JimGant

Definitely only applies to SSI, as the title of the EM indicates: New Requirement for Financial Institution Account Verification in All Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Aged (Age 65+) Claim Allowances And SSI is not payable to folks outside the country for more than 30 days -- which eliminates US retirees in Thailand. And for folks getting an earned SS retirement payment, the size and complexion of your bank account(s) isn't of any concern to the Social Security Administration (only to the FATCA folks, for foreign accounts). But, to qualify for SSI payments by being over 65, you have to be poor -- and the size of your bank account is part of the verification process. Obviously, there must be some fudging going on (imagine!), hence this EM. However, the smart SSI cheat isn't going to keep his excess stash in a bank account. So, can't really see this new dragnet catching many folks. Can't believe Integrity Legal believes this might be a problem for retirees in Thailand. They seem to have missed the point that this affects only SSI recipients.

Well, on your way then. I found the application procedure rather effortless -- and BoI responded to my few questions, rapidly and professionally. My only initial concern was the requirement to go to Bangkok, from CM, to get the visa stamp. How wrong I was. The one hour flight is a breeze; used limos for all my subsequent transportation; stayed in a five star hotel; and ate five star meals I've yet to find in CM. Then, the meeting with BoI was such a change from the hassle at CM Immigration -- where BoI hand led you through the process, using their priority in the neighboring Immigration to expedite matters. The whole thing was a welcomed, and unexpected, vacation. Looking forward to the five year renewal process. So sorry some folks don't have their ducks in line. Do a thorough assessment of what's required -- and that you meet those requirements -- before initiating the process. If you fall short -- you probably won't get much sympathy on this thread -- at least from those who have qualified.

Well, "Thank you for your non service." Even those who served, then got out -- but stayed in the Reserves or Guard -- are now reaping the rewards of a military pension, and Tricare -- as a Reserve/Guard retiree age 60. Yes, thank you non service folks for your tax dollars, allowing us military retired types to live a comfortable life in Thailand. OORAH!

Hello, Mr Trump -- I think we've found the problem. How about we go back to "three strikes and you're put away for good." No wonder we need so many to patrol the DC streets -- we have to keep rearresting the same thugs over and over.

Had replacement credit cards, sent by my mail forwarding service, USA2ME, via FedEx in their flat cardboard envelope. This was held up at Customs. Got a message about it -- can't remember if it was from Customs or FedEx -- and how much to pay. I ignored such nonsense, and called my bank to cancel these cards, and have new ones sent to my physical address on record, which is Thailand. These also went by FedEX -- but arrived safely. Go figure.... Just got a bill from USA2ME for $54, the customs cost and cost of return mail, as they said "recipient refused delivery" when finally released by Customs. BS, as there's always a worker around to take delivery, if they had tried. So, yeah, why would Customs flag an envelope containing flat letters, with credit cards stuck on?

Thaksin has enough money to make a deal that can't be refused -- times nine.

Man, did you ever get a wrong number..... https://www.suissebank.com/en/why-is-mobile-banking-considered-riskier-than-online-banking.html

The irony here is that the fallback solution is online banking -- but unfortunately several banks have closed that option (fortunately, Bangkok Bank isn't one of them). Bangkok Bank's default transfer amount is 500k. Have never seen the utility of mobile banking. First and formost, my 80 year old eyes can't see the small screen. Secondly, I don't need the option to transfer money from my car or from a restaurant, using a mobile phone. If a transfer situation arises, the comfort of my home office's desktop -- or, if on the road, my laptop in a hotel room, suffice very nicely. And, paying bills realtime is where cash, or my 2% cashback credit card do the trick -- no fumbling around with a phone just to pay a bill. Anyway, I know this makes no sense to the younger crowd. But, assuming most of the younger crowd at least have a laptop, online banking may may come back into vogue -- if they keep making mobile banking an annoying chore.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/new-york-times-article-does-more-perpetuate-myths-dispel-them

No, but it certainly would be a good idea, if there's no other reason for announcing yourself to tax authorities.

With an LTR visa, why would you even mention your existence to TRD?

