4 ms·

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 201

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.

zamadatix 6y ago
I didn't say it was "the" reason it's just an example of something mandated that doesn't help their cash position. The postal service, having been mentioned even in the constitution, has a lot of such mandates that public companies don't have. And again it's possible for something to be partially subsidized not just either income based or free. As you mentioned if it were 100% subsidized it'd lead to lots of abuse of the service. That does not mean the only alternative is it be 100% funded via shipping fees and 0% subsidized there is still 1%-99% subsidized which are valid options. Maybe you'd personally like it to not be partially subsidized but there is nothing strictly requiring it to be only one or the other. Another example of partially subsidized services would be the roads the postal service and everyone else uses. They tend to be 30%-60% paid for by e.g. gas taxes or tolls and the rest subsidized via general taxes. That doesn't mean roads are failing to turn a profit they are also working as intended being somewhat use based and somewhat a public service.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls. When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses. It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) excludable goods. Also, when a good is non-rival, there is much less worry about abusing the system. That makes subsidies and "everybody pay the same" easier to be seen as a fair enough system.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    The above is your reasoning (or part of) why you would not like the US postal service to be partially subsidized not why it must not be partially subsidized or why we must all consider it A or B. A+B is still a valid legal option and can also be a logical conclusion by others with different arguments. It's a perfectly valid stance to hold though and certainly brings well thought points to the examples mentioned earlier.

zamadatix 6y ago

I didn't say it was "the" reason it's just an example of something mandated that doesn't help their cash position. The postal service, having been mentioned even in the constitution, has a lot of such mandates that public companies don't have. And again it's possible for something to be partially subsidized not just either income based or free. As you mentioned if it were 100% subsidized it'd lead to lots of abuse of the service. That does not mean the only alternative is it be 100% funded via shipping fees and 0% subsidized there is still 1%-99% subsidized which are valid options. Maybe you'd personally like it to not be partially subsidized but there is nothing strictly requiring it to be only one or the other. Another example of partially subsidized services would be the roads the postal service and everyone else uses. They tend to be 30%-60% paid for by e.g. gas taxes or tolls and the rest subsidized via general taxes. That doesn't mean roads are failing to turn a profit they are also working as intended being somewhat use based and somewhat a public service.

defertoreptar 6y ago
The difference is that a postal service is rival + excludable. Most roads are (generally) non-rival and most people at least expect them to be non-excludable, but as you mentioned, some use tolls. When you have rival + excludable, it is straight forward to charge on an individual basis. This efficiently allocates resources and punishes abuses. It's not as easy to efficiently do that with non- (or perhaps less-) excludable goods. Also, when a good is non-rival, there is much less worry about abusing the system. That makes subsidies and "everybody pay the same" easier to be seen as a fair enough system.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  The above is your reasoning (or part of) why you would not like the US postal service to be partially subsidized not why it must not be partially subsidized or why we must all consider it A or B. A+B is still a valid legal option and can also be a logical conclusion by others with different arguments. It's a perfectly valid stance to hold though and certainly brings well thought points to the examples mentioned earlier.