"Real" Money

"note.boy" wrote in message
...
You're hitting it pretty much on the head, IMO. Way down the list of
priorities on the government's money waste list. Any cost savings by not
printing dollar bills would be diluted by the fact that we'd still be
printing six other denominations, and eliminating one of them wouldn't
silence the presses nor provide more money for pork pies. The only real
savings would come by not printing ANY currency. That may yet come in
some of our lifetimes.

Bruce

You obviously have NO idea of the percentage of total production of paper
notes in the USA that's taken up by printing the useless one dollar note
so your IMO should read IMOTCROTTOMHAIJALOHA, In My Opinion That Came
Right Off The Top Of My Head And Is Just A Load Of Hot Air.

Have a guess, it's one of these, 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% 100%. Two of the
choices were deliberately included to confuse you, can you tell which two?
So we are now looking for you to make three choices. The two deliberately
confusing choices and the correct % figure.

Since there are paper notes other than the one dollar note, I will take a
chance and conclude that 0% and 100% are the two choices included to
confuse, deliberately or otherwise. Beyond that, I would only be guessing.
When you give the correct answer, could we please have a link to your
information source. Thanks!

Oh, by the way, we can and often do debate the convenience of paper vs.
coin, or the economy of paper vs. coin, but I simply don't understand the
charge that the one dollar note is "useless." It just doesn't match my
experience, sorry.

James

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Real" money, meaning that the value of the coin is in the
metal, is gone now. Was the USA the last country to coin
real money? If not, which country carried on coinage after
LBJ eliminated silver coinage?

BTW, I do not count legal tender coins like the US $50
gold coin, as it is not expected to be circulated as a
Kennedy half dollar was.

GFH


I would not be surprised if the USA was the last country to coin
"real" money as they have the most backward coin and papermoney on
the planet.

So, you've rigorously examined the coin and papermoney of all nations
on the planet and come to this conclusion, eh?

Mr. Jaggers


Prove me wrong by naming a non third world country that has a more
backward coin and papermoney set up.

By whose standards (besides yours) is our monetary system "backward"?



You couldn't find one more backword either, I didn't think that you
would.

Never had any problem buying stuff with our money. As long as it works,
who cares what assortment of denominations a country uses? The only
thing backwards here is your concerns and your Econ 101 logic.


I hate to repeat myself but you insists on replying without reading my
posts carefully and posting the first thought that enters your head.

The USA goverment is wasting millions producing low value coins and notes
that have no place in a country like the USA, the UK government dumped the
1/2 penny coin and the ten bob note ages ago, the persons responsible for
the lack of similar action for the one cent coin and one dollar note in
the USA need to be fired. I can't make it any plainer than that.

You keep expounding on what the US needs and what needs to be done there
while not living there as a daily user of its various monies. Who are you
to criticise us for not doing exactly what you do in the UK? Where are you
reading this stuff? How much are the savings if one of our seven paper bill
denominations is eliminated? And why do you care so much?


Try responding directly to my comments above without flying off at a
tangent, please.

If you disagree with my statement, give the reasons, that's how a
discussion works.


Who else has ridiculously low face value coins and papermoney in
circulation similar to the one cent coin and the one dollar note?

The dollar bill has a ridiculously low face value? Regardless, if any
other countries use low value coins it's because they want to. Better
not go there if it bugs you.

Oops, too late, I've been to the USA three times and Canada once.

Were you able to use our backward currency to buy things? You must've if
you came back a couple times.



Yes and the one cent coin was a pain in the bum, I left behind several
dozen when I headed for the airport, many are received in change but few
are spent.

Would you support the introduction of a 1/4 cent coin?

At the end of each day in the UK, I unloaded all the change in my pocket and
threw half of them-- the pesky and "useless" small denominations-- into my
suitcase to go into my foreign "junk box" when I got home. All countries
seem to have their "useless" coins, eh? I assume these small denomination
coins don't concern people in the UK, so their existance doesn't and
shouldn't concern me as a foreigner.




