4 ms·

It's interesting to see that in America, some government services can run at a loss but others are expected to be solvent. No one complains that the military do

It's interesting to see that in America, some government services can run at a loss but others are expected to be solvent. No one complains that the military doesn't pay back the 700 billion a year it takes but if public transportation goes over budget or the post office, suddenly it's a big deal. I honestly don't get it. Most services in most countries run at a loss but they provide huge public benefits so it's worth it. The USPS allows people to vote, seniors to get their medication, people to pay mortgages or send packages. It seems so non-political and yet somehow even the most basic of services provided by the government are now a battleground. I feel like this country has just collectively lost its mind.

badwolf 6y ago
Possibly due to those services charging fees and generating income tends people to envision them as a business instead of a service.
- convery 6y ago
  A service is just a specialized business though.
  - avmich 6y ago
    Interesting. If there are two objects with fields a, b and c, and one object initializes them to 1, 2 and 3, while another - to 1, 2 and 4. Does it make sense to derive the second object from the first? Or the other way around? I thought business can be viewed as a specialized service. But both approaches are possible, so the choice of "default" says about our preferences.
  - adsjhdashkj 6y ago
    Yea but your critique-reply is to that of an explanation on why people are thinking illogically here. Of which, your reply seems unsound. Ie, people seem to be thinking illogically here but your comment seems to counter their illogical stance, which is already described as illogical, rather than supporting/countering what is being discussed - their pattern of thinking. To the issue at hand though; much of America is embroiled in various angles of anti-taxation. There seems to be wide support for the idea that the government is incapable of doing anything right and any amount of money going towards them is viewed in a negative light. I think government in America really needs to step up on the deliverables and communication of deliverables. Efficiency likely could be improved, i don't deny, but i also think that the lack of "Here's what you paid for, here's what you got" leads people to think they get nothing for their money. Regardless of what your personal opinions are of taxes, i think it's safe to say that America has a problem with them - and doesn't know how to solve it. This infighting over mail delivery, a staple of communication, just highlights a deeply rooted issue.
Lendal 6y ago
Even if there was some sort of budgetary problem, it seems logical that services that are explicitly required by the Constitution, such as mail and census, would have precedence over those that are not.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to collect money to provide postal service it does not require that they do so. This is opposed to Article 1 Section 2 which states a census shall be done and how often. This isn't to say I'm against the USPS or anything of that matter just that lately I've seen "postal services are mentioned in the constitution" turned into "postal services are required by the constitution".
kube-system 6y ago
That is due to their financial structure, not simply a cultural expectation. The USPS isn’t funded by taxes at all, so of course they need revenue from operations.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be that way, though, right? We could make up the shortfalls with a subsidy. There's a bill to do exactly that in the House right now.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    Correct, but that's the reason why it is fundamentally different than other government services, like the military.
defertoreptar 6y ago
The military is paid by taxes. In general, no single citizen has much control over how much it costs. The USPS is different because if we eliminated stamps and paid it all out of taxes, individuals would abuse the system. Because we pay out of pocket for postage, we expect the USPS to place no further burden on taxpayers. However, it keeps going going into debt. This signals that there is something wrong at an operational level, since its competitors don't go bankrupt despite not having the huge subsidies and advantages in the law that the USPS has.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Nothing about that dictates it must be an operational level issue. No other carrier has government mandated delivery schedules to remote areas or laws requiring them to prefund pensions for 75 years. Of course no other carrier has tax breaks and government funding. It doesn't mean it's an operating issue though but maybe it is. The point being "government service isn't making money" assumes the goal for that service is purely to make money, which is not the sole purpose of the USPS. It also does not follow that because stamps cost money we therefore expect the USPS to need no other funding. It's possible for something to be partially subsidized. This isn't an argument about what should be done with the USPS one way or the other it's an argument against trying to shove everything into "because it's not A it shows it is therefore B" type arguments which don't consider there could be more to the story than A and B.
  - defertoreptar 6y ago
    Prefunding medical pensions is not the reason for their cash flow problem: > In addition, with respect to financial reporting, here are the key figures for 2019: > Healthcare benefits paid out of the Benefit Fund: $3.7 billion. > Normal costs scheduled to be paid into the Benefit Fund to cover current year’s current employees’ retiree healthcare cost accruals: $3.775 billion. > Amortization payments scheduled to be made into the fund: $789 million. > Overall net loss for the year: $8.8 billion. > The math just doesn’t work to blame retiree healthcare contributions for the USPS’s losses. The amount they are recording on their P&L for retiree healthcare costs (which, again, they aren’t paying out in cash) — $4.564 billion — is only moderately more ($800 - $900 million, depending on rounding) than the amount that they would be paying out directly for pay-as-you-go benefits had the PAEA never been implemented. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/#4d054ddd47f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... And I actually do see this as a "because it's not A it shows it is therefore B" type argument. When the USPS runs at a deficit, tax payers ultimately are the ones that have to bail it out. That goes against the principal necessitating stamps in the first place: individuals who don't place extra cost to the USPS end up paying more than their share and subsidize individuals who do cost the USPS extra.

