<< <i>Somehow I just can't see the government rounding anything down. That's what I was referring to when I said I can't see how millions of taxable transactions wouldn't result in extra millions of dollars. >>
But they already do! (He screamed, futilely.) They round down to the cent if the amount of sales tax is less than five mills.
You asked for math, I gave you math. If you're just going to spout anti-government raving, you're a moron, and there's not much more I can do for you.
Maybe it's because I'm tired, but how could you make change without the cent? I'm not seeing how cash transactions would be able to avoid the need? Thanks, and goodnight, I'll postpone taking my admonishment until tomorrow.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Getting rid of cents would just allow the government to collect extra money in taxes when every transaction is rounded up. Bring back the Large Copper Half Cent!
Who cares (or better to be asked, who SHOULD care) if the government makes more money off taxes or not? I don't really care if the cent disappears from production or not but the fact remains that the way things are set up, cents are part of the equation.
It would be a large overhaul of the system to remove cents, and reprice items, and reprogram systems, etc, in order to do this. In the climate the economy is in, that would be stupid.
But, it is often emotions, or what someone personally wants, that is voiced and pushed, and that appears to be the case here.
Also, as I stated, the US Mint makes a profit, for the government and the budget, from making the cents to start off with anyway. To remove them would cause a loss of profit. How would you propose that profit be replaced?
Also, as I stated, the US Mint makes a profit, for the government and the budget, from making the cents to start off with anyway. To remove them would cause a loss of profit. How would you propose that profit be replaced?
The concept of profit on coinage is sophmoric, at best. If the government truly made a profit on currency, they could simply print 8 trillion Dollars in $100 bills, and the national debt would be erased.
The biggest problem with the Cent, is that it does not circulate. We in essence, have to produce several hundred coins per year, per citizen, which are used once, then promptly dropped into coffee cans. If they were circulated, the production demand would be substantially less.
Sophmoric? No, the government can't just make trillions of coins to erase the debt. There is a set amount to be minted each year to correspond with what should be circulating. Sure, many dump their cents into coffee cans, or the equivalent. The same can be said for nickels and dimes. At least for me. But, it sounds like you are pretty certain that your way is right, right? You have a large statistical group that you are basing this off?
Anyway, this topic has been broached over and over for the last few years. I don't care either way but I think it is silly to try to push it like it is the most logical thing to do without knowing/stating/understanding both sides completely.
Only the IRS rounds amounts to the nearest dollar and the cent will continue to exist until all money is virtual.
All of the computer systems talking with all of the other systems have agreed that all commerce is done in dollars and cents.
What needs to go is the 1/10th cent.
Only used at gas stations and with $2.50+ a gallon of gas, the $2.499 price per gallon doesn't have much impact anymore - except at Donnie's Discount Gas, where it's only $2.498 a gallon.
Anyway, this topic has been broached over and over for the last few years. I don't care either way but I think it is silly to try to push it like it is the most logical thing to do without knowing/stating/understanding both sides completely.
The issue is certainly not a life or death decision. As our government debases our currency, the smaller denominations, gradually become obsolete. If you were setting up a system today, would you create a unit that is worth 1/100 th of say, a loaf of bread? No. There is absolutely no reason to spend resources on such a piece.
I understand the numismatic attachment to the Cent, but the Morgan Dollar is still popular, over 80 years after its discontinuation.
<< <i>Sophmoric? No, the government can't just make trillions of coins to erase the debt. There is a set amount to be minted each year to correspond with what should be circulating. Sure, many dump their cents into coffee cans, or the equivalent. The same can be said for nickels and dimes. At least for me. But, it sounds like you are pretty certain that your way is right, right? You have a large statistical group that you are basing this off?
Anyway, this topic has been broached over and over for the last few years. I don't care either way but I think it is silly to try to push it like it is the most logical thing to do without knowing/stating/understanding both sides completely. >>
There aren't any compelling arguments to keep the cent.
The best argument for keeping it is that it is a pschological limitation on inflation. While the cent is a minor cause of inflation because it artificially increases the size and scope of government, it does serve to make some people feel that the cent has real value.
But the cent does not have real value. It has a negative value and makes us poorer.
