🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1992Aug8.152413.28164@mercury.unt.edu>, by ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry):
> In article <21296@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>The problem here is that many of us don't believe that we are at that
>>local optimum level.  For example, why do I pay extra money to prop up
>>the USPS when most of my mail is electronic or FedEx?  My solution is
>>to privatise the USPS and take the tax savings.

> in the 1970's.  I don't remember any great tax savings.  How much of your
> tax goes to support the USPS?  I must admit, I don't know.  Are we talking
> about $2, $20, or $200 per year per taxpayer?  I don't have any hard figures,

Actually, *NO* tax money goes to support the U.S. Postal Service. It is, in
fact, producing a profit -- which is then taken away from it along with
other monies to create a "paper deficit" which makes it appear that the
USPS is being subsidized by tax monies when, in fact, it is the other way
around.

If you don't want to support the USPS, don't use it. That's how it works.
The biggest problem, of course, is that there is currently a law
prohibiting competition in the first-class mail arena, so to that extent we
are "subsidizing" the U.S. Postal Service (by allowing it to charge prices
higher than an independent service would charge). I would suggest that in
the typical business, though, this isn't too big a problem. Bulk mail
advertisers, on the other hand, throw fits over the whole situation.

--
 Eric Lee Green  elg@elgamy.sccsi.com         Dodson Elementary
 (713) 437-6908  uunet!nuchat!elgamy!elg      Houston, TX
                "Kids are kids, no matter what"