When is the mint going to address the cost of minting the nickel?
291fifth
Posts: 24,700 ✭✭✭✭✭
The cost of minting a nickel is now approaching nine cents. Is the mint asleep at the switch or is it formulating an alternative to the present coin?
The numismatic press also seems to be slow in addressing this issue.
Prohibiting melting/exporting is not a solution to the problem.
The numismatic press also seems to be slow in addressing this issue.
Prohibiting melting/exporting is not a solution to the problem.
All glory is fleeting.
0
Comments
<< <i>Prohibiting melting/exporting is not a solution to the problem. >>
If I were the mint, this is exactly the first thing I would do. A legitimate coin melting company could do more damage than hoarders, and by making it a crime the gov't has protected itself.
According to coinflation.com, the nickel is up to 9.4c worth of metal. Add in production and distribution costs, and it easily costs the Government more than 10c to put a nickel into circulation.
Switching to an alternate metal is tough, because it will obsolete all vending machines.
Eliminating the nickel is also problematic, because there would be no way to change a quarter.
But the nickel? Since it's both required for change AND used in vending machines the Fed is in a tough spot. Continue as things are, and bleed red ink? Ultimately, I have a feeling that the solution will be to change the composition and leave vending machines out in the cold.
<< <i>But the nickel? Since it's both required for change AND used in vending machines the Fed is in a tough spot. Continue as things are, and bleed red ink? Ultimately, I have a feeling that the solution will be to change the composition and leave vending machines out in the cold. >>
Either that or devise a coin with cheaper metal but the same size and metallic signature.
Maybe we should just stop denying inflation and price everything in dollars and tenths? In the olden days some little things used to sell 'two for a penny or 'three for a penny' -- and these days you can't often get ONE thing for a dime, let alone two or three.
A nickel today has the purchasing power of about 0.2 cents in 1857 when the half cent was abolished. Abolishing the half cent in 1857 and making the one cent piece the smallest circulating issue would be about like abolishing everything below the quarter today, since a cent in 1857 had the buying power of roughly a quarter today. Just a little perspective. In real terms, having a 'dime' be the base unit of currency is far more "granular" than pricing everything to the nearest cent in 1857.
<< <i>Well, they already acknowledged it by banning the melting of cents and nickels.
According to coinflation.com, the nickel is up to 9.4c worth of metal. Add in production and distribution costs, and it easily costs the Government more than 10c to put a nickel into circulation.
Switching to an alternate metal is tough, because it will obsolete all vending machines.
Eliminating the nickel is also problematic, because there would be no way to change a quarter. >>
They can simply switch to aluminum and put off the problem for a few
years. There's no need for them to work in vending machines since
all products cost so much more than 5c. The lack of a dollar coin is
disastrous to this industry. Not having a nickel would be nearly invis-
ible.
I believe thay use around 2c for coining costs on these. So total cost
should be around 11 1/2 cents each and taxpayers lose 6 1/2 cents
when one is produced. Coining costs would be lower for aluminum.
<< <i>I think we would do just fine without the 1 and 5 cent coins. 10 cents does not seem much and if the rounding thing would work for getting rid of the 1 cent why not the 5 cent also. I use CC for most everything anyway and hate getting change with tons of cents. >>
The nickel is needed to make change. You can't just round off to the nearest dime or you can't pay with quarters.
<< <i>I believe thay use around 2c for coining costs on these. So total cost
should be around 11 1/2 cents each and taxpayers lose 6 1/2 cents
when one is produced. Coining costs would be lower for aluminum.
<< <i>
They lose a little on every nickel, but they make it up in volume!!
<< <i>The nickel is needed to make change. You can't just round off to the nearest dime or you can't pay with quarters. >>
True. In such an environment you would probably need to have a 20-cent piece. Hard to complain about looking too much like a quarter if you don't have a quarter any more.
If you had a 20-cent piece and no nickels and dimes, you could make the 20-cent piece smaller, which would also allow a smaller half dollar (eliminating a lot of the resistance to it).
In my college chemistry lab I was taught that when we graphed results, the units on the Y axis should be multiples of 1, 2, 5 or 10 in proper science. Hence having a 10c, 20c, 50c and $1 coin would be proper science.
That's the same number of commonly used denominations as today (4), so the "no room in the cash register argument" wouldn't wash, either. Electronic commerce (credit and debit cards) could continue to conduct transactions to the nearest cent, and as they become more common the absence of hard cash below ten cents becomes less significant over time.
Plus, having those coins and eliminating the rag buck would open the door for the $2 also...taking the $1 FRN's slot in the till.
I think what we have is a stubborn resistance to change as well as government's reluctance to admit that they've inflated things so much that 1c coins and 5c coins just don't make much sense and need to go the way of the 1/4 farthing. Alternatively, an aluminum nickel might work.
nickels were to suddenly disappear. Another option would be to
revalue the dime as a 12 1/2c piece or half quarter and just let peo-
ple melt the cent and nickel.