|
|
|
|
|
|
by treis
2158 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
>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.