badwolf 6y ago

Possibly due to those services charging fees and generating income tends people to envision them as a business instead of a service.

convery 6y ago
A service is just a specialized business though.
- avmich 6y ago
  Interesting. If there are two objects with fields a, b and c, and one object initializes them to 1, 2 and 3, while another - to 1, 2 and 4. Does it make sense to derive the second object from the first? Or the other way around? I thought business can be viewed as a specialized service. But both approaches are possible, so the choice of "default" says about our preferences.
- adsjhdashkj 6y ago
  Yea but your critique-reply is to that of an explanation on why people are thinking illogically here. Of which, your reply seems unsound. Ie, people seem to be thinking illogically here but your comment seems to counter their illogical stance, which is already described as illogical, rather than supporting/countering what is being discussed - their pattern of thinking. To the issue at hand though; much of America is embroiled in various angles of anti-taxation. There seems to be wide support for the idea that the government is incapable of doing anything right and any amount of money going towards them is viewed in a negative light. I think government in America really needs to step up on the deliverables and communication of deliverables. Efficiency likely could be improved, i don't deny, but i also think that the lack of "Here's what you paid for, here's what you got" leads people to think they get nothing for their money. Regardless of what your personal opinions are of taxes, i think it's safe to say that America has a problem with them - and doesn't know how to solve it. This infighting over mail delivery, a staple of communication, just highlights a deeply rooted issue.

Lendal 6y ago

Even if there was some sort of budgetary problem, it seems logical that services that are explicitly required by the Constitution, such as mail and census, would have precedence over those that are not.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 6y ago
Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to collect money to provide postal service it does not require that they do so. This is opposed to Article 1 Section 2 which states a census shall be done and how often. This isn't to say I'm against the USPS or anything of that matter just that lately I've seen "postal services are mentioned in the constitution" turned into "postal services are required by the constitution".

kube-system 6y ago

That is due to their financial structure, not simply a cultural expectation. The USPS isn’t funded by taxes at all, so of course they need revenue from operations.

ceejayoz 6y ago
It doesn't have to be that way, though, right? We could make up the shortfalls with a subsidy. There's a bill to do exactly that in the House right now.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Correct, but that's the reason why it is fundamentally different than other government services, like the military.

defertoreptar 6y ago

The military is paid by taxes. In general, no single citizen has much control over how much it costs. The USPS is different because if we eliminated stamps and paid it all out of taxes, individuals would abuse the system. Because we pay out of pocket for postage, we expect the USPS to place no further burden on taxpayers. However, it keeps going going into debt. This signals that there is something wrong at an operational level, since its competitors don't go bankrupt despite not having the huge subsidies and advantages in the law that the USPS has.

zamadatix 6y ago
Nothing about that dictates it must be an operational level issue. No other carrier has government mandated delivery schedules to remote areas or laws requiring them to prefund pensions for 75 years. Of course no other carrier has tax breaks and government funding. It doesn't mean it's an operating issue though but maybe it is. The point being "government service isn't making money" assumes the goal for that service is purely to make money, which is not the sole purpose of the USPS. It also does not follow that because stamps cost money we therefore expect the USPS to need no other funding. It's possible for something to be partially subsidized. This isn't an argument about what should be done with the USPS one way or the other it's an argument against trying to shove everything into "because it's not A it shows it is therefore B" type arguments which don't consider there could be more to the story than A and B.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  Prefunding medical pensions is not the reason for their cash flow problem: > In addition, with respect to financial reporting, here are the key figures for 2019: > Healthcare benefits paid out of the Benefit Fund: $3.7 billion. > Normal costs scheduled to be paid into the Benefit Fund to cover current year’s current employees’ retiree healthcare cost accruals: $3.775 billion. > Amortization payments scheduled to be made into the fund: $789 million. > Overall net loss for the year: $8.8 billion. > The math just doesn’t work to blame retiree healthcare contributions for the USPS’s losses. The amount they are recording on their P&L for retiree healthcare costs (which, again, they aren’t paying out in cash) — $4.564 billion — is only moderately more ($800 - $900 million, depending on rounding) than the amount that they would be paying out directly for pay-as-you-go benefits had the PAEA never been implemented. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/#4d054ddd47f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... And I actually do see this as a "because it's not A it shows it is therefore B" type argument. When the USPS runs at a deficit, tax payers ultimately are the ones that have to bail it out. That goes against the principal necessitating stamps in the first place: individuals who don't place extra cost to the USPS end up paying more than their share and subsidize individuals who do cost the USPS extra.