Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1167041, member: 112&quot;]It seems that the objection you have is one of semantics more than anything else. For since all mint &quot;profits&quot; are returned to the public, they have no &quot;profits&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p>Yes the mint is a govt service, I agree with that. But even government services have to account for where the money goes. So they use standard accounting practices and call &quot;profits&quot; profits. Would you prefer they call them something else ?</p><p><br /></p><p>Or would you prefer that the mint operate on a 0 balance every year and instead have your taxes go up to make up for those lost profits ? For if the money that the mint generates and contributes to the General Fund every year goes away, then that money in the General Fund has to be replaced. And th eonly way to do that is to raise taxes to make up for it. Either way, it&#039;s going to cost us, the public, the same amount.</p><p><br /></p><p>This entire discussion started off with the premise that the mint charges too much for their products. But by looking at the annual reports we can see that the percentages that mint charges over and above the costs for their products is quite low, lower even than just about any business. And in the end, the mint does not keep those profits but instead returns the profits to the public by contributing to the General Fund.</p><p><br /></p><p>My point is quite simple. The facts show that the mint does not charge too much for their products. To try and argue otherwise is somewhat pointless. But as I&#039;ve said many times, people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the truth.[/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