Skip to main content

View Diary: Save the Postal Service (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We Need More Emphasis on This Ruinous Pension (7+ / 0-)

    requirement the Republicans saddled on them in order to break the service and its unions. Most people aren't aware of this requirement to fully fund pensions now for workers who aren't even born yet, which is the only important fiscal problem the service has.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:29:18 AM PST

    •  The payments are for health benefits, not pension. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The payments are for current and past employees, not future employees.

      •  No, the payments are for future employees (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They are for the health benefits of future employees who haven't even been born yet.

        •  Wrong. This is a an oft repeated lie (0+ / 0-)

          I know that posting actual facts and actual evidence is dirty pool, but hey, I like fighting dirty.


          (A) the actuarial present value of all future benefits payable from the Fund under this subchapter to current or former employees of the United States Postal Service and attributable to civilian employment with the United States Postal Service;
          The rule is simple.  If the USPS employs someone today for a year it accrues certain benefit obligations.  The obligations accrued this year need to be paid for this year.  So, if the USPS shuts down tomorrow the pension and healthcare funds should be solvent without any additional government contribution until all current and future postal workers are dead.

          That is exactly how every long term benefit fund should be run.

          In actual fact, I think the window should be 85 years, not 75 years.  When you have a 20 year old working today you need to plan your benefit funds to pay his costs until he hits about 105.  95 does not cut it any more.

          That's certainly how we handle things in my family.  I and my wife review our long term finances once a year.  Since she is 30 we plan for the next 75 years - until 2088.  (I'm substantially older so we assume I will die earlier.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site