JimGant

Where did I ever imply that? Everybody knows, without Cato adding, that come 2033 that SS benefits will decrease, 'cause without any remaining IOUs, the current law doesn't allow SS to borrow what the missing IOUs no longer cover. This law will certainly be changed, if it has to be -- to keep benefits stable. What this whole discussion is about is: SS negative cash flow is contributing to the national debt NOW -- and any sleight-of-hand accounting doesn't alter that problem. So, address this problem now, and maybe come 2033 there will no longer be a problem. This is where Cato and Heritage are coming from. Staving off the 2033 problem will just be serendipity of addressing the deficit problem NOW. It doesn't bother me that you don't realize the problem. But, that members of Congress, like Bernie Sanders can't grasp the significance of the deficit problem is concerning -- 'cause come 2033, Congress will just have to pass a law allowing general revenue funds to cover the benefit shortfall -- and then the deficit angle from SS cash flows will still exist. Tho' this isn't the end of the world, as studies have shown this would only increase national debt by about 4%. However, it would be better, as Cato and Heritage suggest, if we start working the problem soonest. Why you believe Cato and Heritage have some kind of negative agenda against SS -- is beyond my comprehension. I guess, maybe, 'cause you think the problem they've discovered, is not a problem when you factor in intragovernmental debt. Such thinking stands in the way of a solution.

Yes, the pre-2010 days of excess SS cash flow meant the Treasury had to borrow less from the public. But, that was then. Today, and since 2010, SS's negative cash flows have been a serious contributor to public debt. That's what Cato, Heritage, and other forward thinkers are warning about. It's nice to ponder history; but it changes nothing about today and tomorrow.

Ok, the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation have gotten it wrong, in your and Bernie's estimation, as they concentrate only on the Public Debt increase. This increase due to SS cash flow deficits, occurring since 2010, was $115B in 2023. The Treasury had to obtain $115B from China, and elsewhere in the public domain, to cover this deficit. But as you have pointed out, that $115B is zeroed out, when you factor in intragovernmental debt and the cancellation of $115B in IOUs owned by the SS Trust Fund. Thus, these SS cash flow deficits, in this scenario, are not reflected in the national debt. So, with this rosy picture, nothing to worry about until 2033. Shame on Cato and Heritage for using a debt scenario that accurately points out that the problem is NOW -- and not in 2033, when the IOUs run out. Just can't trust these right wing organizations.

So you believe that if the SS bought gold with their surplus, and not Treasury IOUs -- things would be the same re national debt when they finally ran into cash flow deficit? Maybe this is a progressive mind fart, since Bernie is your buddy in this misrepresentation.

Well, she certainly has agitated some of the naive.... But, she certainly is not anti SS -- only trying to point out the problem is now -- not 2033, when the Trust Fund runs out. Let's do a parable here. Say SS, who had cash flow surpluses up to 2010 -- had bought gold with those surpluses, and not Treasury IOUs. Now, since 2010, when SS cash flow deficits began, they needed cash to cover those deficits -- so they sold gold to China. In 2023, they needed $115B dollars to cover this deficit, so sold gold to China (or whomever in the public) to obtain these dollars. Dollars from China covered the deficit, SS's gold assets reduced by same amount. But NO add on to the US national debt, as this gold-for-dollars was a completely independent transaction by the SS -- no US govt, and any related addition to US govt nation debt, involved. Compare this to what actually happened to those SS surplus cash flows -- they bought Treasury IOUs, and not an outside-the-govt asset, like gold. And the Treasury bought aircraft carriers, and not any redeemable asset attached to the SS Trust Fund. So, come 2010, when negative cash flows began, analyze what happened: SS had no gold to cash in, but only IOUs, which the Treasury traded for cash -- but had to get that cash from China, and thus go into an added national debt of $115B, because of its obligation, per IOU, to Social Security. This is where Cato -- and others -- are trying to wake up those, like Bernie Sanders, who say the numbers (numbers being the IOUs) indicate there is no problem, until the IOUs run out in 2033. Use the gold parable to educate yourself that, IOUs are not an asset, like gold. Thus, what Cato is hammering out, is that: the current SS cash flow deficit is definitely increasing the national debt -- and playing accounting games, like with intragovernmental debt, won't make that fact disappear. This whole discussion is merely to point out, as Cato tries to, that: We don't have until 2033 to address the problem. Why Bernie Sanders, and others, would say otherwise.. is curious, or stupid.

