Talk:Penny debate in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Source needed

Profit — The Mint has historically earned about $20 million a year on pennies, though it currently makes a loss." Someone get a source on that?

I don't have one, but it's a fairly easy fact to derive based on historical copper prices and mintage figures. Whether that falls under the definition of original research is debatable, but I would lean toward keeping it, as anyone with a calculator and an Internet connection could verify its truth in 20 minutes.--chris.lawson 01:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Move?

In an international context, "the penny" does not necessarily mean "the US 1-cent coin" (it's probably more likely to refer to the British 1p coin, from which the slang term derives). Suggestions for a more internationally-compatible title? "Efforts to eliminate the US 1-cent coin"? TSP 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

agree or "Efforts to eliminate the penny in the United States" --Chochopk 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No more pennies??

I heard yesterday at a newspaper AJC that there will soon be no more pennies minted by the United States. Are they kidding?? Because newspapers are supposed to give serious news, what are they really saying?? 66.32.122.147 17:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There have been many, many reports over the years that the Lincoln cent will be discontinued due to its unnecessary nature. Until the US Mint has reported something, I'd take any reports with a grain of salt. The most realistic report I heard is that they would suspend minting one-cent coins after 2009, being the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln cent. Prices for all goods would be made to round to the nearest 5 cents.

Presumably final prices, and only on cash transactions, as in Australia. If gas can be priced in tenths of cents, despite 1 cent being hte lowest denomination, there's no reason to avoid cents just because the 5-cent is now the smallest -- Nik42 04:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I know I read something in the last year from the mint or the treasury denying any plans to discontinue the penny. I just looked around online and couldn't find it, though. It's possible it was an NPR interview with someone from the mint that I heard... —BenFrantzDale 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The US mint is planning a redesign of the penny for 2009, so obviously there couldn't be any plans to discontinue the penny before that date. See Presidential_$1_Coin_Act_of_2005#Other_provisions
My personal opinion is that, rather then discontinue the 1-cent coin, the US should revalue the dollar at a rate of 1 New Dollar = 5 Old Dollars. Then we could keep the same denominations, minus the $100 and maybe $50, while gaining a more convenient value for the coins and bills Nik42 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1 New Dollar = 10 Old Dollars is better because the nickel's day are numbered just a bit longer than pennies, in new zealand they round to the nearest ten cents.

No neither 1 new dollar = 5 old dollars or 1 new = 10 old is a good idea. Such a small ratio would result in frequent redenomination in the long run. Every time there's a redenomination, it's a big headache for the financial, accounting, and computing industry. I recommend a ratio of 100 or 1000 at the appropriate time in the future. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Resolved

The section on rationale for keeping the penny takes away the NPOV from the article. Almost every example given, gives a counter-example for why the argument is wrong or why it might be wrong. However, the preceding section does not do the same. The article seems to be pro-elimination (which I happen to be as well, but an encyclopia should not be). Also, citations are needed in places such as (paraphrasing) "Consumers are worried their money would not go as far." Interesting subject, but the article needs a bit of work. Maybe I'll work on it if I have some free time. Stoneice02 06:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ATM/Debit Card Usage

Why isn't the fact that using ATM/Debit Cards becoming incredibly popular for everyday purchases (and there for less overall cash being used) listed as a reason to get rid of the penny? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viewport (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

One reason not to remove the penny would be that card customers pay to the penny e.g. 29.98 and if no penny exists cash customers must pay a rounded value e.g. 30.00. In several countries people don't care since a coin like the penny is often not considered worth the effort of counting them. -- BIL 10:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand, card purchases will still be rounded to 1/100 of a dollar. The absence of a penny doesn't mean absence of a decimal point. Getting rid of they penny would only affect cash purchases. That's why people who use cards at the supermarket won't have to freak out over 2 cents. And you're right, several countries don't care about a coin like the penny.. the US being one of them.. except of course, the zinc industry. (Viewport 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
See Swedish rounding. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a solid reason debit card use isn't listed as a reason to get rid of the penny: There isn't a reliable source saying that debit card use is a reason to get rid of the penny. "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately." wp:or The mere fact that something is true and applies to the topic of a wikipedia article does not mean that it belongs in the article. You need a reliable source saying that the fact is true and that it relates to the topic of the article. - Mdsummermsw 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not make pennies cheaper?

