Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ewomack, post: 2487060, member: 15588&quot;]The disappearance of the cent will simply introduce a new problem. Then we&#039;ll have the nickel at the bottom of the economic food chain. This coin has an even larger cost differential than the cent. It apparently costs 9.7 cents to produce a single nickel - far more wasteful than the much more maligned cent. When I toured the Denver mint this summer, the tour guide said that all the fuss around the cent seemed confusing: the nickel is their really big loser.</p><p><br /></p><p>So any legislation to eliminate the cent should probably be accompanied by a clause to refurbish the nickel to further reduce costs. But, the Denver tour guide added, as long as the Mint remains profitable - and it is <i>very </i>profitable and self-funded; they make an absolute killing on the quarter - the issue doesn&#039;t surface as critical or worthy of immediate attention.</p><p><br /></p><p>Probably the largest factor in eliminating the cent is that it takes an act of Congress to do so. This dooms it. Lobbyists and the inevitable push for prestige probably continue to thrash this issue into the dustbin. Canada has been centless since 2012. If you visit that country, you&#039;ll find that they get along just fine without that denomination. The beaver nickel now reigns supreme. No panic ensued. No riots. No mass arrests. From what I&#039;ve heard, it passed without much, or any, incident.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, it sounds like bills to eliminate the cent were introduced in 1990, 2001 and 2006, but all fizzled despite apparently popular support and incessant business lobbying.[/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