JimGant

Yeah, as Robert Kennedy Junior would say: Better an iron lung -- than cataracts.

I'm curious. That's the limit that I can transfer from my US bank -- with an ACH 'push.' Is this your limit -- or is that only a factor of my US bank? I ask, because the Wise limit is 2M baht, or around $60k. I noted earlier that you planned to send around $60k. Did you stumble on a $50k threshold with your financial institution? Thanx.

99% of the world's nations don't base taxation on REMITTANCES; they base it on worldwide income -- irrespective of whether or not said income is remitted. Where are you coming from?

The current choices wouldn't give them a clue. You'd need three new categories: Non Income; Assessable Income: Non Assessable income. And, do you think they really have the resources to bounce your selections against a tax filing -- or a no filing?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/09/take-a-look-he-pays-460-in-rent-for-a-luxury-condo-in-thailand.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawLdUkJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHjaPtZcWloNVU6DvQRBMdUhSEGv0Z0hOdXNxTzAqGQQplvppKBsiadmMAh7-_aem_Y92ur8dsoCWsiu4DjT9RGw Can someone identify this condo? Thanx

My last two transfers -- in May and June -- were for $25000 each. And both took seven days. Both to Bangkok Bank; ACH "pull" from USAA checking acct. Just did a couple dummy runs with Wise, and seven days is still the advertised timing -- at least for amounts above $2300 (two days for lesser amts). Can't send more than $50000 with ACH (Maybe with a "push." By I'm not set up that way).

Maybe this Cato blog will answer your question. https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt#:: A quote from the blog:

Nope, just markers -- but not assets to the US govt.

Well, duh, you have a negative cash flow situation -- are you short on mathematical skills? To accommodate this cash shortfall, the Treasury has to turn to selling bonds to the public -- since we haven't been in a positive tax collection situation since Clinton. And, so, national debt increases proportionally. The value of the Trust fund just represents how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund for loaning its excess cash in years prior. It's not an asset, like gold or Sovereign Trust Fund -- it's just a marker for how much the Treasury owes the Trust fund. Here's where you and Bernie get confused.... Intragovernmental debt is a zero sum game. That's literally a paper tiger. Those IOU's are NOT an asset, like gold or dollars under a mattress -- they're just a legal reminder of what the Treasury owes the SS Admin. Those excess FICA dollars went internally to US govt assets -- not externally, where, in the future, they could be recouped WITHOUT affecting the US debt picture. Intragovernmental debt is an entirely different animal than public debt -- loaning to yourself ain't the same as loaning to Ahso Wong. Actually, those opinion pieces, like from Cato, certainly have a lot more credence than your representations... You have? Please refresh my memory. A nicely written article on how the Trust fund affects national debt would be nice.

Let me see if I’ve understood all you’ve said/implied: The billions in negative cash flow by the SS Admin since 2010 has NOT increased the annual deficits, because the dollars the Treasury had to borrow from China were zeroed out – in accounting terms -- one for one, by the redemption of Trust fund IOU’s. 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. Thus it just doesn’t matter that the public deficit has increased by those Chinese dollars, because those Chinese dollars have cancelled an equivalent amount of intragovernment debt. So, rest assured by the likes of a pinko like Bernie Sanders. Now the Cato school of accounting says, hey Houston – we have a problem. And we can’t wait until 2033 to address that problem – the billions in negative cash flow is occurring now – resulting in a public deficit increase equivalent to those Chinese dollars having to be borrowed. That Bernie Sanders, and other fools, believe the Trust fund has equivalent value to those Chinese dollars – is confusing reality with accounting methods. Thus, the only way to present the very real problem is to NOT include intragovernment debt into the equation. Then, maybe Congress will get the message to act now, because the Trust fund really doesn’t give you until 2033 to act. Or do you, like Bernie, believe this negative cash flow since 2010 – doesn’t represent a problem – because the Trust fund hasn’t run out of IOU’s? Too bad the Trust fund didn’t invest their surplus dollars in gold, or a Sovereign Wealth Fund; then we wouldn’t have to have this discussion.

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. In your example, having to sell $70B to China to cover the SS benefit cash flow shortfall -- means nothing, because it is matched dollar for dollar in the drawdown of Trust fund IOU's. So, on your accounting worksheet, there's absolutely no increase in deficit -- meaning, it makes no difference whether or not the Trust fund is running a cash flow shortfall -- or a cash flow surplus. But, of course, it does make a difference. So smarter people use different accounting worksheets. By the way, intragovernmental debt is recognized as a number that need be sidestepped in certain situations -- to get to a meaningful position. Such is the case when it comes to the debt ceiling -- where the intragovernmental debt represented by the SS Trust fund -- is excluded.

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 -- then cashes in its IOUs for the cash deficit payout required -- then with that cash, makes the additional payout required. But, these mechanics are incidental to the scenario at hand... ....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. That the Trust fund has a nice fat surplus number in paper IOU's, for now -- doesn't mean squat. This whole drill is about cash flow. So, based on cash flow, the SS Admin has to borrow from the Treasury -- and the Treasury has to get that cash from selling Treasuries to the public. So, based on cash (necessarily so), the deficit increases by the amount the Treasury needs to borrow from the public; but it DOESN'T decrease -- on a cash basis -- by any IOU's zeroed out for the Treasury infusion to the SS Trust fund. Back to the basics. The Trust fund is purely an accounting entity. Its existence in no way affects that the SS Admin has a cash flow shortfall, and, fortunately, can call back that cash it loaned years ago to build aircraft carriers. This is what's going on now (since 2010). And, for sure, this increases the deficit - in cash terms (in return for decreasing the deficit back in the years loaned for aircraft carriers). But, an accounting entity, with non cash IOU's -- cannot be matched one for one with Treasury sales, for cash, to the public. So, let's stick with cash flow -- for a balanced discussion.

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.

So you're saying the following is BS?

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: