Read this article: http://www.pcgs.com/Articles/Detail/7005/ This is a very poorly written article. Has this guy ever taken an Economics course? And, I have NEVER had a problem with my bank taking change. Thoughts? Discussion? I would be embarrassed to have this article highlighted on my website if I were PCGS.
Haha, very true Doug. Just as an example of the bizarre nature of the article he states: "With inflation or hyperinflation, the price of most goods are all worth more than a dollar, and therefore, coins are no longer required." Huh? Really? This implies that coins can only be minted in denominations of less than a dollar. I won't even touch the sentence about how the US Mint is making such a "profit" by making $1 coins for $0.30 each. It's not exactly a profit if you're making new money and devaluing the worth of each $1. Sigh...
There's so much fail in that article, it's impossible to cite it all. Says something about PCGS that they'd associate themselves with it. It also suggests that all items priced over $1 will be priced in increments of $1. *lol*
A better argument would be do talk about states' starting to require check or electronic transaction for certain matters rather that whatever author is trying to say... For example "Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales"
While I thought the OP article pretty ill informed and poorly researched, yours jjack is downright scary. I know the intent of the law is to allow easier tracking of stolen merchandise, but to forbid an entire sector of the public the right to use cash is Orwellian at best. They SAY its "only" to track down criminals, but you know darn well the revenue department would start incorporating that data into their records. It sounds like an overreaction to some, but laws like this need to be shouted down. All people should not be assumed criminals simply to make life easier for law enforcement. If this is a problem, then stiffer penalties and/or records like pawn shops currently keep are the answer, not forbidding cash for certain transactions. Punish the evildoer, do not take away liberty. Its just like cold medicine used to make meth. Many states passed these laws. They did stop meth production here, now we simply import the meth from Mexico. Now, though, some people are advocating making us sign for all drugs like we do for cold medicines because, "it would help the state make sure you are taking medicines properly". Let them in for one valid reason, give up one small liberty, and they will want to take more. Sorry if it sounds like a rant. Chris
Jamie does a very good job with the price guide, but I must admit I find my self disagreeing with much of what he wrote in the linked article.
Medoraman, Iirc dont most government agencies only accept check or mo and no cash not sure if that was due to patriot act, but yea this is simply following that trend.
Interesting article. Seems though that it only pertains for the Seller to not pay cash to people, not for consumers to not pay cash for their purchases. I think it simply is a way to address the fact that stores that buy things from people "off the street" so to speak are now required to have a paper trail (as opposed to a non paper trail of "cash") to account for their inventory. The state sure will come out better in that some businesses might be paying X amount of cash for something, then claiming they spent more on that item, so that when it's sold, the "income" off the sale is less, and they have to pay less to the state, or are subverting some of the money to themselves tax free. But most of the businesses I've dealt with either have a paper trail with paying by check anyways. That's what I got from it anyways, just a state wanting to ensure more money in their coffers if possible.