The UK got rid of the 1/2p coin (roughly equal to the one cent coin)
in 1984 and last issued the ten bob note (roughly equal to the one
dollar note) in 1967.

So what? They did so because they wanted to. I believe the UK still
has 50p coins, two of which equate to a one pound coin. Why mint both?
People like to use them, I guess. Same here.

If you have to ask "so what" you must like the USA government wasting
millions every year producing useless low value coin and notes.

Did you just come in off the college picket line with that? We use all
of our coins and notes, as do people in all countries. You call that
wasting? Wait a few years and there will be no need for cash at all,
except for your "Lucys' Economic Advice 50¢" stand along the street
outside your house.



I've never been to college and never been on a picket line and I fail to
see what that has to do with anything, or was that a pathetic attempt to
introduce politics into the argument?

Sorry, I should have known. Again, the reason for your continued concern
about what our government spends our money on escapes me. You must be glad
you live in such an efficient country that wastes nothing.


100 years after cash has been abolished everywhere else I fear that the
USA will still be using the one cent coin.

The USA is 23 and 40 years behind the UK.

Wow! Did you get this from a US or a UK economist?

You are very obviously part of the problem and not part of the solution.

And the "problem" is? Are we not following the UK model correctly?

The problem is that the USA goverment is ignoring the problem and so are
you, no matter how times it's brought to your attention you fail to
acknowledge its existance.

The problem is that the US govt is ignoring the problem? Hmmmmm. You
still haven't explained what the "problem" is that you perceive we have.
From another country thousands of miles away you keep harping on the notion
that we have a serious "problem" here and our government is ignoring it.
Have you experienced it? Have you learned this from US citizens? BBC?
You need to have a cup of coffee or do a little gardening or something.
There has to be some local problem just waiting for you to point it out.



The attractiveness of current USA papermoney from a collecting point
of view is a million miles behind Scottish notes. We have very
attractive issues in a variety of designs/colours and sizes from three
different banks that change fairly regularly. Billy

Personally, I kind of like having all my bills the same size so none
get lost in between the others and I don't have to keep them arranged
by size in my wallet. Never in 60 years have I confused one
denomination with another. I think our bills look just fine, too,
pretty much the way our money has looked for well over half a century.
Gives consumers confidence and comfort. Frequent currency design
changes can create confusion.

Any time I can buy $1.00 worth of goods with $1.00 worth of the coins
in my pocket, that's "real money" to me. I couldn't care less what the
coins are made of.

I have never been confused with USA notes but it is a let down when I
discover after a good rummage that I have nothing left above a five, it
would be so much easier if the notes had some variety.

Then you'll LOVE our postage stamps. Try some. Different sizes, too.
And you ought to spend some of those US notes, rather than let them
accumulate so much that you have to "rummage".



Is there still a one cent stamp?

Sure. They become most useful whenever the postal rates increase by a
couple cents. Stick them alongside old rate stamps you have left to make up
the difference. You imply we're wasting more money here?


I wish I had spent more as the value of the US$ against the UK£ has
plummeted recently.

The relative values don't matter much to the average Joe here.



Have you ever heard of the expression "move with the times", you must be
sad that barter is no longer with us and that we no longer live in
caves. Billy

Gee, no. I've never heard of that expression. Are you saying we should
have "moved" with certain other countries? By the way, check how the
economies of those other advanced countries are doing compared to ours.
If you know how. The US must be wallowing in the dumps, based on your
assessment of our pace with the world.

Bruce


The better the US economy performs then the more useless the one cent coin
and one dollar bill becomes, but you must be aware of that already surely?
Billy

Why is this so important to you? Why do you worry so much about what coins
and bills we produce? I LIVE here and I don't see this as a problem. Sure,
our cent is close to valueless, but it's still necessary to make exact
change and people seem to want their exact change. Maybe that bothers you
too. The day our dollar bill ever becomes "useless" will be the same day
all money becomes useless, and I don't plan to be around for that.

Bruce

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:04:54 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

By whose standards (besides yours) is our monetary system "backward"?

You couldn't find one more backword either, I didn't think that you
would.

