In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Services net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I >learned as follows:
"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many >stamps are held by the public.
That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.
The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp >purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has >purchased and records this number as a deferred revenue-prepaid postage >liability. "
Can anybody explain what kind of revision was the one mentioned above, and >why did it add so much to the postal revenues? TIA.
In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.
Postal Services net losses for the year are growing" by Bill McAllister, I >> learned as follows:
"One of the changes USPS made in the quarter was a revision to how many
stamps are held by the public.
That revision added $1 billion to postal revenues in the latest quarter.
The Postal Service does not record postage as a revenue item until the stamp >> purchased is used in the mail. It notes how many stamps the public has
purchased and records this number as a deferred revenue-prepaid postage
liability. "
Can anybody explain what kind of revision was the one mentioned above, and >> why did it add so much to the postal revenues? TIA.
IF this account is correct, one nedd only visit any stamp dealer,
show or go on line. There are hundreds of thousands of 'old' sheets,
blocks, etc. in 'collector' hands dating back to the 1930's.
If these are now 'not accounted in revenue' [though I'm sure the
money paid in has long been spent], then the 'books' are fried!
I'd expect this "deferred revenue-prepaid postage liability" to
exceed the total 'revenues for up to a full year!
NOW ... do they discount for the interest and use of the funds that
they have had for up to almost a Century?
ROTFLMAO about O'Bamanomics !!!
In Linn's Stamp News, August 10, 2016, from the article: "Why the U.S.----------------
--------------------
Republicans scream that Hillary Clinton was responsible
for the tragedy in Benghazi. They conveniently forget
that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that
drastically cut the State Department's budget for
embassy and consulate protection.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 374 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 48:39:31 |
Calls: | 7,970 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,017 |
Messages: | 5,818,861 |