Is there any discussion on making them smaller like Euro pennies? Chuck —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Considering that one of the main "reasons" for not monkeying around with U.S. currency is all of the equiptment built to deal with it, altering the size of the penny has a new problem: all machines that currently deal with pennies (coin wrapping/counting machines, change dispensers, etc.) would need to be replaced or retooled. Thus, even though size was a major complaint with the SBA dollar, the replacement is the same size. - Mdbrownmsw 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Numismatics

I have read all the arguements, but is there and arguement from a historical coinage point of view, like some just dont want the denominations to change? Also why was it easier in the past to change the currency politically, but not now? From a non biased point of view? Enlil Ninlil 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There might be an argument from the "don't change stuff" angle. However, unless/until there's a reliable source making that claim, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. - Mdbrownmsw 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Coinstar

I once read an article that said a survey had determined that the first thing a woman notices about a man is his shoes. Hanover shoes was no doubt pleased that the "independent" poll they commissioned found that.

I have just removed: " Public demand — A poll conducted by Coinstar, which converts change into paper currency for a fee, showed 65 percent of respondents favored keeping the penny in circulation.<ref name=publicdemand>{{cite web | author= [[Coinstar]] | date=[[2006-02-10]] | url= http://www.coinstar.com/US/PressReleases/815632?OpenDocument=&desc=Coinstar+Press+Release | title= Lincoln Penny Still America’s Sweetheart Even Though it Doesn’t Make “Cents” | accessdate=2007-03-21 }}</ref>" because:

  • Coinstar is not a reliable source.
  • The source does not say anything using 65% (the only thing close is the 66% cited for "want to keep the penny as legal tender")
  • The source doesn't say what percentage wanted to "(keep) the penny in circulation", only the % who want to keep it as legal tender (think of it as "want the U.S. to keep using pennies" vs. "want the large jar of pennies by their nightstand to be worth something").

Mdbrownmsw 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the conflict of interest regarding that source is grossly obvious. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My favorite other option...

... is "sticking it" to Canada and a few other countries. For years they have minted coins the same size as US coins but of lesser value. Here is an opportunity for turn-about. The idea is, simply declare Canadian pennies, Bahama pennies, Bermuda pennies, and other similar-sized pennies to be legal tender pennies in the US. Thus the US can acquire pennies for only $0.01 each, instead of manufacturing them at higher cost. Where the other dollar is close to the US dollar in value, people would be less inclined to import their pennies to the US, but where the other dollar is worth less than the US dollar, tourists could bring pennies into the US and actually make a profit. The tourists would profit, the US Mint would save money, and only the other countries would be left footing the bill. (It's a fantasy. Only if someone proposed this for real could this idea go into the article.) Their governments would probably recall and melt down all of their pennies in a heartbeat. -Whiner01 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

if you can find a notable economist that echoes your view it can be included in the article. Until then it is original research. Jon513 (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Composition, number of pennies

I don't know that the US Mint why not make only a few pennies per year? Yes, it would be fewer pennies in circulation, but it is better than the elimination of them! Or why they not change the composition? For example, copper plated iron or steel or something other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.224.202 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Big sale on pennies: .98 cents each=

The article stated, under "arguments for elimination," that it cost a certain amount to make a penny in a certain year, but that they were sold by the government for .98 cents. I read the report cited, and I could not find any reference to the U.S. government selling pennies to anyone at a 2% discount from face value. This claim had been tagged as unsupported by the references for some time. Because Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, I removed the claim of pennies being sold below face value. I suspect that the .98 cent figure cited was a cost of production, not the revenue obtained by the mint from selling it. If someone finds a reliable source stating that the government will sell 100 of the one cent coins for only 98 cents, the claim might be re-added. Edison (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I remember you from AFD/Tania Head. Small world. Anyways, I'm replying here to state that I agree with your change. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

opinions of prominent people

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson thinks that the US should get rid of the penny.( Crutsinger, Martin. "Paulson Not Big Penny Fan". The Associated Press.). I was going to add it to the article but there doesn't seem to be a place for it. Jon513 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic

