4 ms·

You should try not being sarcastic, it just makes it look like you have a weak argument and are overcompensating. Factually, they're being required to overfund

by zardgiv 11y ago

You should try not being sarcastic, it just makes it look like you have a weak argument and are overcompensating. Factually, they're being required to overfund it, to the tune of 75 years in advance, which is money that they can't reinvest. No business should accept being run that way.

SilasX 11y ago
Actually, they wouldn't have an arbitrary n-year cutoff for discounting obligations, and would probably be in jail if they hid liabilities this way.
- zardgiv 11y ago
  I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    I explained how, if you were correct, it would have a less probable implication. (That's how a lot of reasoning works: "if you were correct about oxygen absorption spectra, the sky shouldn't be blue.") Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities. It was not simply a reassertion. If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
    - zardgiv 11y ago
      Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)
justin66 11y ago
> they're being required to overfund it Yeah. I don't have any experience with this stuff beyond planning my own retirement, but I recall playing with the numbers a bit a year or two ago when this was more often in the news. It looked to me like the amount of money they were required to put aside would (if the USPS managed to stay solvent over the decades and continue funding the pension fund) eventually make the USPS pension fund a world financial power. I admire the idea of forcing a large organization, public or private, to keep its defined benefit plans fully funded. I don't really think that's what congress was shooting for.

by zardgiv 11y ago

SilasX 11y ago

Actually, they wouldn't have an arbitrary n-year cutoff for discounting obligations, and would probably be in jail if they hid liabilities this way.

zardgiv 11y ago
I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.
- SilasX 11y ago
  I explained how, if you were correct, it would have a less probable implication. (That's how a lot of reasoning works: "if you were correct about oxygen absorption spectra, the sky shouldn't be blue.") Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities. It was not simply a reassertion. If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
  - zardgiv 11y ago
    Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)

justin66 11y ago

> they're being required to overfund it Yeah. I don't have any experience with this stuff beyond planning my own retirement, but I recall playing with the numbers a bit a year or two ago when this was more often in the news. It looked to me like the amount of money they were required to put aside would (if the USPS managed to stay solvent over the decades and continue funding the pension fund) eventually make the USPS pension fund a world financial power. I admire the idea of forcing a large organization, public or private, to keep its defined benefit plans fully funded. I don't really think that's what congress was shooting for.