[Discombulator]

I am at this point not convinced that you are actually trying to understand, but if you read the text you linked, it says:

> If a plan is fully funded, the minimum required contribution is the cost of benefits earned during the year.

The USPS however, needs to fund not only the current year’s expenses, but also all expenses for the 50 following years. No one else needs to do this.

[Discombulator]

Replying to myself to correct my comment: the pension benefits funding appears to be in general - and differently from what I stated - not much different to the private sector.

The change introduced by the 2006 PAEA impacts however the funding of health care benefits of retirees, which have to be funded at 100%. This is not required of private sector companies.

Additionally, to build up this future retiree health benefits fund, a very front loaded schedule of about $5.7B yearly between 2006 and 2016 was chosen. In fact, the USPS was not able to fulfill this schedule and defaulted on multiple payments.

Best source I have found: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40983.pdf

[treis]

That's not what is required. Here is the text of the law:

> In this subsection, the term `Postal surplus or supplemental liability' means the estimated difference, as determined by the Office, between-- ``(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; and

They have to fund the benefits that employees have earned. Not all of the pension cost that will be accrued over the next 50 years. That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans.

[mthoms]

I'm with the other poster. You don't seem to be reading (or even acknowledging) the provided sources.

>That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans.

This is where you are confused. The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions.

Which brings us back to your original claim:

>This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made any of those payments since 2013. Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments. (2) Pensions are required to be fully funded. In practice that's a bit more theoretical than actual, but the USPS isn't being treated any different.

Point (2) is incorrect since we aren't talking about pensions. Point (1) is incorrect as per the numerous sources I provided already (including a direct quote from the Postmaster General). But here's one more:

>the 2006 law requiring the pre-funding of health benefits for future retirees — not pensions — has put a financial strain on the Postal Service and hurt its ability to turn a profit in some recent years.

From https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/wi...

Conclusion: The current financial woes of the USPS are can be attributed in large part to the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

[treis]

>The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions.

The law did a lot including:

Postal Civil Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding Amendments of 2006 - (Sec. 802) Relieves the Postal Service of an obligation to contribute matching amounts to its employees' civil service retirement. Provides for a mechanism and an amortization schedule regarding the handling of any surplus or supplemental liability of the Postal Service regarding the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Transfers from the Postal Service to the Treasury certain retirement obligations related to military service of former Postal Service employees. Makes Office of Personnel Management (OPM) determinations on surplus or supplemental liability subject to PRC review if the Postal Service so requests

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407

> Point (1) is incorrect as per thttps://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407... numerous sources I provided already (including a direct quote from the Postmaster General)

I think you're confused here. Straight from the Postmaster general:

> we were forced to default on $33.9 billion in mandated prefunding payments for RHB for the years 2012 through 2016

https://about.usps.com/news/testimony/2019/pr19_pmg0430.htm

>the 2006 law requiring the pre-funding of health benefits for future retirees — not pensions — has put a financial strain on the Postal Service and hurt its ability to turn a profit in some recent years.

Sigh, and we're back to the same confusion. Pre-funding has ZERO impact on profit. If you incur a cost today it goes on your balance sheet. The fact that the actual cash doesn't leave the company for 30 years doesn't change that.

[mthoms]

> Pre-funding has ZERO impact on profit.

You've just moved the goal posts. Your assertion was "Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments."

Even though you've moved the goal posts, you're still wrong. Do you agree that having $0 available for infrastructure improvements, technology upgrades, delivery fleets, and R&D to improve efficiency for the past 14 years has had zero impact on current profit?

Really? Be honest.

Imagine if UPS had not upgraded (other than the basics) their hardware, software, and massive delivery fleet in a decade and a half. That amount of time is an absolute eternity in the areas of automation, transport and computing. Can you imagine where UPS would be right now in relation to FedEx has it stopped investing in itself since before the iPhone was invented?

Since you missed it. Once again, here's the relevant Postmaster General quote:

> "The Postal Service's $15 billion debt is a direct result of the mandate, this requirement has deprived the Postal Service of the opportunity to invest in capital projects and research and development."

Look, you've been arguing this entire time that the issue was pensions when it wasn't. And that it was the same rules for everybody (it wasn't). The other half of your argument was that the current financial position of the USPS is unrelated to the 2006 act. Provably wrong.

But since that original argument is falling apart you've changed your position to "the USPS is currently unprofitable". Well, obviously.

You're clearly not debating in good faith so I'm done here. Good day to you.