I wonder why more than half of US currency is
oversees, banks all over the world request dollars from
the New York Federal Reserve, they have a warehouse
with skids of currency stacked 10 or 15 meters high just
to provide currency to foreign banks on request.

Is it because it is so backward?

Frankly, the US coins are fine, the quarter is really
all that is needed for parking meters and most machines
here, and making exact change seems to be the fastest
and least troublesome way to do business.
Maybe if all Americans were liberals, they wouldn't
care if they got exact change or not.

It isn't likely we will do things just because others
think we should, making auto parts metric was a huge
mistake costing Americans billions, with no advantage,
it didn't help sell American cars overseas.

American cars don't sell overseas because we have corners in Europe and
American cars go round corners very badly, and the interior quality is
dreadful, and they use too much fuel, and most of them are very ugly.
Billy

There's no "tongue in cheek" symbol after your post, so I have to presume
you really believe all what you said. Here I thought I was exchanging posts
with someone who had at least a little clue. No challenge or fun anymore.

Bruce

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:22:36 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

Prove me wrong by naming a non third world country that has a more
backward
coin and papermoney set up.

Who else has ridiculously low face value coins and papermoney in
circulation
similar to the one cent coin and the one dollar note?

Didn't they mint one cent and two cent euros? :-)

Name another country that has a 15 Billion dollar
economy. Maybe the money system has something
to do with economic activity.

Joe Fischer


News flash for Joe.

The bigger a country's economy the less need there is for low value notes
and coins.

So why is the one cent coin and one doller note still being produced?
Billy

Shhhhh. Because consumers and merchants here use them? Shhhhh.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:27:28 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

News flash for Joe.

The bigger a country's economy the less need there is for low value notes
and coins.

Most sales are less than $5, and people wait for
exact change because all prices are in dollars and
cents. With at least 50 different states with different
sales tax amounts, there is little chance of having prices
include the tax, and the Federal Government has __NO__
control over activity within a single states borders.

So why is the one cent coin and one doller note still being produced? Billy

Because the bosses in the US, who are the _people_
want them. The Treasury is charged with providing the
people with the coins and currency they want.
Your idea of waste is much like the concepts used
by efficiency experts. It is usually sterile and doesn't
take into account all the reasons for doing things a
certain way or having denominations as they are.

People in different countries have different habits
and attach importance to different things.
There was a time when men in the US carried
a change purse and fumbled in it to make exact
change so it wouldn't get too full.
That ended by about WWII in the US, since
then coins have become "change", not money to
spend, people saved different denominations for
different reasons, and most either keep a supply
of coins in the car or leave them at home until
they have enough to bother with depositing.

It is a way of life, with possibly 6 or 8
purchases a day, and the coins are just a simple
way to get full value for the money spent, they
are change, they are not money as such now.

I have my grandfather's change purse,
it would be a huge chore for me to try to use
it, and with a wallet and cell phone, it would
just be too much extra baggage, when I get
to the car, I put the change in a cup holder
and put a wadded paper napkin on top so
nobody sees them, and I use them to make
purchases in drive-ins rather than deposit
them in a bank.

In the US, the people are in charge,
and the Constitution prevents just any nut
elected to congress from constantly changing
things except when the activity crosses a
state line.

What it amounts to is that the form of
the money is a nothing consideration, more
important things exist, and whatever form
the money is in, works just fine.

In actuality, eliminating the use of the
cent or the dollar bill would cost the treasury
extra money for a number of years.
This is the same situation with both
business and the public, there are things
that could be more efficient, but would cost
more money up front or for a period of time,
so efficiency has to wait.

This is a horrible situation with cars,
they were designed and built when oil was
$3 a barrel and cost 10 cents to pump out
of the ground.
People have a gas guzzler, and the
cost of buying a new car to get better mileage
is not possible, they don't have the money,
and they can't make the payments.

Things are changing slow, as people
can afford it, there are more used cars now
that get better mileage, and it takes 20 years
to replace all the 200 million cars with more
efficient ones.