The IRS can round to the dollar because there is always a 50% chance that numbers will be rounded up and 50% that they are rounded down. It rarely makes more than a dollar differ- ence in the amount of income on which one pays tax. Even where this difference is greater than a dollar the odds are the the tax payer will be in the same tax bracket anyway. Perhaps one tax payer in a million will "beat the odds" and see that he can lower his tax bill ten or fif- teen dollars by rounding or not rounding. In the mean time a million other payers don't have to mess with the cents and the IRS doesn't have to enter them when they check or audit the returns. It's a very small price to pay.
The same principle holds in "real life". If prices were rounded to the nearest dollar everyone would cheat. People would make trip after trip into the grocery to "buy" 49c cans of tuna or beans for nothing. Grocers would raise the price of the 29c candy to 51c so they could get more. A dollar is simply too large a unit of wealth to use as the smallest unit of currency because it would change peoples' behavior and distort various markets.
By the same token what does one do at the gas pump when the $2.499 gas comes up to a total of $19.996? People don't demand their four tenth of a cent. They pay the $20 without even thinking about it and if they did then they'd realize their next trip to the pump might tot- al $20.004 and then they'd be even. How many people do you see trying to get that last .4c when they fill their cars. (and, yes, someday I'll have enough for a fill-up)
If the cent were eliminated then what would be the problem? Are people going to run in and out of the store all day buying all the 2c bread and meats one at a time so they could get them free? Are merchants going to raise the price of all the 1c canned goods to a nickel to stop them walking out of the store? No obviously not because the penny is obsolete. There has been no consumer product that could be purchased for 1c in decades. The only thing that's ever for sale at less than a dime is Ramen noodles and these are rarely under 8c.
It wll make "no" difference to any consumer or tax payer if the cent were eliminated. The real difference will be the lower cost of operating banking, retail, and the mint. It will be the stream- lining of retail activity, and the decreased number of hernias in those who transport money. It will be in having less smoke billow into the air at mines and refineries and from the trucks and trains that haul around the raw and finished products. It could be in bringing a currency system into the 21st century and the increased activity allowed by it. As long as the cent is minted for circulation there is little chance that we'll have a workable coinage system.
As to the psychological reaction, it would seem improbable that seeing people throw pennies away is really good for the perception of the value of money. Eliminating the cent might actually increase many people's perception of the value of a dollar. It would certainly make it appear that the government has some perception of the value of a dollar.
<< <i>Maybe it's because I'm tired, but how could you make change without the cent? I'm not seeing how cash transactions would be able to avoid the need? Thanks, and goodnight, I'll postpone taking my admonishment until tomorrow. >>
Consider yourself admonished -- it's been explained countless times in this thread already.
You round final totals to the nearest (higher or lower) nickel. No cents required.
No, this will not make everyone pay more. No, this will not generate extra millions of dollars of sales tax revenue. Its affect on the amount of money we spend or the government gets is nil. See my earlier posted Excel spreadsheet for the math behind this.
And Bochiman, ignoring the argument about Mint profit being "sophomoric", the bottom line is that the Mint DOES NOT MAKE A PROFIT on cents. In 2003, it cost $0.0098 just to manufacture one cent. You can look it up yourself in the Mint's annual report. 2004's report has not yet been published, but you can bet that manufacturing costs exceed one cent now. When you add in distribution costs (Mint -> Fed -> Banks -> Stores -> You), one cent coins are a profound drain on our economy, both in hard costs (manufacture, transportation, etc.) and soft costs (the additional manpower required to handle them, time wasted in line as cashiers count out pennies, etc.).
Would somebody please present a coherent argument in favor of the cent? All this bad math and disinformation is giving me a headache.
<< <i>I wouldn't mind seeing the cent continued, but only within proof sets/us mint sets for collector consumption. Man, you wanna see guaranteed sellouts of those items? That'd do it.
Of course, the mint would feel justified in charging us an arm and leg for them - but what else is new?
Also, the legal tender of any cents still out there would have to be upheld, IMO. How many cents does it take before a business is allowed to refuse them as payment? If you tried to pay a $236.54 bill all in cents, what typically happens? >>
This was going to be my stance on this thread as well. But never mind charging us an arm and leg for putting a worthless cent coin in the sets
I also liked the thought of making a DOLLAR vdb coin to replace the cent in circulation. I would NOT take ABE LINCOLN out of the coin world. As he is one of the most beloved presidents.
