Replace the paper dollar with coin article

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by texmech, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    How many people have a legitimate (I mean legal) need/desire to carry around enough money so often that they need to compress the size of the paper by a factor of 5 or 10? Compare that with people conducting illegitimate transactions that need/desire to do so. It's not necessary for there to be a sinister motivation behind the decision.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I view is as liberty. As long as one citizen, (and there are many others, I know a lot of coin dealers carry a great deal of cash with them to shows), has a "legitimate, (legal) need", who is the government to stop them? Why does it have to be a ratio, that the government, in their infinite wisdom, decides what a "legitimate" reason is? My uncle used to carry around $2000 in his wallet folded behind a flap just in case he ran across a deal. Was he an "illegitimate user"?

    I view curtailing everyone's freedom because of the government's ineptitude in catching criminals as criminal. Why stop at $500 bills? Why not just mandate credit cards for all transactions? Surely this would also help the government stamp out criminals? If not, if they moved on to PM, then simply ban ownership of these. Actually, this is a point. Gold is used in international transactions this way. If the government proved more criminals owned gold than "legitimate" collectors, should the ownership of gold be banned too? In a small space gold is much more efficient that $100 bills.

    Chris
     
  4. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    Maybe someday we'll all be equipped with AI chip implants so that we just swipe an arm to make a purchase, or have a reader gather all of our info. Hopefully I'll be dead before that day comes.
    Guy
     
  5. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    No one is stopping you from carrying around as many $100 bills as you want. I really fail to see what freedoms are being impacted here. Your last paragraph is over the edge.
     
  6. tbudwiser

    tbudwiser Active Member

    Guy,

    SF FRB has been working on a "smart card". This is similar to what you are speaking of. I read about it on their website. Pretty interesting, I just don't know how it would work... Why do you wish you would die before then? Afraid of change, are we?
     
  7. coinhead63

    coinhead63 Not slabbed yet

    Reasons why this wont happen any time soon:
    1. The $1 FRN, along with the Lincoln cent, is iconic.
    2. People resist change (good or bad).
    3. Government waste in other areas is of greater concern to the public and has more publicity.
    4. Most people don't realize the cost of making money for circulation and thus don't care (a dollar is a dollar...).
    5. Coins weigh more than paper. (So who carries $20 worth of $1 FRNs on a daily basis?)
     
  8. mizozuman2

    mizozuman2 that random guy

    hence the words "Keep the change".
     
  9. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    I was being sarcastic since the subject ventured down the road of privacy and such. But yes, I'd hope most people would be opposed to a chip implant that contained that info. The technology has been in use for over 20 years now, as we use at work every day. I just don't think under my skin is the best place for it.
    Guy
     
  10. 19Lyds

    19Lyds Member of the United States of Confusion

    They stopped making those bills because they were used "exclusively" for LARGE cash transactions and simply did not FIT into daily commerce. Personally, I would LOVE to have a $500 bill BUT that represents 500 dollars that is not earning me interest. It's just dead money.

    And while we're at it, when they WERE making $500 and $1,000 bills, I was a working stiff that "appreciated" the $2.22 an hour I was paid although I was seriously jealous that my buddy made $3.27 an hour. To me, a $500 bill represented 1/5 of the price of a new Camaro or Mustang. Most importantly, it represented 5.6 weeks worth of gross pay and nearly 8 weeks worth of NET pay.

    A $500 bill back then would represent a $15,000 bill today and neither would be very practical for daily commerce.

    Today's economy should NOT be confused with reality since $500 and $1,000 dollars still represents real figures
     
  11. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    I am a chemistry teacher and every semester point out that the United States is on the metric system. Take a look at anything you buy that has a weight or volume, it is stated in grams or milliliters. Check your dictionary and you will find the definition of an inch is 2.54 cm. That is 2.5400000000000... cm.
     
  12. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    Good one.
     