The US has a lot of assets, but is not
a land where everybody is super rich, and
sometimes it is difficult to manage the way
to finance something more efficient or better.

I consider the present coinage mildly
interesting, but on a per capita basis, the
cost is minimal, I would gladly pay the $2
per person per year spent on paper dollars,
and pay the 20 cents per person loss
to mint the cents with present metals.
But there are hundreds of things more
important than what kind of money is used.

I waste about $2 a day drinking diet soda,
and 80 cents a day eating Reese Cups, and
maybe $3 a day just driving someplace because
I am bored, I could quit all those, and I will if I
ever have to quit, but it isn't a big deal at the
moment.

Joe Fischer

note.boy wrote:
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message

The UK has better public transportation options than the US, and tries to
conserve gasoline by taxing the hell out of it and out of anyone who
insists on driving a car into London, for example. Those who really need
a car have little choice but to consider mileage first. There are indeed
a lot of big cars with big engines here in the US, compared with most
other countries. This may be due to the greater use of the car or SUV here
for long family trips on interstate highways. In many European countries,
there are convenient and traditional rail options for this kind of travel.
If we could buy a car here that gets twice the mileage and which would
serve all our other needs, many would.

Public transport in the UK is very expensive compared to the USA and Canada,
if more than one person is travelling going by car is cheaper even at 88p a
litre for petrol, and more confortable, more reliable, and faster. The UK
government treats motorists like a big fat cash cow.

Diesel engines are not popular in the USA and I don't know why as the MPG
for the heavy vehicles popular there would be greatly improved over petrol.

The problem here is that the automakers are still jittery because of the
dreadfully bad way that they tried to introduce diesel engines into cars back
in the 1970s and 1980s (think 'big-rig truck in a small box').

Yes, I know that it has been several decades since that debacle, but memories
are long in the minds of those whom cynically complain the loudest here.

I'd love to see 'Euro-diesels' being made widely available here and I am fully
aware of the fact that they are absolutely unlike anything from back then.

The average person earns $9 an hour if the
professionals are not included, which is hardly
enough to avoid becoming homeless.

Why should somebody who spends every
cent they have before the next payday worry about
"real money"?

Any attempt to change anything in an
economy that is 3 times the size of the next biggest
would be foolhardy,
In a word, euro, it caused no problems so why should the USA have a
problem with a minor change like dumping the one cent coin and one dollar
bill?
Probably because 99% of the US public doesn't see their cent and the
dollar as a problem. Walk in our shoes for a while if you can.


Do they not wonder why they have jars of one cent coins all over the place?

See my many rants on this subject in other threads.

;-)

--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Real" money, meaning that the value of the coin is in the
metal, is gone now. Was the USA the last country to coin
real money? If not, which country carried on coinage after
LBJ eliminated silver coinage?

BTW, I do not count legal tender coins like the US $50
gold coin, as it is not expected to be circulated as a
Kennedy half dollar was.

GFH


I would not be surprised if the USA was the last country to coin
"real" money as they have the most backward coin and papermoney
on the planet.

So, you've rigorously examined the coin and papermoney of all
nations on the planet and come to this conclusion, eh?

Mr. Jaggers


Prove me wrong by naming a non third world country that has a more
backward coin and papermoney set up.

Oh, I see, now that I've called your bluff, you change the
parameters. Clever move.

Mr. J.


What bluff and what parameters were changed?

I thank you for calling me clever as that's never happened to me
before. Billy

Your original challenge allowed a planet-wide search. The modified
challenge limited the search to non-third-world countries.

As for the compliment, you are welcome. You are indeed clever, and a
good guy in my book, too!

James


I changed to non third world countries to give a non apples and oranges
comparison, I believe that India has a very low value coin that is
sometimes drilled to be used as a washer as a washer is more expensive
to buy than the face value of the low value coin.

I can understand the need for a very low value coin in third world
countries but not in one of the richest country on the planet the USA,
it just silly and a waste of taxpayers' money. Billy

As silliness goes, demand that the cent should exist is pretty much a
lightweight, and, if you want to talk in terms of waste of taxpayers'
money, hardly even registers on the radar, comparatively speaking.