Also the thought of a presidential series, ?WHO ELSE except maybe Teddy Roseivelt (sorry i spelled it wrong) everyone that should be thus honered, has been. pz
(Old man) Look I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah”.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>I also liked the thought of making a DOLLAR vdb coin to replace the cent in circulation. I would NOT take ABE LINCOLN out of the coin world. As he is one of the most beloved presidents. >>
The idea of the dollar coin was for a commem, not unlike the 2001 Buffalo. Not a circulating coin. Many people also call for an end to the dead presidents on coins, and a return to Liberty (or anything else, really). As beloved as Abe is, he's had a good 100 year run on circulating coinage, and that's enough for any man.
<< <i>Also the thought of a presidential series, ?WHO ELSE except maybe Teddy Roseivelt (sorry i spelled it wrong) everyone that should be thus honered, has been. >>
In my opinion, the one man that has been ignored by coinage that should be honored is John Adams. I guess he'll get a prexybuck, but I'd rather see a nice set of commems 50c-$1-$5 for the man, like those made for Madison.
"WE THE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"...
THATS WHY RIGHT!
He should get a coin. Sorry for the brain fart. OOOOOOOOOOOPS WRONG AGAIN.
Sorry Tom Jefferson. But as second president with the other acomplishments I would still agree with John Adams getting a coin Feelin kinda dumb right now
(Old man) Look I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah”.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>if the government wastes my money I can always go to the ballot box >>
Your going to the ballot box apparently hasn't done much good, since the government still wastes money like crazy.
Flaminio: Here's a coherent argument...people like me think that doing away with the cent will make the government round up taxes to the nearest nickel. I may be wrong, I may be ignorant, I may be whatever anyone wants to call me--but that is what the public believes. Unless you want the government to "waste" millions of dollars on an ad campaign to explain things to people, I don't think the public will ever really approve. Of course, when did that ever stop our government from doing anything?
Another coherent argument is this: who gets to pay for all businesses to re-write their computer programs. I work in a customer service call center, and one of my jobs is to answer questions about bills. Who gets to pay for my company to rewrite their software to round to the nearest nickel, rather than the nearest cent? Any computer programmer can tell you that rewriting a program to do something "simple" like that is not always as easy as it sounds.
Finally, the reductio ad absurdum argument: if we get rid of the penny because it's not worth anything anymore, shouldn't we get rid of the nickel and dime, too? After all, the argument goes, when was the last time you paid a penny for anything? Can't that argument be extended to dime and nickels?
Personally it doesn't matter to me. When I get a penny I throw it away. A lot of people do. But I don't think we will get rid of the penny any time soon because of public opinion (regarding taxation)--be they right or wrong, you still have to contend with people's "ignorant" notions, and because of the cost and effort in reprogramming all commercial software. If it costs the mint money to make a penny, they need to suck it up and deal with it. They make plenty of profit off all other coins, not to mention their other "products"--such as when they take two nickels, attach them to a card, and sell it for $20, calling it a "coin cover."
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
The nickel is virtually obsolete. It's only true function is to make the dime and quarter compatable. Without the nickel it would sometimes be impossible to make proper change.
I really don't understand what ou mean when you suggest that the government would round up taxes. You do realize that the first cent of tax will kick in at 14c and the second at 27c etc. If the smallest unit of currency were a nickel then it would simply kick in at five times this amount? It might be a factor in some strange esoteric case but it still wouldn't amount to much because the nickel really isn't much either.
It would be better to get rid of a worthless coin when inflation is low then to wait until it's worse and draw attention to it.
<< <i>Flaminio: Here's a coherent argument...people like me think that doing away with the cent will make the government round up taxes to the nearest nickel. I may be wrong, I may be ignorant, I may be whatever anyone wants to call me--but that is what the public believes. >>
So what you're saying is that the government should not do anything that the public is too stupid to understand, no matter how worthwhile that something is? Sorry, not buying that.
<< <i>Another coherent argument is this: who gets to pay for all businesses to re-write their computer programs. I work in a customer service call center, and one of my jobs is to answer questions about bills. Who gets to pay for my company to rewrite their software to round to the nearest nickel, rather than the nearest cent? Any computer programmer can tell you that rewriting a program to do something "simple" like that is not always as easy as it sounds. >>
Computers already round to the penny. The rounding problem has been solved. It's just a matter of changing what it rounds to.
<< <i>Finally, the reductio ad absurdum argument: if we get rid of the penny because it's not worth anything anymore, shouldn't we get rid of the nickel and dime, too? >>
One step at a time, bro'.... One step at a time...
