You can't put aside the pension funding politics but still want to pay the USPS more, since the price of postage fees is set by federal law and must be approved by Congress. The reason you pay below cost to the USPS is because Congress demands it.

I think this is no longer true for some time now.

> It should be noted, however, that the 2006 postal law sought to provide the Postal Service with increased pricing flexibility and to promote simpler, quicker and more efficient process for changing postage prices. [1]

I think by and large current rates cover the costs. There is a weird international looohole which they are closing. We should not be subsidizing free shipping from China.

My point is mainly I don’t want to see taxpayer subsidies in excess of postage. I believe without the pension funding weirdness the USPS would be about break even, but there’s lots of conflicting information.

[1] - https://www.prc.gov/faqs#t8n185

The other part about increasing postage is that people are asked to pay more, but they don't necessarily see an improvement in the service that comes with the postage. I think about this a lot with public transit too, what a lot of people pay at the farebox doesn't necessarily cover the cost of the ride.

Fairbox recovery rates [1] in the US tend to be around 15-20%. The rest is made up from public subsidies. In the most heavily utilized subway systems, the ratio can increase to around 50% (NYC). [1]

It depends how you count the revenue, but by some accounts public transit is more heavily subsidized by State and Federal government than driving. This is especially true on a per-passenger-mile basis.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

Isn't the marginal cost of a rider nearly zero? What kind of public transit are we talking about?

But isn't the junk mail where they make a ton of their money?

I'd be willing to pay to not receive it.

I would too, but I would never support that as an official policy option, due to the extortion angle.