James

You're hitting it pretty much on the head, IMO. Way down the list of
priorities on the government's money waste list. Any cost savings by not
printing dollar bills would be diluted by the fact that we'd still be
printing six other denominations, and eliminating one of them wouldn't
silence the presses nor provide more money for pork pies. The only real
savings would come by not printing ANY currency. That may yet come in
some of our lifetimes.

Bruce



You obviously have NO idea of the percentage of total production of paper
notes in the USA that's taken up by printing the useless one dollar note
so your IMO should read IMOTCROTTOMHAIJALOHA, In My Opinion That Came
Right Off The Top Of My Head And Is Just A Load Of Hot Air.

First, I wish you'd enlighten us here in the US as to why the dollar bill is
useless and where you are getting this information. Here in the US, we
consider it one of the most commonly used of our paper bills, and thus the
cost of the paper it is printed on (a renewable source) is justifiable.


Have a guess, it's one of these, 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% 100%. Two of the
choices were deliberately included to confuse you, can you tell which two?
So we are now looking for you to make three choices. The two deliberately
confusing choices and the correct % figure.

You don't half post a load of ignorant nonsense, I just been down to the
basement and held a discussion with a cardboard box and it made more sense
than you do. Billy

NOW I understand where you're getting your information. Why didn't you say
so earlier?

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...
You're hitting it pretty much on the head, IMO. Way down the list of
priorities on the government's money waste list. Any cost savings by
not printing dollar bills would be diluted by the fact that we'd still
be printing six other denominations, and eliminating one of them
wouldn't silence the presses nor provide more money for pork pies. The
only real savings would come by not printing ANY currency. That may yet
come in some of our lifetimes.

Bruce

You obviously have NO idea of the percentage of total production of paper
notes in the USA that's taken up by printing the useless one dollar note
so your IMO should read IMOTCROTTOMHAIJALOHA, In My Opinion That Came
Right Off The Top Of My Head And Is Just A Load Of Hot Air.

Have a guess, it's one of these, 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% 100%. Two of the
choices were deliberately included to confuse you, can you tell which
two? So we are now looking for you to make three choices. The two
deliberately confusing choices and the correct % figure.

Since there are paper notes other than the one dollar note, I will take a
chance and conclude that 0% and 100% are the two choices included to
confuse, deliberately or otherwise. Beyond that, I would only be
guessing. When you give the correct answer, could we please have a link to
your information source. Thanks!

Oh, by the way, we can and often do debate the convenience of paper vs.
coin, or the economy of paper vs. coin, but I simply don't understand the
charge that the one dollar note is "useless." It just doesn't match my
experience, sorry.

James


Well spotted on the two deliberately confusing choices. :-)

It is probably more accurate to say "relatively useless" as I could
certainly find a use for 1,000,000 of them. Billy

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
news

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"Joe Fischer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, Padraic Brown wrote:

By whose standards (besides yours) is our monetary system "backward"?

Well, mine (US near DC) for one.

That's the reason. :-) In the real world homes
do not have a media price of $500,000 or more (except
maybe in San Francisco, DC, and a few other places,
and money is tight, real tight, mostly because of the
price of gasoline.

It's not the price of gasoline that's causing the problem, if it was we
would all be destitute here in the UK, cars in the USA have very large
engines that burn a lot of it, that's the problem. If a USA motorist
was to buy a car that had twice the MPG then in effect their gasoline
costs would half.

The UK has better public transportation options than the US, and tries to
conserve gasoline by taxing the hell out of it and out of anyone who
insists on driving a car into London, for example. Those who really need
a car have little choice but to consider mileage first. There are indeed
a lot of big cars with big engines here in the US, compared with most
other countries. This may be due to the greater use of the car or SUV
here for long family trips on interstate highways. In many European
countries, there are convenient and traditional rail options for this
kind of travel. If we could buy a car here that gets twice the mileage
and which would serve all our other needs, many would.