<< <i>Computers already round to the penny. The rounding problem has been solved. It's just a matter of changing what it rounds to >>
Yep. Sounds easy doesn't it? But it's funny how in programming many of the simplest things take enormous amounts of time and effort to change.
<< <i>So what you're saying is that the government should not do anything that the public is too stupid to understand, no matter how worthwhile that something is? Sorry, not buying that. >>
More or less, right. Considering that those stupid people can vote the government out of office, I would think the government might want to consider their "stupid" opinions.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Probably true CK. Any computer programmers in here have a take on if it would be easy to change the rounding from one cent to five? It does sound easy, but I know lots of times things in that field aren't as easy as it sounds. Personally I agree that the cent is pointless, but doubt anything will be done about it any time soon, simply because of the nature of politicians.
It's funny that we discuss the issue of removing cents/dollar bills so often on these boards, but always in different threads. Everyone kinda rehashes the same arguments as they've said before, and the thread dies, only to have a new thread made a few months later
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
The arguments regarding computer programming are valid. An option would be to phase out the denomination on electronic and paper transfers, over a period of time. A reverse of the phase in of the Euro. We do not need a government directive to make useage of the cent illegal, we just need the Mint to stop producing them. As they become less available, the details will work themselves out.
<< <i>The arguments regarding computer programmin are valid. An option would be to phase out the denomination on electronic and paper transfers, over a period of time. A reverse of the phase in of the Euro. We do not need a government directive to make useage of the cent illegal, we just need the Mint to stop producing them. As they become less available, the details will work themselves out. >>
We have How many in circ. now.? Just use them untill they are worn to planchets. only puting new ones in collector sets. All the coins allready in collections would be more valuable. We can still find weat cents in our change. The pennies allready made would last far longer than it would take to fase them out of software, if the fase out was started.
So just stop producing pennies for circ, thus saving the production cost, dist. cost,....
I am NOT a programmer. but have worked with some programing software. Like visual basic. You can't just type in "round up to nearest nickel" An example that may not be exactly right and so wouldnt work is " rond = (<> .05) " And could have to be added or changed hundreds of times in pages of code for any single program. It would be way to complicated to REWRITE old software. But if the programmers knew that a change was coming, any new software written could take care of that problem. pz
(Old man) Look I had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, “That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah”.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
I still like collecting pennies - I even pick up decent ones and take the time to count them/sort them (looking for any collectible keepers) before turning them in at the bank...
We have How many in circ. now.? Just use them untill they are worn to planchets. only puting new ones in collector sets. All the coins allready in collections would be more valuable. We can still find weat cents in our change. The pennies allready made would last far longer than it would take to fase them out of software, if the fase out was started.
So just stop producing pennies for circ, thus saving the production cost, dist. cost,....
>>
There are some 150 billion in circulation to some degree. These coins don't truly circulate much at all and the closest most of them come is fed to bank to store to consumer and eventually back to the bank or Coinstar again. Old coins are found in high grade simply because they don't really circulate.
Just stopping production is not an option or at least people would have to adapt quickly since these coins wouln't be available in only a short while. Stopping production would slow their circulation not speed it.
There are other countries which have recently begun rounding larger units of money than one cent and there have been no problems reported of which I am aware.
The current cents really should be recalled. The zinc coins are toxic and if the cent weren't being used then even more of these would end up being thrown around or for use as play money and the like. After the banks just returned all their cents to the fed for a few months a bounty could be offered on remaining cents to try to get as many as possible.
I presume that we are coming to a point when retailers such as Walmart will no longer distribute the Cent. Should they round down, each transaction would cost them an additional 2.5 Cents, per transaction. Not totally insignificant, as retailers work on a profit of pennies, per Dollar, but probably close, when the cost of handling this denomination is factored in.
Bob, I wasn't aware that Excel was a programming language?
It's not that it's hard to write NEW software to round to the nearest nickel, but it's rewriting old software that's the chore. It's not as easy as hitting "FIND-REPLACE" in MS Word and poof! You're done. What if the rounding function interacts differently with the rest of the code? Changing one part of a computer program can have unintended consequences elsewhere.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>Bob, I wasn't aware that Excel was a programming language? >>
I was using Excel as an example of a program that had successfully solved the problem of nickel-rounding. Also, the message I was replying to mentioned Visual Basic, and the VBA built into Excel is very similar to Visual Basic.
