money. When you have a refund for overcharging, it is the person who paid who gets the refund, not willie the wino who will use the money to buy another bottle of ripple.

Sure. DIY Japanese Pizza Done on a Teppanyaki Hot Plate Okonomiyaki Dohtonbori Fuji Yoshida 4-11-16 Shinnishihara, Fujiyoshida 403-0017, Yamanashi In the event you wish to order pizza at a Teppanyaki restaurant. I doubt very much anyone would walk into a Thai restaurant, on the outskirts of Pattaya of all places and expect to find a kosher option.

Only some citizens would get the refund. Surely, no one expects that someone on welfare who has not paid taxes will receive a big payment??? 😄

I have not stated that anyone should not get what was agreed to. What we see today is that some beneficiaries are receiving far more than was intended under the program, and in excess of what their contributions and their accrued interest can support. The program has been expanded well beyond its intent. As of 2020, Social Security now pays out more in benefits than it collects in contributions and other income, combined. This is not sustainable. So, yes, your comment that some people are drawing more than they contributed is valid. Despite that current funding shortfall, it is an important benefits program and must continue. Social Security has dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly. Today, an estimated one-third of seniors rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income. Without access to the benefits, they would obviously be destitute. It is a critical component of the US economy. My comment is in respect to a small number of beneficiaries who collect more than their contribution was worth. Medicare coverage and Social Security benefits are two separate programs with their own individual rules and are funded differently. Medicare premiums already take into account the restrictive conditions. The burden of supporting social security has fallen on the shoulders of the young workers of the USA, and it is an unfair burden, The baby boomers had everything handed to them with their social services, subsidized lifestyles and low cost resources. In return, they left their country in a financial mess. Now these selfish people continue to suck the life out of their country demanding that others finance their retirements. Young people have had enough and want it to stop.

I am suggesting that people who are receiving benefits in excess of what their contributions are worth, should either not qualify for the excess benefits or should be taxed at a higher rate than if they were US residents. I am not suggesting that anyone be denied access to the benefits that they have paid for. It is theirs to do with as they wish. Nor am I suggesting that people who winter in Thailand for 2-3 or even 4 months be penalized. I suggest that you consider how such procedures are applied in other countries. Some countries restrict supplemental old age benefits for non resident retirees through the tax treatment of social benefits income. As I understand the complaints of Australian retirees, the old age pension is taxable income, Non Resident Australians lose their qualification for the tax free threshold and are therefore subject to tax on the full payment. Canada will not pay the supplemental Old Age Security guaranteed income to non residents. Some countries already freeze the benefits a person receives as soon as they become non residents. There are easy ways to manage the issue. The 180 day rule is used for other tax treatments. Why do you believe that the taxpayers should support non residents who are not contributing to the economic well being of their nation? My suggestion of limitation applies only to the amounts in excess of what the beneficiaries contributions are worth. To do otherwise is to exploit the US taxpayers. There are many affordable places in the USA. It's just that some people would rather be in an exotic locale playing golf or drinking beer in front of the 7-11 rather than Backwash, MS. The issue of affordability is moot. If the logic was followed through, these people could live on a pittance in the Congo or Bolivia, but the reality is that they choose to live in a delightful exotic locale like Thailand.