Ah, another Cato gem: Read the article, if you're not entirely bored with this subject. This Cato analysis is from an author that Gambooler says, is out to lunch.

Your hard on against CATO is curious. I hate to keep repeating and repeating -- but CATO is just pointing out that the increase in public debt due to negative cash flows into the SS Trust Fund -- can't be whitewashed by looking at the problem using National Debt, which, using intragovernmental debt, says there is no increase in the US debt due to negative SS cash flows (your and Bernie Sander's position). But, you really think there is no problem indicated here, and CATO is just crying 'fire, fire', when there is none? I think they are just trying to extract some heads that are 'locked up and tight.'

Because one shows the problem of billions of dollars of negative cash flow -- and the other just says "no problem" as long as the IOUs haven't been exhausted. But pointing out a problem, but with no way to address it -- is just pis.... in the wind. So, while this discussion is interesting -- it's worthless. So, come 2033 -- FICA collections will have to increase to cover the negative cash flow. Or the law will have to be changed to allow general revenue collection to cover that negative cash flow. That's probably what will happen, as it's not practical to allow SS recipients to take a 20% hit in benefits. This has already, of course, been studied -- with the conclusion being a modest 4% increase in National Debt. Certainly doable.

Thus, you're unable to understand the problem -- or that's there's even a problem -- since intragovernmental debt neutralizes public debt, in your syllabus. And public debt is at the heart of this cash flow problem.

Actually, from an unemotional standpoint -- they're not different. Thus saying that, a scenario where there's a cash flow deficit of $100B to cover annual SS benefit payments -- and where Treasury has to sell bonds for $100B to the public to cover this deficit (but in doing so, wipes out $100B in Trust Fund IOUs) -- hey, it's a wash, and the rules-that-be say there's absolutely no change in the National Deficit due to Social Security goings on. So, new scenario: SS has a cash flow SURPLUS and is thus able to cover all benefit payments without having to cash in IOUs -- thus Treasury doesn't have to sell bonds for any amount to the public. But this scenario also concludes that there is no change to National Deficit due to Social Security goings on. Samo, samo, right? Cato says 'wrong.' The negative cash flow scenario, and subsequent increase in public debt of $100B -- is a situation needing identifying -- and you can't do that if you apply a deficit definition that says the same thing for all situations. So, maybe we need some scenario-dependent definitions of what constitutes a deficit.... ...... and this has been addressed here: Anyway, looking at our early July discussions on this same subject -- we're just repeating ourselves. And a lot of folks smarter than us are at the same loggerheads.

Could you repost those please?

The operative phrase is: cash flow deficit equals new public debt. Intragovernmental debt, consisting of paper IOUs, might be germane in some scenarios. But not in the explanation of how debt owed to the public has increased since 2010, due to cash flow deficits. Sadly, too many people, who should know better -- don't. And by using misleading accounting methods, believe everything's ok until 2034 -- or is it now 2033 -- so they can just sit back and smell the paper IOUs.

Sigh. So, you think the folks at CATO have it all wrong -- and you, a Canadian, have it all right? Are you, by the way, French Canadian?

Ok, this is starting to be stupid. Your insistence on not believing CATO is curious.... It's all pretty simple, actually. I'll once again post this link, for anyone with a brain to analyze. I don't know if CATO is left or right oriented. But their observation in this link makes complete sense. Bottom line: Right now we're borrowing billions in cash to make up the SS cash deficit in receipts vs outgo. Come 2033 -- same picture -- it's irrelevant that in 2033 the Trust Fund is out of IOUs to cash in; the Treasury will still need to sell bonds to China, whomever, to cover the cash flow shortfall of SS payments. https://www.cato.org/blog/social-security-spending-adds-national-debt#:

It's only covering about that much now, or a little less (irrelevant for argument). The only difference between now and 2033 -- is that by 2033 there will be no more Trust Fund IOUs to cash in with Treasury, which today makes the Treasury legally obligated to collect the cash and pay the Social Security folks for their deficit in cash-in, and cash- out. Now, in 2033, the Treasury could just continue to sell bonds to China, for the cash needed for SS's deficit -- but there would be no noticeable difference in the added Federal deficit -- except now that deficit is only because of a moral obligation, not a legal one. Just a change by Congress to fund SS retirement same as SSI is funded today -- by general revenues. Sure, keep SS tax collections as a separate entity, for accounting purposes. But just accommodate the fact that SS retirement payments are just another line item, like aircraft carriers -- only a lot less easier to cancel.