In any case, I think we're getting a little off track, and some clarification is in order. When I write of cent elimination, I am speaking only of the coin, not the denomination. All electronic forms of money totalling would still be carried out to the cent, so in most cases, no program modifications are necessary. If you earn 56c of interest, your bank account would be credited 56 cents. But if you were to purchase something that cost 56 cents (including tax), and you paid with cash, you would only pay 55c (nickel rounded).
Comments
<< <i>Somehow I just can't see the government rounding anything down. That's what I was referring to when I said I can't see how millions of taxable transactions wouldn't result in extra millions of dollars. >>
But they already do! (He screamed, futilely.) They round down to the cent if the amount of sales tax is less than five mills.
You asked for math, I gave you math. If you're just going to spout anti-government raving, you're a moron, and there's not much more I can do for you.
I go with the 2009 commem and then dump it idea.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Need more $$$ for coins?
I don't really care if the cent disappears from production or not but the fact remains that the way things are set up, cents are part of the equation.
It would be a large overhaul of the system to remove cents, and reprice items, and reprogram systems, etc, in order to do this. In the climate the economy is in, that would be stupid.
But, it is often emotions, or what someone personally wants, that is voiced and pushed, and that appears to be the case here.
Also, as I stated, the US Mint makes a profit, for the government and the budget, from making the cents to start off with anyway. To remove them would cause a loss of profit. How would you propose that profit be replaced?
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
The concept of profit on coinage is sophmoric, at best. If the government truly made a profit on currency, they could simply print 8 trillion Dollars in $100 bills, and the national debt would be erased.
The biggest problem with the Cent, is that it does not circulate. We in essence, have to produce several hundred coins per year, per citizen, which are used once, then promptly dropped into coffee cans. If they were circulated, the production demand would be substantially less.
No, the government can't just make trillions of coins to erase the debt. There is a set amount to be minted each year to correspond with what should be circulating.
Sure, many dump their cents into coffee cans, or the equivalent. The same can be said for nickels and dimes. At least for me.
But, it sounds like you are pretty certain that your way is right, right? You have a large statistical group that you are basing this off?
Anyway, this topic has been broached over and over for the last few years. I don't care either way but I think it is silly to try to push it like it is the most logical thing to do without knowing/stating/understanding both sides completely.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_336b.html
As a collector and cash-spending citizen, I'd personally prefer to keep the penny around.
Michael
Only the IRS rounds amounts to the nearest dollar and the cent will continue to exist until all money is virtual.
All of the computer systems talking with all of the other systems have agreed that all commerce is done in dollars and cents.
What needs to go is the 1/10th cent.
Only used at gas stations and with $2.50+ a gallon of gas, the $2.499 price per gallon doesn't have much impact anymore - except at Donnie's Discount Gas, where it's only $2.498 a gallon.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
The issue is certainly not a life or death decision. As our government debases our currency, the smaller denominations, gradually become obsolete. If you were setting up a system today, would you create a unit that is worth 1/100 th of say, a loaf of bread? No. There is absolutely no reason to spend resources on such a piece.
I understand the numismatic attachment to the Cent, but the Morgan Dollar is still popular, over 80 years after its discontinuation.
<< <i>Sophmoric?
No, the government can't just make trillions of coins to erase the debt. There is a set amount to be minted each year to correspond with what should be circulating.
Sure, many dump their cents into coffee cans, or the equivalent. The same can be said for nickels and dimes. At least for me.
But, it sounds like you are pretty certain that your way is right, right? You have a large statistical group that you are basing this off?
Anyway, this topic has been broached over and over for the last few years. I don't care either way but I think it is silly to try to push it like it is the most logical thing to do without knowing/stating/understanding both sides completely. >>
There aren't any compelling arguments to keep the cent.
The best argument for keeping it is that it is a pschological limitation on inflation. While
the cent is a minor cause of inflation because it artificially increases the size and scope
of government, it does serve to make some people feel that the cent has real value.
But the cent does not have real value. It has a negative value and makes us poorer.
The IRS can round to the dollar because there is always a 50% chance that numbers will be
rounded up and 50% that they are rounded down. It rarely makes more than a dollar differ-
ence in the amount of income on which one pays tax. Even where this difference is greater
than a dollar the odds are the the tax payer will be in the same tax bracket anyway. Perhaps
one tax payer in a million will "beat the odds" and see that he can lower his tax bill ten or fif-
teen dollars by rounding or not rounding. In the mean time a million other payers don't have
to mess with the cents and the IRS doesn't have to enter them when they check or audit the
returns. It's a very small price to pay.
