The Post Office

[barfo]

They shouldn't offer services they can't afford to subsidize.

Uh, they don't have any choice in the matter.

barfo

 

[mook]

Charging different rates or not providing equal level of service to anyone is a violation of the 5th amendment (due process clause).

So how come when we ship a 5lb product to Miami via USPS the postal service charges us (and we therefore charge the customer) twice as much as when we ship it to Utah? Isn't that also a violation of the clause by the same reasoning?

They engage in price discrimination right now, just not on standard first class mail.

 

[blazerboy30]

It probably is. But why? I mean, other than it being a regulation. Why should rural postal delivery be subsidized by urban delivery? A smarter way to run this would be to make the pricing of each reflect the true cost of each.

If you choose to live in rural America, what is so magical about you that allows you to get a cut-rate deal on postal delivery? The current system makes about as much sense as if the government subsidized gas prices in rural areas and charged an added tax in urban areas. You know, because people in rural areas have to drive farther, so government (and people living in cities) should subsidize that. It's absurd.

If you wish to enjoy the benefit of rural living, you (and not somebody living in NYC) should pay the price for it.

I don't actually disagree with you, but would you support the same logic applied to government healthcare?

 

[mook]

I don't actually disagree with you, but would you support the same logic applied to government healthcare?

How so? Do you mean paying the exact same amount per patient Medicare in Wyoming as in Atlanta? That might mean there's only a part-time clinic in Wyoming, but a massive medical center in Miami?

I suppose that seems reasonable. Such health care delivery would encourage, say, the elderly to concentrate themselves closer to get better health care for their needs. Which is more efficient. Grandma can take her chances in Cheyenne and enjoy the rural life for as long as it lasts, or move to Miami and probably live longer (but maybe not exactly how she'd prefer).

 

[Denny Crane]

So how come when we ship a 5lb product to Miami via USPS the postal service charges us (and we therefore charge the customer) twice as much as when we ship it to Utah? Isn't that also a violation of the clause by the same reasoning?

They engage in price discrimination right now, just not on standard first class mail.

That's not mail.

You got it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Uh, they don't have any choice in the matter.

barfo

Sure they do.

If they can afford to deliver 5 days but not 6, then they do have a choice.

 

[barfo]

Sure they do.

If they can afford to deliver 5 days but not 6, then they do have a choice.

They can't afford to deliver 5 days, and no, they don't have a choice. They have to do what congress tells them to do.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

They can't afford to deliver 5 days, and no, they don't have a choice. They have to do what congress tells them to do.

barfo

Congress is "they"

 

[barfo]

Congress is "they"

Well, in that case, 'they' can afford to do whatever they want w.r.t. the USPS.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, in that case, 'they' can afford to do whatever they want w.r.t. the USPS.

barfo

Right. Increase the spending by $2B and borrow the needed $10B from the Chinese. That's the strategy.

 

[barfo]

Right. Increase the spending by $2B and borrow the needed $10B from the Chinese. That's the strategy.

That would be one strategy. I have no idea if that is going to be the strategy. My guess, tho, is that it will be something like what the postmaster is proposing: 100K+ layoffs, 5 day delivery, 3700 post office closures.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I just don't see how one can compare USPS to fedex and UPS. Do we really want to turn USPS over to the free market where cost could go up by over 500%. All USPS has to do to undercut UPS is charge 15 dollars a letter. Didn't bother to look up fedex, but same idea, just undercut them by 20%.

Do we wnat a country where it cost that much to send a letter? USPS could make a profit, but thank god they are limited by gov't. Reliable and affordable mail service is what the US should be trying to achieve. USPS should not just waste money, but I think it would be a mistake if their only goal was to make a profit (like fedex and UPS)

 

[Denny Crane]

I just don't see how one can compare USPS to fedex and UPS. Do we really want to turn USPS over to the free market where cost could go up by over 500%. All USPS has to do to undercut UPS is charge 15 dollars a letter. Didn't bother to look up fedex, but same idea, just undercut them by 20%.

