The Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vyyxw Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's not true that they "cover their cost" as
> the
> > claim was made.
>
> The claim that was made was that "We are required
> by law to cover our costs." The claim is
> absolutely true whether or not you understood the
> claim or the sunsequent explanation of it.
>
> > Or that they "don't receive a penny" of taxpayer
> funds
> > as stated, for example in their union's
> commercials
> > currently running.
>
> The claim under actual discussion here was that
> "The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for
> operating expenses." That's the only two
> sentences of the original claim BOTH corrupted.
>
The unstated implication of which was that they cover their costs and do not receive any taxpayer-funded support. The point of my response being that they do not, regardless what specifically may be required by law. Public funds are provided otherwise as I detailed.
> > Sorry, that's not true.
>
> Yes, it is true. Consult an accountant instead of
> some propaganda sleezeball. No private
> corporation is required to prefund retiree
> accounts and fewer than 30% of them do. No other
> federal agency is required to do so. Only USPS.
>
Your fewer than 30% number includes most of the larger companies with substantial future obligations associated with post-retirement benefit plans. They can are required by FASB to disclose and carry such future obligations as present-valued liabilities in their financials. Unlike USPS, for a real company with stockholders, a stock price, and having to raise capital in private markets, that has the practical effect of driving funding. They also are required through terms of VEBA and similar union and other agreements, by IRS regs for tax treatment and in order to maintain approved plans, and by the fiduciary responsibilities of third-party trustees for the funds. GASB also has issued similar statements with respect to proper recognition of future benefit obligations by state and local governments which follow the same general approach.
Technically, the law does not specifically require that USPS adhere to a 75-year time frame. Only to a specified funding schedule for the RHBF which was developed to capture former, current, and future beneficiaries as above. The law requires that they amortize liabilities for current and former participants over a 40 year period. The 75-year metric comes from OMB and is used in a similar manner beyond USPS as a standard for whether similar funds will fall into default within that time period for the same reasons (e.g., by the trustees for SS, Medicare, Civil Service Retirement System, etc.).
>
> > Well known changes like losing $16 billion due
> to
> > such changes...
>
> Get serious. The $15.9 billion loss is a
> cherry-picked number. It includes two year's
> worth -- $11.1 billion in all -- of retiree
> prepayments. Those have nothing at all to do with
> "such changes". They are an unrelated and
> unwarranted financial burden imposed by Congress.
It's not a "cherry-picked" number at all. It's as they reported it:
http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2012/pr12_131.htm
Even accounting for the $11.1 billion, they still had a $4.8 billion in losses beyond that.
Mail volume and revenues have decreased. Their expenses (not including any "pre-payments") have increased. What don't you understand about that equation?
>
>
> > ...and little to no corresponding adjustments
> > made to their biggest problem - 575,000
> employees
> > that they maintain on a revolving basis with
> some
> > 300,000 of those expected to retire by 2020 to
> join
> > 100,000s of existing retirees are out there, all
>
> > with generous benefits.
>
> USPS employs fewer than 500K people, down from
> about 730K a decade ago. Your credibiltiy worsens
> with each passing post.
The exact number is 522,144 career employees as of 2012.
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm#H1
Plus various other temporary and associated workers which factor into its total personnel costs.
Whether it's roughly off some relatively small number one way or another isn't particularly relevant to the point that the primary driver of their cost are personnel-related. Which include a large number of the former 750K which you reference who weren't lost but moved onto their retiree benefits. As will hundreds of thousands of current employees retiring within a near-term time frame which must be funded.
>
> > The APWU does not want any such changes since it
>
> > would affect current workers and job numbers.
> > Which is why they push the talking points on
> which
> > you've relied.
>
> Talking points or facts? You don't seem to be all
> that well connected to the latter. I don't think
> you've fairly characterized the positions of the
> postal unions either. In fact, you sound mostly
> like some sort of crude Scott Walker wannabe.
By their own statements, they want the payments to the RHBF stopped because they affect current finances and, as a result, cause pressure on staffing levels and work hours. They express no similar concerns over ensuring funding levels for the plan. What's unfair in my representation?
GAO, CBO, OMB, and even USPS' own management recognize that adequately funding the plan is an issue and that it represents a significant potential risk for taxpayers. The only points of contention are around specific levels and timing. The only ones who are unconcerned are the union and those like you who bought into their PR campaign.
>
> > It's not the opposite of a subsidy. It is the
> > definition of a subsidy. But again not really
> > even worth bothering to mention given the
> > magnitude in the scheme of billions of dollars
> in
> > losses due to problems otherwise.
>
> Then you have one really screwball definition of a
> subsidy. Credit card fraud accomplishes the same
> thing as what you want to call a subsisdy.
> Services are provided and then nobody pays for
> them. Your lexicon here is simply stupid.
The funding is provided for what are referred to as "subsidized services" by any number of official sources including the USPS itself. In any case, as I said, it's a relatively trivial amount of money and any difference due to the "revenue foregone" model and actual costs is even more trivial and has diddly effect on their larger financial picture. The only reason for mentioning it was that, technically speaking, they do in fact receive some money which is directly appropriated. If you want to argue some tangential forum-masturbation semantics beyond that, go for it.