The same principle holds in "real life". If prices were rounded to the nearest dollar everyone
would cheat. People would make trip after trip into the grocery to "buy" 49c cans of tuna or
beans for nothing. Grocers would raise the price of the 29c candy to 51c so they could get more.
A dollar is simply too large a unit of wealth to use as the smallest unit of currency because it
would change peoples' behavior and distort various markets.
By the same token what does one do at the gas pump when the $2.499 gas comes up to a
total of $19.996? People don't demand their four tenth of a cent. They pay the $20 without
even thinking about it and if they did then they'd realize their next trip to the pump might tot-
al $20.004 and then they'd be even. How many people do you see trying to get that last .4c
when they fill their cars. (and, yes, someday I'll have enough for a fill-up)
If the cent were eliminated then what would be the problem? Are people going to run in and
out of the store all day buying all the 2c bread and meats one at a time so they could get them
free? Are merchants going to raise the price of all the 1c canned goods to a nickel to stop them
walking out of the store? No obviously not because the penny is obsolete. There has been no
consumer product that could be purchased for 1c in decades. The only thing that's ever for sale
at less than a dime is Ramen noodles and these are rarely under 8c.
It wll make "no" difference to any consumer or tax payer if the cent were eliminated. The real
difference will be the lower cost of operating banking, retail, and the mint. It will be the stream-
lining of retail activity, and the decreased number of hernias in those who transport money. It will
be in having less smoke billow into the air at mines and refineries and from the trucks and trains
that haul around the raw and finished products. It could be in bringing a currency system into the
21st century and the increased activity allowed by it. As long as the cent is minted for circulation
there is little chance that we'll have a workable coinage system.
As to the psychological reaction, it would seem improbable that seeing people throw pennies
away is really good for the perception of the value of money. Eliminating the cent might actually
increase many people's perception of the value of a dollar. It would certainly make it appear
that the government has some perception of the value of a dollar.
<< <i>Maybe it's because I'm tired, but how could you make change without the cent? I'm not seeing how cash transactions would be able to avoid the need? Thanks, and goodnight, I'll postpone taking my admonishment until tomorrow. >>
Consider yourself admonished -- it's been explained countless times in this thread already.
You round final totals to the nearest (higher or lower) nickel. No cents required.
No, this will not make everyone pay more. No, this will not generate extra millions of dollars of sales tax revenue. Its affect on the amount of money we spend or the government gets is nil. See my earlier posted Excel spreadsheet for the math behind this.
And Bochiman, ignoring the argument about Mint profit being "sophomoric", the bottom line is that the Mint DOES NOT MAKE A PROFIT on cents. In 2003, it cost $0.0098 just to manufacture one cent. You can look it up yourself in the Mint's annual report. 2004's report has not yet been published, but you can bet that manufacturing costs exceed one cent now. When you add in distribution costs (Mint -> Fed -> Banks -> Stores -> You), one cent coins are a profound drain on our economy, both in hard costs (manufacture, transportation, etc.) and soft costs (the additional manpower required to handle them, time wasted in line as cashiers count out pennies, etc.).
Would somebody please present a coherent argument in favor of the cent? All this bad math and disinformation is giving me a headache.
<< <i>I wouldn't mind seeing the cent continued, but only within proof sets/us mint sets for collector consumption. Man, you wanna see guaranteed sellouts of those items? That'd do it.
Of course, the mint would feel justified in charging us an arm and leg for them - but what else is new?
Also, the legal tender of any cents still out there would have to be upheld, IMO. How many cents does it take before a business is allowed to refuse them as payment? If you tried to pay a $236.54 bill all in cents, what typically happens? >>
This was going to be my stance on this thread as well. But never mind charging us an arm and leg for putting a worthless cent coin in the sets
I also liked the thought of making a DOLLAR vdb coin to replace the cent in circulation. I would NOT take ABE LINCOLN out of the coin world. As he is one of the most beloved presidents.
Also the thought of a presidential series, ?WHO ELSE except maybe Teddy Roseivelt (sorry i spelled it wrong) everyone that should be thus honered, has been.
pz
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>I also liked the thought of making a DOLLAR vdb coin to replace the cent in circulation. I would NOT take ABE LINCOLN out of the coin world. As he is one of the most beloved presidents. >>
The idea of the dollar coin was for a commem, not unlike the 2001 Buffalo. Not a circulating coin. Many people also call for an end to the dead presidents on coins, and a return to Liberty (or anything else, really). As beloved as Abe is, he's had a good 100 year run on circulating coinage, and that's enough for any man.