Do we wnat a country where it cost that much to send a letter? USPS could make a profit, but thank god they are limited by gov't. Reliable and affordable mail service is what the US should be trying to achieve. USPS should not just waste money, but I think it would be a mistake if their only goal was to make a profit (like fedex and UPS)

USPS offers competitive services to fedex.

http://postcalc.usps.gov/
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm100/choosing-service.htm

 

[The_Lillard_King]

USPS offers competitive services to fedex.

http://postcalc.usps.gov/
http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm100/choosing-service.htm

Well I just priced out fedex and to get a letter across town in 2 days cost 19 bucks. I can send it across town in one day with USPS for less than 50 cents.

Competitive services, yes; competitive pricing, no.

 

[huevonkiller]

huh? how is working being greedy?

Union workers have much more power in the public sector, you can simmer down now.

He's a coward that stole money from the taxpayer, a private sector worker doesn't do that.

but unions suck! free market! maybe they would save money if they flew the mail to mexico, had it sorted there for $10 a day, and flown back here?, or maybe prison labor! hooray! capitalism rocks

Lol relax buddy. FDR raped you a long time ago.

FDR doesn't like PUBLIC unions, because the government doesn't go out of business. Stfu now and stick to your comic relief, your political views are weak.

 

[huevonkiller]

Well I just priced out fedex and to get a letter across town in 2 days cost 19 bucks. I can send it across town in one day with USPS for less than 50 cents.

Competitive services, yes; competitive pricing, no.

Well tough luck dude, the USPS is now bankrupt.

That's what happens when you don't care about profits. Stick to e-mails or whatever if you're too cheap.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

FDR raped you a long time ago.

english please, me no habla

 

[blazerboy30]

USPS should not just waste money, but I think it would be a mistake if their only goal was to make a profit (like fedex and UPS)

Why is that a mistake? What if one of their goals was to break even?

 

[mook]

Why is that a mistake? What if one of their goals was to break even?

I like the idea of it breaking even. I agree, though, that it's certainly not necessary (or even that desirable) for it to make a profit. It's overall an excellent service (and part of the lifeblood of my own small business). I want its services to be as cheap as possible while attaining financial stability. If it tries to earn a profit, that will cause our business to have to raise shipping rates more than necessary, which would cut our profits. That would effectively becoming an unnecessary tax on businesses, and a regressive tax on individuals. I'm not necessarily anti-tax--I just prefer government that exacts taxes out of business and individuals in as straightforward a manner as possible.

Just charge a simple corporate tax rate, and a simplified progressive tax rate for individuals. Get rid of almost all deductions, and don't try to raise government taxes with gimmicks like excessive postal delivery charges. If we do all that and really simply things, then we can all have a rational, straight-forward debate about how much tax is too much tax. Right now the way our government raises taxes is so convoluted that it's practically impossible to really tell the impact of any supposed tax reform. (Not to mention that it's become a ridiculous burden for everybody to comply with the tax code.)

I doubt there's more than one or two people on this board who'd disagree with me on this basic point. It's amazing how fucked up our political system is that such an obvious, universally desirable outcome in our country continues to be completely ignored.

 

[Denny Crane]

The issue for the post office is they can't set prices so the poor can't afford it.

Here's the scenario on tax simplification:

They lower your effective tax rate from 25% to 10% and take away your mortgage deduction. You actually come out ahead. Then the next time the people get suckered into letting progressives run things, they raise your tax rate back to 25%. Now you lose big and have a bigger tax burden.

 

[barfo]

Here's the scenario on tax simplification:

They lower your effective tax rate from 25% to 10% and take away your mortgage deduction. You actually come out ahead. Then the next time the people get suckered into letting progressives run things, they raise your tax rate back to 25%. Now you lose big and have a bigger tax burden.

In any tax reform, some of 'you' are going to come out ahead, and some of 'you' are going to pay more. In almost every proposal I've seen mentioned here, the poor and middle class are the ones who will end up paying more. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but it seems to be the way the people making the proposals want it.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

In any tax reform, some of 'you' are going to come out ahead, and some of 'you' are going to pay more. In almost every proposal I've seen mentioned here, the poor and middle class are the ones who will end up paying more. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but it seems to be the way the people making the proposals want it.

barfo

Yeah, that would totally suck if everybody had some skin in the game when they vote to increase spending.

