dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to TelecomEng

Re: Here's a better way to fix the Post Office...

said by TelecomEng :

said by andre2:

There is no such requirement. The correct number is 50 years.

I stand corrected.

The original point still stands, though, that the Act in question is a source of the USPS's current fiscal imbalance.

Actually, 75 years is the correct number. Some are misstating it as '75 years into the future' but that is not right. The additional 25 years covers the current employees. It has to be funded 50 years into the future and 25 years into the past. Even at 50 years, the catchphrase is still accurate. Someone born this year could grow up, get hired by the post office, and retire after 25 years all by 2056.

The private sector also accumulates massive unfunded liabilities that the tax payers often end up bailing out... shouldn't they also be required to pre-fund?

andre2

join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA
said by CXM_Splicer:

Actually, 75 years is the correct number. Some are misstating it as '75 years into the future' but that is not right. The additional 25 years covers the current employees. It has to be funded 50 years into the future and 25 years into the past. Even at 50 years, the catchphrase is still accurate. Someone born this year could grow up, get hired by the post office, and retire after 25 years all by 2056.

You should tell this to Fredric Rolando (current NALC president). In the column mentioned in the link, he said
quote:
Moreover, lawmakers set a highly aggressive level -- prefunding for the next 75 years, paid within a decade.

And when the columnist asked the NALC to explain the 75-year figure, they sent nothing. So I don't think they want that misunderstanding to be cleared up, if it is one. If you want, you can email the columnist. There were no substantive posted comments on the article itself.
said by CXM_Splicer:

The private sector also accumulates massive unfunded liabilities that the tax payers often end up bailing out... shouldn't they also be required to pre-fund?

I think pre-funding should be required (in either the public or private sector) whenever it can change whether the taxpayer is on the hook or not. For the vast majority of government agencies, that get funded through taxes (the USPS being one of the few exceptions), pre-funding wouldn't help, since the taxpayer pays for them regardless.