<< <i>Also the thought of a presidential series, ?WHO ELSE except maybe Teddy Roseivelt (sorry i spelled it wrong) everyone that should be thus honered, has been. >>
In my opinion, the one man that has been ignored by coinage that should be honored is John Adams. I guess he'll get a prexybuck, but I'd rather see a nice set of commems 50c-$1-$5 for the man, like those made for Madison.
I know John Adams was very important but can't remember why
I hate it when my history goes faulty. It was one of my better subjects. All those years ago when i was in school.
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
"WE THE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"...
THATS WHY RIGHT!
He should get a coin. Sorry for the brain fart.
OOOOOOOOOOOPS WRONG AGAIN.
Sorry Tom Jefferson.
But as second president with the other acomplishments I would still agree with John Adams getting a coin
Feelin kinda dumb right now
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
<< <i>if the government wastes my money I can always go to the ballot box >>
Your going to the ballot box apparently hasn't done much good, since the government still wastes money like crazy.
Flaminio: Here's a coherent argument...people like me think that doing away with the cent will make the government round up taxes to the nearest nickel. I may be wrong, I may be ignorant, I may be whatever anyone wants to call me--but that is what the public believes. Unless you want the government to "waste" millions of dollars on an ad campaign to explain things to people, I don't think the public will ever really approve. Of course, when did that ever stop our government from doing anything?
Another coherent argument is this: who gets to pay for all businesses to re-write their computer programs. I work in a customer service call center, and one of my jobs is to answer questions about bills. Who gets to pay for my company to rewrite their software to round to the nearest nickel, rather than the nearest cent? Any computer programmer can tell you that rewriting a program to do something "simple" like that is not always as easy as it sounds.
Finally, the reductio ad absurdum argument: if we get rid of the penny because it's not worth anything anymore, shouldn't we get rid of the nickel and dime, too? After all, the argument goes, when was the last time you paid a penny for anything? Can't that argument be extended to dime and nickels?
Personally it doesn't matter to me. When I get a penny I throw it away. A lot of people do. But I don't think we will get rid of the penny any time soon because of public opinion (regarding taxation)--be they right or wrong, you still have to contend with people's "ignorant" notions, and because of the cost and effort in reprogramming all commercial software. If it costs the mint money to make a penny, they need to suck it up and deal with it. They make plenty of profit off all other coins, not to mention their other "products"--such as when they take two nickels, attach them to a card, and sell it for $20, calling it a "coin cover."
Without the nickel it would sometimes be impossible to make proper change.
I really don't understand what ou mean when you suggest that the government would round up
taxes. You do realize that the first cent of tax will kick in at 14c and the second at 27c etc. If the
smallest unit of currency were a nickel then it would simply kick in at five times this amount? It
might be a factor in some strange esoteric case but it still wouldn't amount to much because the
nickel really isn't much either.
It would be better to get rid of a worthless coin when inflation is low then to wait until it's worse and
draw attention to it.
<< <i>Flaminio: Here's a coherent argument...people like me think that doing away with the cent will make the government round up taxes to the nearest nickel. I may be wrong, I may be ignorant, I may be whatever anyone wants to call me--but that is what the public believes. >>
So what you're saying is that the government should not do anything that the public is too stupid to understand, no matter how worthwhile that something is? Sorry, not buying that.
<< <i>Another coherent argument is this: who gets to pay for all businesses to re-write their computer programs. I work in a customer service call center, and one of my jobs is to answer questions about bills. Who gets to pay for my company to rewrite their software to round to the nearest nickel, rather than the nearest cent? Any computer programmer can tell you that rewriting a program to do something "simple" like that is not always as easy as it sounds. >>
Computers already round to the penny. The rounding problem has been solved. It's just a matter of changing what it rounds to.
<< <i>Finally, the reductio ad absurdum argument: if we get rid of the penny because it's not worth anything anymore, shouldn't we get rid of the nickel and dime, too? >>
One step at a time, bro'.... One step at a time...
<< <i>Computers already round to the penny. The rounding problem has been solved. It's just a matter of changing what it rounds to >>
Yep. Sounds easy doesn't it? But it's funny how in programming many of the simplest things take enormous amounts of time and effort to change.