This accident occurred because the Blackhawk was above the mandated 200ft max altitude prescribed for VFR flight in this controlled airspace. Why? Faulty altimeter, or wrong barometric setting? Or, was radio altimeter the required altimeter to be followed -- and if so, maybe faulty? Or, can't read instrument panel with NVG (dunno, never wore NVGs). In any event, they WERE above 200 feet -- and into the reserved airspace for approach into that runway for the passenger jet.

Yeah, we now can live longer -- letting us reach the stage where we can only babble and drool. Every time this subject comes up, I recall the ditty: Eat healthy Exercise regularly Die anyway

Payback time, you worthless cretins. Hard to feel sorry for all those Hamas fellow travelers in Gaza. Can't we just expel the whole lot to Jordan or Saudia Arabia, where they can mingle with their own kind -- and let the Jews live unmolested? Oil and water is never going to mix.

By whom?

These numbers could be misleading -- if the data collector was ugly.

No, it does not, legally; the will you suggest will not be valid if not witnessed. Which type of will is the simplest among all? Holograph will is the simplest kind of will among the three forms of will in Thailand since you won’t be required to spend money on it. Moreover, unlike other forms of wills, a holograph can be hand-written and does not need to be typed. In addition to this, a holograph will not need to be signed by the witnesses. No witnesses needed, if you just sit down at your desk and write out -- in long hand -- a Will that protects you, should your co-signatory gambit hit a snag. But, as I suggested, witnesses to your signing of your holographic Will would be, probably, easy to do -- and suggested. Typing it out, even better -- if you have the time.

Make him a co-signatory. It won't be a joint account -- and his name will be invisible on the bank book (except under black light). This will allow him to go to the bank, with bank book, and withdraw what he wants (but can't close account). Also, gives him same rights under online banking. This works just fine, if he's sole beneficiary. And, to make sure that's understood, prepare a Will -- in long hand without witnesses, if you want (but witnesses suggested). This will tell the authorities -- if it ever comes to that -- that no one else is entitled to your assets (assume you have no outstanding creditors?). Functionally, this works just fine -- unless the bank discovers the death (but why would they -- no one is legally required to advise them of such death). I say this, 'cause "co-signatory" has been described as the same as "power of attorney," whereby such power ends at death. So, functionally he withdraws the money -- but legally, is he in trouble? Not if he's sole beneficiary, and this fact is in writing on the Will you'll make. Why? Who's the aggrieved party? No one. Even the bank has no legal problem here, as they're only required to freeze the account -- if they've become aware of the death. And, again -- unless you drop dead in their lobby -- they ain't gonna know. This discussion occurs on this forum very often. And with predictable results: My argument vs oh no! you must go through probate, with its, normally, 50k baht fee and multi month wait for any cash. Why in the world would you suggest such an avenue, if your beneficiary could get the money, with no hassle -- and with nobody ever the wiser?

I established my MySS account years ago, while I still lived in the States -- and when I had already begun SS payments. So, it was somewhat handy, when I could log on with a password -- to include changing my mailing address to a a mail forwarding address in Houston, after I moved to Thailand. No need to provide a physical address when I did this -- so as far as they're concerned, I haven't vacated America -- and no need to advise them of this, if you're getting a retirement check; don't live in North Korea; and are not getting an SSI check. Thus, no "are you alive" letters. But, I intentionally never checked "paperless," so all my SS correspondence is still forwarded over here with my Houston mail forwarding firm. I did occasionally like logging into MySS to get a scan -- prior to the forwarding -- to get the updated info soonest. But, now that I've been forced to go to ID Me -- I guess I'll have to await the mail forwarding service for SS updates........ ..... because ID Me wasted half my morning today trying to establish particulars. My passport info was fine. But my US drivers license expired years ago, so I couldn't use it. And, they want two documents with full Social Security numbers shown -- heck, all my pay statements, 1099s, etc have truncated SSNs, due to security -- so none of them passed the ID Me screening test. Only my DD 214 discharge paper, of 35 years ago -- before truncating -- passed. Anyway, I guess I could waste another morning chatting about this, and maybe arriving at a solution. But why? Right now I'll just have to await the mail forwards for any SS updates -- no biggy (and most of this info, like 1099 info, I can figure out from my monthly automatic bank deposits). If they finally eliminate the option to not go paperless -- well, then, so be it. No need to forward 1099s with online tax filing. I can deal with this new world ok. Just worried when I'm gone, the wife -- if more such speed bumps come our way -- will cause problems.

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.