Ralph Wiggims has one point. There is no reason that the post office has to be so accomodating to all the damn junk mail. Except that the law passed by Congress requires it. I say that it is high time that the Congress passed a law making junk mail taxed a penny or two to raise money for a prescription drug benefit and to cut down on the damned junk mail. But I’ve been saying that for years and no one does a thing about it.
DPWhite
It is my understanding that all the junk mail substidizes the first class stuff: if they rasied the price of junk mail a penny or two a piece, the volume owuld drop signifigantly, there would be considerably fewer profits, and they would have to raise the price of stamps.
No matter what, the mail is never going to pump profits into other govermental offices: if they ever run a surplus so huge that they don’t just bank it, the pressure will be to lower rates, not turn the money over to the government.
I don’t send letters anymore, but with online shopping, I sure order a lot more stuff that gets mailed to me!
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that when his electricity gets cut off for whatever reason, he’ll be mailing in his payments?
Tripler
Just something I noticed. Suck it up, Princess. . .
I just thought this was worth repeating.
Right on! [insert emoticon for pumping fist in air]
The Better Half has been a letter carrier for 18 years, and from Day One this has been the constant refrain of the news he brings home from work.
On the very morning last week when the Postmaster went, cap in hand, to Congress to tell them the Post Office was in deep financial doo-doo, all Postal Employees were issued cute little red-white-and-blue “Postal Pride” lapel pins to wear, along with a memo from the Postmaster reminding them, in a totally anal-retentive way, that they may only wear their “Postal Pride” lapel pins when they’re also wearing their Postal Uniforms, as otherwise it wouldn’t be respectful.
The Better Half says there was much hilarity on the workroom floor that morning.
How much do you suppose all that cost?
You are aware that ina book I once got there tells you how to mail without a stamp?
It works, too.
Who gets to define “junk mail”? I use the pizza coupons I get, and I don’t mind flipping through weird catalogs. However, when Aunt Lottie sends me a birth announcment for Cousin Flora’s spawn, who I haven’t ever seen in my life, to try and wheedle a present out of me, that’s junk. When people I have purposely avoided for years send me Christmas cards, that’s junk. I’m sure Aunt Lottie feels otherwise, just as I’m sure that Zippy’s Pizza feels their coupons aren’t junk, they’re a good (and legal) way for Zippy to try to increase their business.
Sure, I wish I got less junk mail. I wish I wasn’t throwing so much of it in the recycling bin. But you act as though it’s a foregone conclusion that anything you don’t like is, by definition, useless to everyone and should be eliminated. Why not write to whatever address it is that removes you from marketing lists?
Yes, yes by god the post office should go out of buisness!
Its obscene to pay 37 fucking cents to mail a letter!
Damnit we’re americans! When I need to mail out my power bill I should have to sent it UPS ground for several dollars… each month… and get charged several dollars to get bill sent to me (in the form of increased rate prices).
God Damn USPS STOP FUCKING WITH ME! I work hard for my money and I need those extra 12 cents I’ll spend each month to pay my bills!
Oh wait a second… Several dollars is more than 37 cents. DOH
Ya know if they taxed junk mail, we’d just pay for it anyway… The companies that send junk mail would just charge more… it’d make more sense just to send 15 cents a month to medicare…
No, you’re the only one who interprets “pay my bills electronically” as using Paypal or something like that. I pay my student loans electronically, and they would get paid if I’m on grid or not.
Guess what the E in EFT stands for…
My kind of solution…
;j
On a related note: The UK govt used to do just that with the GPO (as it was known back in the day). The Post Office was the only profit making public service and a lot of the profits were funneled back to the government in “loans”.
Whether these will paid back when Consignia (as the government owned PLC is now known) is inevitably sold off, is another question. I’m guessing they’ll find some excuse not to pay us our millions back.
I don’t have a cite for this but I am a Consignia employee for what it’s worth.
So many misconceptions here. First:
That’s very misleading. You could just as well say that it’s gone up thirty-three hundred percent, which I think is just a bit higher than the rate of inflation during the same period. But perhaps I am mistaken…
Next, no the USPS is not tax subsidized (except that apparently yes it is, as per UncleBeer), but it does have a legally guaranteed monopoly on the delivery of first class mail, and also I believe on the delivery of the kind of bulk mail on which it makes its money, which is the sort of thing that makes Bill Gates’ wet dreams wet. This is a pretty big subsidy, but a hidden one, hidden well enough that a lot of people in this thread don’t seem to know about it, which I guess is why people say things like this:
Likewise with:
UPS ground is a different service than first class mail. First class mail is a service that UPS cannot legally offer. Without the USPS, presumably, the government would allow someone to deliver first-class mail. If UPS was allowed to, it stands to reason that it would be cheaper than their ground service.
We seem to have a great deal of fuzzy thinking going on here.
Let me try an economically literate round-up.
- Post Office is a monopoly with government sanction.
a) The establishment of monopoly is certainly a form of protection. Hardly hidden however. What rational may there be? See below. - Monopoly comes with certain duties such as
a) Providing “free service” to certain mailers for which the government reimburses the post office.
i) Uncle Beer’s quote does not indicate the financial specifics of how the sum was arrived at, however the bald characterization that this is a subsidy does not on its face match the ordinary definition of such. Rather this seems to be payment for services that Congress mandates the PO provide by legislative fiat. Knowing more about the structure of the fees and services might change this.
b) Provide universal service. The PO serves areas that would clearly not be economical to serve for a private for-profit entity without, well, subsidies. - Post Office has a quasi-public structure that does tie it to civil service laws. This may be a public policy question as to whether this structure continues to make sense.
Now, do carry on but please do so with some vague efforts at addressing the overall picture
Also, I think the Post Office is bound to certain conditions when it comes to international mail, due to treaties the US has signed regarding the issue.
In any event, while there are good reasons to keep the current system (whether they are compelling reasons is another debate), to make the case that the Post Office is good at what it does because it’s vastly cheaper than UPS ground service is ignorant. USPS provides a service that no one else can legally provide, so such comprisons are meaningless.
Actually, it’s long annoyed me how many economic conservatives and libertarians (in which I include myself) hold the Post Offfice up as an example of government inefficiency. It kinda sorta breaks even, and generally does a good job at what it does, especially when you consider the price. Sure, it’s fairly mediocre, but there are probably examples in the private sector of worse.
It’s especially annoying when compared with the attitude toward government funded highways that said people have.
…except that it’s still cheaper for services that UPS and FedEx do provide, like Priority Mail.