<< <i>So what you're saying is that the government should not do anything that the public is too stupid to understand, no matter how worthwhile that something is? Sorry, not buying that. >>
More or less, right. Considering that those stupid people can vote the government out of office, I would think the government might want to consider their "stupid" opinions.
<< <i>
<< <i>if the government wastes my money I can always go to the ballot box >>
Your going to the ballot box apparently hasn't done much good, since the government still wastes money like crazy.
>>
Government is no more likely to be concerned with stupidity as wastefullness.
It's funny that we discuss the issue of removing cents/dollar bills so often on these boards, but always in different threads. Everyone kinda rehashes the same arguments as they've said before, and the thread dies, only to have a new thread made a few months later
<< <i>The arguments regarding computer programmin are valid. An option would be to phase out the denomination on electronic and paper transfers, over a period of time. A reverse of the phase in of the Euro. We do not need a government directive to make useage of the cent illegal, we just need the Mint to stop producing them. As they become less available, the details will work themselves out. >>
We have How many in circ. now.? Just use them untill they are worn to planchets. only puting new ones in collector sets. All the coins allready in collections would be more valuable. We can still find weat cents in our change. The pennies allready made would last far longer than it would take to fase them out of software, if the fase out was started.
So just stop producing pennies for circ, thus saving the production cost, dist. cost,....
I am NOT a programmer. but have worked with some programing software. Like visual basic. You can't just type in "round up to nearest nickel" An example that may not be exactly right and so wouldnt work is " rond = (<> .05) " And could have to be added or changed hundreds of times in pages of code for any single program. It would be way to complicated to REWRITE old software. But if the programmers knew that a change was coming, any new software written could take care of that problem.
pz
(Priest) BLASPHEMY he said it again, did you hear him?
So, I must be the cheapest one on this thread!
<< <i>
We have How many in circ. now.? Just use them untill they are worn to planchets. only puting new ones in collector sets. All the coins allready in collections would be more valuable. We can still find weat cents in our change. The pennies allready made would last far longer than it would take to fase them out of software, if the fase out was started.
So just stop producing pennies for circ, thus saving the production cost, dist. cost,....
>>
There are some 150 billion in circulation to some degree. These coins don't truly circulate
much at all and the closest most of them come is fed to bank to store to consumer and
eventually back to the bank or Coinstar again. Old coins are found in high grade simply
because they don't really circulate.
Just stopping production is not an option or at least people would have to adapt quickly
since these coins wouln't be available in only a short while. Stopping production would
slow their circulation not speed it.
There are other countries which have recently begun rounding larger units of money than
one cent and there have been no problems reported of which I am aware.
The current cents really should be recalled. The zinc coins are toxic and if the cent weren't
being used then even more of these would end up being thrown around or for use as play
money and the like. After the banks just returned all their cents to the fed for a few months
a bounty could be offered on remaining cents to try to get as many as possible.
<< <i>I am NOT a programmer. but have worked with some programing software. Like visual basic. You can't just type in "round up to nearest nickel". >>
There is an Excel function MROUND() that takes nickel rounding as one of its parameters. Example:
MROUND(1.78, 0.05) = 1.80
If Microsoft can figure out how to nickel round, anyone can. It's got to be a simpler problem than Y2K was.
It is useful to look toward countries that have already stopped production of their cents, such as Australia. They came out OK.
It's not that it's hard to write NEW software to round to the nearest nickel, but it's rewriting old software that's the chore. It's not as easy as hitting "FIND-REPLACE" in MS Word and poof! You're done. What if the rounding function interacts differently with the rest of the code? Changing one part of a computer program can have unintended consequences elsewhere.
<< <i>Bob, I wasn't aware that Excel was a programming language? >>
I was using Excel as an example of a program that had successfully solved the problem of nickel-rounding. Also, the message I was replying to mentioned Visual Basic, and the VBA built into Excel is very similar to Visual Basic.
In any case, I think we're getting a little off track, and some clarification is in order. When I write of cent elimination, I am speaking only of the coin, not the denomination. All electronic forms of money totalling would still be carried out to the cent, so in most cases, no program modifications are necessary. If you earn 56c of interest, your bank account would be credited 56 cents. But if you were to purchase something that cost 56 cents (including tax), and you paid with cash, you would only pay 55c (nickel rounded).