|
|
|
|
|
|
by WarChortle18
2139 days ago
|
|
|
> I don't understand why this keeping getting called out, like it is an unusual burden to be responsible. They are being forced to plan for the next 75 years now. in 2006 They were given 10 years to have the money needed for all pensions up to 75 years in the future. That is an unreasonable burden because no company does that. No company is planning 75 years from now on anything. > In my humble opinion I think that all government pensions should be funded No one is saying Pensions should stop being funded or paid out. > because it is not fair for us to artificially lower costs now and expect everyone's children and grandchildren in the future to somehow pay for this generation's unfunded promises. They are not artificially lowering costs, they were making a decent profit without this burden at the current price point. They were more then capable of meeting their obligations including pensions due now, and still making a decent profit. Nothing was being pushed off to future generations. |
|
|
I'm reading that ALL pensions offered by private companies in the U.S. must be funded out for 75 years. I presume this is for good reason. Why should this not apply to the USPS or other local/state/federal/church employees?
I might not follow your reply, but you seem to be under the impression that the USPS is having to do something different than every private company, but that does not appear to be the case. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...
EDIT: with the exception of medical coverage, which is handled differently than private companies as per congress.
>in 2006 They were given 10 years to have the money needed for all pensions up to 75 years in the future.
That would seem to have been a heavy burden. I don't know all the particulars, but they seem to be past that now, right? Is this ten year catchup period still relevant to the conversation?
>Nothing was being pushed off to future generations.
Then why does the government mandate this same pension funding for all private company pensions? I assume it is because there were problems with bankrupt pensions in the past.