Public transport in the UK is very expensive compared to the USA and
Canada, if more than one person is travelling going by car is cheaper even
at 88p a litre for petrol, and more confortable, more reliable, and
faster. The UK government treats motorists like a big fat cash cow.

Diesel engines are not popular in the USA and I don't know why as the MPG
for the heavy vehicles popular there would be greatly improved over
petrol.


The average person earns $9 an hour if the
professionals are not included, which is hardly
enough to avoid becoming homeless.

Why should somebody who spends every
cent they have before the next payday worry about
"real money"?

Any attempt to change anything in an
economy that is 3 times the size of the next biggest
would be foolhardy,

In a word, euro, it caused no problems so why should the USA have a
problem with a minor change like dumping the one cent coin and one
dollar bill?

Probably because 99% of the US public doesn't see their cent and the
dollar as a problem. Walk in our shoes for a while if you can.


Do they not wonder why they have jars of one cent coins all over the
place?

Why should they wonder? I have one. My wife has one of her own. We roll
up the booty every so often and cash it for useless dollar bills. What's to
wonder about? We enjoy it. We enjoy even more our jars of nickels, dimes,
and quarters when the time comes to cashing them in. Like "found money".


And a look in the foreign coin box at any flea
market or coin dealer shows just how easy it is for
coins to become worthless.

If they were indeed "worthless" why is the dealer offering to sell them,
have you never seen a USA coin in a junk box? Of course you have but
that doesn't mean that the US dollar is worthless does it.

Because he doesn't want to just throw them away, and there are always new
collectors who will pay a small price for hours of entertainment sorting
and cataloging minor coins from foreign countries. US coins in a US coin
dealers "junk" box? Well, we don't consider them junk, for one, unless
maybe they have been mutilated. What you *will* often find are
circulated obsolete US minor coins (Indian cents, Buffalo nickels, etc.)
in a bargain box.


A 1793 chain cent was recently auctioned in the UK for £9,200, it was
bought at a jumble sale in 1960 for very little, the seller at that time
must have presumed it was worthless, but they were wrong. Billy


Your point here?

Bruce


The point is that the presence of a country's coin in a dealer's junk box
has no bearing on the strenght or weakness of that country's currency.
Joe's opinion was that it had. The example of the 1793 cent is a good
one.


It appears obvious to me that the dealer had no clue he had a rare American
coin. Thus a cherrypicker was able to spot it for what it was. Nothing to
do with the weakness of US currency.

Just ask if you any more difficulty following the flow of this thread and
I'll do what I can to assist. Billy

Sure. Now that I know where to get such good information.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:18:09 GMT, "note.boy"
wrote:

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

You're hitting it pretty much on the head, IMO. Way down the list of
priorities on the government's money waste list. Any cost savings by not
printing dollar bills would be diluted by the fact that we'd still be
printing six other denominations, and eliminating one of them wouldn't
silence the presses nor provide more money for pork pies. The only real
savings would come by not printing ANY currency. That may yet come in
some of our lifetimes.
Bruce

You obviously have NO idea of the percentage of total production of paper
notes in the USA that's taken up by printing the useless one dollar note

You obviously think the dollar note could be
stopped and all the other notes would still only cost
the same to print.

First, the US treasury does not pay to print
the notes, the Federal Reserve Bank pays actual
estimated printing costs for all currency, and turns
profits over to the treasury at the end of the year.

If no dollar notes were printed, the cost
of the overhead to run the BEP would not change
all that much, but people would need to be laid off.
If no cents were struck, more than half
the floor space at the mints would be unused,
half the machines would be idle, and half the
people would be laid off.
Those laid off would be eligible for
unemployment, so the government would still
be paying them for a while and the government
would not be collecting income tax or Social
Security taxes from them.

The thing is, there are more than enough
cents in circulation, and sooner or later, there will
not be a need to mint more, but the metal prices
are causing a problem.
Maybe after 2009 when the Lincoln is
101 years old there will be no need for more and
the celebration of his life will be complete with the
2009 cents.

But it is a peanut problem, the loss to the
treasury for minting cents is less than the average
person loses in coins in car seats and furniture.

Joe Fischer