 

[blazerboy30]

I like the idea of it breaking even. I agree, though, that it's certainly not necessary (or even that desirable) for it to make a profit. It's overall an excellent service (and part of the lifeblood of my own small business). I want its services to be as cheap as possible while attaining financial stability. If it tries to earn a profit, that will cause our business to have to raise shipping rates more than necessary, which would cut our profits. That would effectively becoming an unnecessary tax on businesses, and a regressive tax on individuals. I'm not necessarily anti-tax--I just prefer government that exacts taxes out of business and individuals in as straightforward a manner as possible.

I agree that profit shouldn't be a goal. But breaking-even should be (or even a requirement). I'm sorry that raising mail rates would affect your business, but there are lots of handouts and subsidies the government could provide that would help my business. That doesn't mean they should do it as our deficit and debt is out of control.

Just charge a simple corporate tax rate, and a simplified progressive tax rate for individuals. Get rid of almost all deductions, and don't try to raise government taxes with gimmicks like excessive postal delivery charges.

Maybe I am mis-remembering, but I thought you were in favor of the government charging a tax on miles driven. Also in favor of tolls? You seem to be in favor of prices / taxes that are directly related to the service provided, but for some reason that doesn't apply to raising the cost of delivering mail.

If we do all that and really simply things, then we can all have a rational, straight-forward debate about how much tax is too much tax. Right now the way our government raises taxes is so convoluted that it's practically impossible to really tell the impact of any supposed tax reform. (Not to mention that it's become a ridiculous burden for everybody to comply with the tax code.)

I doubt there's more than one or two people on this board who'd disagree with me on this basic point. It's amazing how fucked up our political system is that such an obvious, universally desirable outcome in our country continues to be completely ignored.

Again, I apologize if I am mis-remembering your position on a mileage/ usage tax. But you want a simple, straight forward tax system, but you are also in favor of applying tax / price increases directly to services and infrastructure, as long as it isn't something that affects your business, like the mail delivery. Seems inconsistent.

 

[mook]

As I said, I'm perfectly fine with the postal service raising rates so that they can break even. That's very fair. I just don't want to see them raising rates beyond that to earn a profit. At that point it becomes an income stream for the Federal Government as a whole, which I dislike. It's a round-about tax. I prefer something more transparent.

I don't remember really being that big of a fan of taxing per mile usage. Seems too onerous to track. I do like the idea of an added gas tax, though, for the same reason I like the idea of the post office breaking even. The price for fuel delivery, just like the price for mail delivery, should reflect true costs. There are enormous hidden costs in current gas prices. Highway maintenance, environmental damage, wars and other foreign policy based on keeping oil pipelines open, just to name a few.

Also, I'm a strong believer in markets and market innovation. The way the market works now, we'll never ween ourselves from the influence of countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela until they run out of oil. Only then will the market respond with rapid alternative energy innovation. But I'd rather not wait around while helping to prop up those countries. I think there's a very good argument to be made for spurring that weening process along by raising gas taxes now.

If my choice is for a gas dollar to go to Saudi Arabia or the US Federal Government, I'll pick the US Federal Government every time. I wish ten years ago after 9/11 our president had framed it this way. Call it the Patriot Tax. We'd have a much different, better country now.

 

[Denny Crane]

In any tax reform, some of 'you' are going to come out ahead, and some of 'you' are going to pay more. In almost every proposal I've seen mentioned here, the poor and middle class are the ones who will end up paying more. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but it seems to be the way the people making the proposals want it.

barfo

You completely missed the point. First they'll simplify the tax code and lower the rate, THEN they'll screw everyone by increasing the rates.

 

[barfo]

You completely missed the point. First they'll simplify the tax code and lower the rate, THEN they'll screw everyone by increasing the rates.

I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. Yes, taxes could be increased in the future. So what? All kinds of things might happen in the future, some of them much worse than tax increases.

barfo

 

[mook]

You completely missed the point. First they'll simplify the tax code and lower the rate, THEN they'll screw everyone by increasing the rates.

Why is it necessarily screwing everyone over by raising the rate? If in step 1 they simplified the tax code and lowered the rate to 3% (a rate that even libertarians would have to recognize as unsustainable), is it necessarily screwing everyone over if they raise it to 15%?

 

[Denny Crane]

Why is it necessarily screwing everyone over by raising the rate? If in step 1 they simplified the tax code and lowered the rate to 3% (a rate that even libertarians would have to recognize as unsustainable), is it necessarily screwing everyone over if they raise it to 15%?

Yes, it's screwing everyone over to raise the rate after taking away the deductions.