Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;CamaroDMD, post: 7574898, member: 5233&quot;]So, I know this is a commonly debated thing here and elsewhere.</p><p><br /></p><p>Those who are in favor of getting rid of the cent state that nobody really uses it in commerce anymore (with the exception of dealing with sales tax), that most transactions are digital now, and that is costs more to make than it is worth.&nbsp; All of these statements are accurate.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some of the arguments to keep it include making change for sales tax, it keeps prices simpler, and frankly...it&#039;s traditional (the whole &quot;we&#039;ve always done it this way&quot; argument).&nbsp; These statements are accurate as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, I know I&#039;m missing some of the arguments on both sides...but I had a different thought that I wanted to mention.&nbsp; Something that I haven&#039;t seen mentioned before (maybe I&#039;ve just missed it).</p><p><br /></p><p>It seems to me that with all the cent production over the years, there are plenty in circulation to meet the need.&nbsp; Do we really need to produce billions more per year?&nbsp; If we aren&#039;t going to get rid of the cent...why not do what we did with the Kennedy Half?&nbsp; Make them in small numbers but not put them into circulation?&nbsp; It would certainly reduce costs and as I understand it, would not take an act of Congress.</p><p><br /></p><p>This way people and businesses who wanted/needed them can still get them but we aren&#039;t producing billions of Lincoln cents at a loss just to wind up in jars.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in