4 ms·
If they can’t fund the annual net increase in pension obligations they are incurring, then they either need to raise their rates or lower their pension benefits
by zaroth 6y ago
If they can’t fund the annual net increase in pension obligations they are incurring, then they either need to raise their rates or lower their pension benefits. Not actually funding the net annual increase in the Net Present Value of their Accrued Pension Benefits should not be an option.
- elliekelly 6y ago> If they can’t fund the annual net increase in pension obligations they are incurring, then they either need to raise their rates or lower their pension benefits. I believe this requires Congress. Hence why USPS is kneecapped. They’re legally obligated to fund them and also prohibited from taking the steps necessary to fully fund them.
- __sisyphus__ 6y agothey are restricted from lowing their rates per the same 2006 bill cited above. in addition, they have to pre-fund their pension benefits well into the future in ways that other privatized companies would never do. the obligation is overwhelmingly crippling. i don't remember the exact figures, but in 2006 USPS profited somewhere around ~$10M, and in 2009—three years after the law was enacted—they lost close to ~4B. i believe it was estimated that ~3/4 of those losses were directly associated with that law.