Probably boots obtained from the Polish Special Minefield Clearance Battalion. Comes complete with opaque sunglasses.

baluts-du-jour weren't to your liking?

BS. I only had to show one year's annual income of US$80k, and there was NO US$1m in assets required. What's the purpose of this article -- to highlight the competitor countries?

Wrong. Everything to do with the US, as you really need to consider the source -- and the source under new management -- to render any valid conclusions about the report.

I'd much prefer a blast resistant jock strap as part of the package, to ensure all three legs are protected.

I wonder why I have this picture in my mind of a maniacal person, drooling, rolling steel balls -- and shouting: But the stewards didn't eat the strawberries - I know there's a duplicate key!

Ok, pal, no problem 'til the Trust Fund runs out in 2033.

And this is your 'Cato is trying to demonize SS?' Sure,It's not a fact, by you and Bernie -- and many others. So, yeah, it's obvious the jury is out on what accounting scheme should dictate Social Security's negative cash flow impact on national debt. However, that Cato is pointing out a problem that should be addressed immediately, and not when the Trust Fund runs out in 2033 - is just good public service-- and good common sense. That they're underlining the problem, by excluding intragovernmental debt in their accounting scenario -- doesn't mean they're incorrect in indentifying a real problem, requiring immediate address. Certainly, you and Bernie could agree with that.....?

Yeah, you're right. Obviously they're trying to "demonize the Social Security system" by pointing out that today's negative cash flows are TODAY'S problem -- and not a problem that doesn't occur, until the Trust Fund runs out in 2033. For your reading pleasure, here's what a Google AI search on "negative cash flow with social security adds to the debt" comes up with: That last paragraph in this AI search is where Cato is coming from. Nefarious, only to those who believe there is just one accounting template available to address Social Security finances.

As pointed out, definition confusion is what's making discussion meaningless. Read what I said above about "public debt" being defined -- by the Treasury -- as the same as national and federal debt. Thus, it incorporates intragovernmental debt. Unfortunately, Cato and Heritage have used the term public debt, believing it literally means 'public debt', and not inclusive of non public debt, like intragovernmental debt. So, the correct term to avoid confusion is "debt held by the public." So, the above quote, to be accurate, should read: "A cash flow deficit of $73 billion requires $73 billion in new debt held by the public. Thus, the money used to cover Social Security's cash flow deficits comes from new cash obtained from the public. Operative term here is "cash flow." Trust Fund IOUs are not "cash flow." Can't blame AI for getting it wrong, if definitions are il defined. This is a case where the human brain, or at least some human brains, are superior to AI in understanding the real what's what.

Sigh.

Yes. And the problem we've been having is in definitions. In several writings I've seen this: In others I've seen: national debt less intragovernmental debt equals public debt. And this has been the definition of public debt that I've been going on. And which Cato has also used. But we're not on the same page as Treasury, which uses "debt owed to the public" as the term I've said is "pubic debt." And thus: Intragovernmental debt plus debt owed to the public equals: (take your pick) national debt; or federal debt; or public debt. No wonder no one, including Congress, can have an intelligent conversation when they can't define what's what. So, yeah, the cash flow deficit SS has been having since 2010 has not increased national/federal/public debt, when you use these terms, as they include intragovernmental debt. What Cato and Heritage have been trying to say is that the real problem here is "debt held by the public" -- an entity not blanked out by intragovernmental debt. Thus, only when you incorporate this accounting scheme -- i.e., using only 'debt held by the public,' will you see that the problem we face is TODAY, and not 2033. Maybe if someone in Congress can understand this -- can we correct things sooner rather than later. Here's a quote from Heritage that puts things in layman language:

Certainly it's a problem -- having to borrow $115B from China to fund the SS cash flow deficit in 2023 is definitely a problem, as are the even larger negative cash flows going forward. Anyway, this discussion is getting ridiculous. Let's agree to give it a rest.

I asked you to provide those, but your 'search my early july inputs' didn't do the trick. If your links are really enlightening, and might change my take on matters, please take the time to provide. Thank you.