4 ms·

>The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bay

by tsotha 15y ago

>The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. That's not a big sell if you're sending a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I don't see any reason for rates not to reflect costs - why am I subsidizing other people every time I send a letter?

freehunter 15y ago
1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. 2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :)
- tsotha 15y ago
  >1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. Computers can figure this stuff out pretty quickly. People who mail 100 first class letters to 100 locations already either use an automated stamping system or they take the letters to the post office. >2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :) Well, okay, but how do you think they're going to plug that hole? I'll be paying for it eventually, either through income taxes or through higher postage rates.
rubidium 15y ago
Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day).
- malandrew 15y ago
  There is a very reasonable solution to this. Offer special rates for civics activities like voting and taxes. AFAIK, a special rate with return receipts already exists for filing taxes.
- tsotha 15y ago
  >Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. "A reasonable price"? A reasonable price, in the long run, is what the service costs. And there aren't any areas that are economically unfeasible to deliver mail - just not for less than a dollar. I'm okay with people out in the sticks paying, say, $2.50 to send a letter. Are you trying to tell me there are people who can't afford, say, five bucks a year to send two letters (even assuming they do vote by mail)? If money's that tight in rural Nowheresville they can move to the city and get a desk job like everyone else. >Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. Sure, because rural voters have proportionally more voting power. There's no secret why the system is the way it is. >It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day). Yes, the telephones, the roads, airports, mail... still don't see why people can't pay their own way. Look, there are things I pay more for where I live. Housing, for instance. Why aren't they paying part of my rent?
  - hammerdr 15y ago
    In the ideal libertarian world, there is a free movement of peoples. People are free to move from one location to another in order to best optimize the system. This is great in theory but breaks down in practice. There are physical, bureaucratic and psychological barriers that keep people in one place. For instance, my father's family is largely from rural Indiana. We have had a family farm for several generations. In fact, my family has a road named after it (Hammer Road) because it was mostly occupied by members of my family that had lived there for so long. There are members of my family that will inherit that land and for several reasons will continue to farm that land for generations to come. My family has every right to vote and do so proudly. A callous wave of the hand and saying "they should pay their own way" in order to be an equal citizen in this country is .. well, elitist, immoral and just plain wrong. P.S. If you want to give everyone free internet or free phones (with the appropriate legislation to make contracts entered over said mediums binding, of course) then do away with the USPS. Until then you're going to have to pay for everyone's right to be a full citizen of this country by subsidizing the postal service.
noblethrasher 15y ago
You're not subsidizing other people in that case anyway. First class mail is subsidized by the bulk mailers.
- tomkarlo 15y ago
  Well, until now. But it's starting to look like that won't be the case any longer, given the deficits they're projecting.

by tsotha 15y ago

freehunter 15y ago

1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. 2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :)

tsotha 15y ago
>1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. Computers can figure this stuff out pretty quickly. People who mail 100 first class letters to 100 locations already either use an automated stamping system or they take the letters to the post office. >2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :) Well, okay, but how do you think they're going to plug that hole? I'll be paying for it eventually, either through income taxes or through higher postage rates.

rubidium 15y ago

Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day).

malandrew 15y ago
There is a very reasonable solution to this. Offer special rates for civics activities like voting and taxes. AFAIK, a special rate with return receipts already exists for filing taxes.
tsotha 15y ago
>Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. "A reasonable price"? A reasonable price, in the long run, is what the service costs. And there aren't any areas that are economically unfeasible to deliver mail - just not for less than a dollar. I'm okay with people out in the sticks paying, say, $2.50 to send a letter. Are you trying to tell me there are people who can't afford, say, five bucks a year to send two letters (even assuming they do vote by mail)? If money's that tight in rural Nowheresville they can move to the city and get a desk job like everyone else. >Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. Sure, because rural voters have proportionally more voting power. There's no secret why the system is the way it is. >It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day). Yes, the telephones, the roads, airports, mail... still don't see why people can't pay their own way. Look, there are things I pay more for where I live. Housing, for instance. Why aren't they paying part of my rent?
- hammerdr 15y ago
  In the ideal libertarian world, there is a free movement of peoples. People are free to move from one location to another in order to best optimize the system. This is great in theory but breaks down in practice. There are physical, bureaucratic and psychological barriers that keep people in one place. For instance, my father's family is largely from rural Indiana. We have had a family farm for several generations. In fact, my family has a road named after it (Hammer Road) because it was mostly occupied by members of my family that had lived there for so long. There are members of my family that will inherit that land and for several reasons will continue to farm that land for generations to come. My family has every right to vote and do so proudly. A callous wave of the hand and saying "they should pay their own way" in order to be an equal citizen in this country is .. well, elitist, immoral and just plain wrong. P.S. If you want to give everyone free internet or free phones (with the appropriate legislation to make contracts entered over said mediums binding, of course) then do away with the USPS. Until then you're going to have to pay for everyone's right to be a full citizen of this country by subsidizing the postal service.

noblethrasher 15y ago

You're not subsidizing other people in that case anyway. First class mail is subsidized by the bulk mailers.

tomkarlo 15y ago
Well, until now. But it's starting to look like that won't be the case any longer, given the deficits they're projecting.