  13. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Is it? I know it might sound paranoid, but the logic is sound. If you are willing to accept the government has an absolute right to dictate what level of money is appropriate for you, and to dictate how much you should be able to buy without electronic tracking of the transaction, what other liberties are sacrificable? The government impounding gold is pretty much the same as forbidding cash transactions above a certain level, which they have achieved by special forms required for cash transactions $10,000 and above, and the inconvenience of carrying around that many $100's.

    If you use the "criminals are the only ones who need bills larger than $100" argument, then you should readily accept banning gold, since it is also used in large criminal enterprises.

    Edit: Btw I apologize if this sounds like I wear a tin foil hat, or if I am being too argumentative. I just seriously dislike the government taking away liberties in the name of "law enforcement" or something. I have disliked from day one the $10,000 forms required, and feel they are violations of every citizens privacy and liberty.

    But, I also know I am too passionate about the subject, I will tone it down.
     
  14. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    I agree. 10K is really not a lot of money to begin with. You can't even buy a cheap car for that, much less a house. So to say criminals are the only ones who carry that much in cash is not true. There are ways around the system if you have a willing seller. I pay cash for my vehicles and have never had to fill out any more forms than if I'd paid via a loan.
    Guy
     
  15. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    When did anyone or any organization dictate "what level of money is appropriate for you", you're free to carry around the country as much cash as you want. Pay for a car with cash, pay for a house with cash. No one is stopping you, what are you talking about? The BSA requiring large cash transaction reporting has been around for decades now, it hasn't "forbade" legitimate cash transactions, they just have to be reported for taxing purposes. And that form has to be filled out regardless of whether you pay with $1000 bills or $100 bills, or a check. And it's only if related to your business anyway, if I remember right.

    It's not a suppression of freedoms for the treasury to not produce $500 bills instead of $100. What if someone demanded $1,000,000 bills? Is it a suppression of freedom that the government isn't providing those? What about $250 bills? $421 bills? $12.50 bills? I want $12.50 bills, am I being repressed?
     
  16. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    $10,000 in crisp $100 bills is less than half an inch. Is the added convenience for a few people worth making it easier on criminals? I guess that's the question to the public.
     
  17. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    Thats not true. Try paying for a car in cash and see what happens. They won't accept it, as a business. Transactions under 10K are ok, but there are restrictions over that. I'm not a business owner so I don't know what obstacles are in the way, but as a consumer I do know this much. Could be state thing as well, I don't know.
    Guy
     
  18. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    They have to fill out a Form 8300 and actually pay taxes on it, there is nothing legal blocking the transaction. I know people who have paid for a vehicle outright, for the consumer it's transparent except for the notification they get from the business stating that they have to report the transaction on Form 8300.
     
  19. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Its not just for business, its for all transactions. Why is there a special "IRS form" for a certain transaction regardless of the applicability of taxes? There is no proof the transaction affects any taxes, its simply a mechanism for the government to keep financial track of you. Just because it has been around for longer than 10 years, (cannot remember the date implemented), does not mean its not bad law. As a practical matter like Guy said most businesses won't even do a cash transaction because they think it will bring the government down on them. So, whether intended or not, it is scaring US citizens into losing this right.

    You say larger bills were only used for large transactions, ok. This nation made them for 100 years, and all of the sudden having large bills, (which are smaller in spending power every year), now are suddenly a danger to our citizens and have to be actively pulled off the market? Why?
     
  20. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    And you are in the sole field that uses the metric system in the United states. The metric measurements that you see on products are largely for foreign manufacturers or consumers. In the 1970s the US was set to convert with the rest of the world (they had gone so far as to start posting speed limit signs with both miles and km on them), then 1977 came and suddenly it got put on hold and here we sit with Great Britain still on the SAE system. They only taught us the system for scientific measurements and I would think that by the time I die, that we would finally have switched over, but I ain't gonna bet anything on it.
     
  21. ctrl

    ctrl Member

    http://taxmap.ntis.gov/taxmap/pubs/p1544-001.htm
    The requirement drastically cut down money-laundering fronts. It was a policy move in reaction to a problem that had reached a size that needed action. No one said it was a danger to citizens, you're free to carry around a suitcase of cash if you want. Stop with the straw men.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page