Anyone else find it funny that the zinc industry finances the "americans for common cents lobby" to keep the penny in circulation.. then the house votes to keep it in circulation...but change it from mostly zinc to primarily steel. I personally find this hilarious.. now the Americans for common cents is going to have to hit up the steel Industry for money... -Tracer9999 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

left out

the article states that after 1857 the smallest coin was the cent which is technically true since it was the smallest coin but there was a plastic coin called the "mill" which was I believe 1/10 of a cent. I am recalling this from my childhood(early 50's, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a green and a red mill, thus making them the smallest legal tender, not coin.3tours (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up your claim? Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Those were tax tokens issued by local or state authorities. They weren't legal tender for anything other than taxes and couldn't be used outside of where they were issued. 72.209.178.174 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The title is sinister

Not an arguement against it, but jees..."E-LIM-IN-ATE THE PEN-NY! E-LIM-IN-ATE!" --81.152.250.226 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cost of coinage

The article contains this argument: "The government spends [a total of 1.5 cents] minting the coin, therefore losing money every time it mints a penny." This seems like a bad argument, as, while the Mint sells new (and old) coins at face value, it also buys back and retires old coinage, right? Most new coinage replaces old coinage, rather than increasing the number in circulation, right? Isn't it true, then, that all coins are minted at a loss? I can't find documentation on the numbers of coins that the mint retires every year, but its bound to be close to the number produced. Or are coins retired by the Federal Reserve, who eat the cost? Can anyone help me out with this argument? — wfaulk 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I found data that the US Mint disposes of worn coins, but also data that the Federal Reserve redeems them. It's still not clear if the Mint pays the Federal Reserve for those coins. — wfaulk 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That would recoup some of the cost, but most coinage put into circulation is not actually formally retired, it is lost (especially low value currency). And the total value of coinage in circulation also increases every year as the economy expands, so in general, yes taxpayers are heavily subsidising the minting of the penny. Sad mouse 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the US Mint, the costs of producing and shipping one-cent (penny) and 5-cent (nickel) coins during fiscal year 2007 are $0.0167 per penny and $0.0953 per nickel.

-Cent (United States coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.241.235 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

title

Shouldn't the title be 'Efforts to eliminate the one-cent piece in the United States, or something similar?--74.162.162.142 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Possibly Efforts to eliminate the cent in the United States. I have no opinion though. Reywas92Talk 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(United_States_coin) It's officially the cent! 75.61.132.38 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Melting for Materials

* Production at a loss — As of March 2008, it costs almost 1.7 cents to mint a penny.[3] Now that the price of the raw materials exceeds the face value, there is a risk that coins will be illegally melted down for raw materials.[4][5]

This statement is wrong, as production cost, not material cost, is 1.7 cents

Wow no pennies harsh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.75.216 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issues?

This page has been nominated for a possible neutrality issue, but there's no discussion of that issue on the talk page. Is there an actual conflict or question on the article' neutrality, or is the nomination in error? Justin Eiler 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming there's no problems, I'm going to go aheadand remove the tag. Justin Eiler 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is article is completely leaning towards the elimination side, and so is this discussion. Just look at the arguments for preservation...it completely contradicts itself with anti-penny statements. Tag this!!! --Nickthehobo 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because there ARE no good arguments for preservation, other than wistful nostalgia.WHPratt (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's leaning towards the elimination side.. the title of this article is "Efforts to ELIMINATE the penny.." Good lord. (Viewport 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

The following statement was included in the "arguements against" section:

"This often-used argument is easily proven to be a fallacy. Computation of the possible outcomes of change for a dollar show that both the use and elimination of the penny result in one nickel for 40% of change combinations."

It is unsupported (no citation) and is biased in both content and tone, so I'm removing it for now. Should someone want to keep it, it should be placed in the "arguements for" section as a stand alone arguement in a neutral tone (need for re-write). ~ adropofreason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.16.171 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 March 2007

The statement about 40% is not biased or unreferenced. It's simple math, any high schooler can do it. See #More nickels?. I restore the fallacy. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference to "Swedish Rounding"

I removed the paragraph:

After removal of the low denominated coins, all countries adopted a method of rounding known as Swedish rounding, though some not officially.

The Swedish rounding article itself directly contradicts this statement as it details numerous examples of how it is done (albeit very slightly) differently in countries other than Sweden. Perhaps this could be changed to something like most countries adopted a method of rounding inspired by Swedish rounding, but that's vague and only worsens the horrible signal-to-noise ratio in this article already.

Oregonerik (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --John (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Coin Usage In Japan

Sales tax is included on the posted prices since around 2005. Department stores often (and also a few conveninece stores) post analytical tags with price before tax, tax, and total. For higher priced goods, the 5% round tax (true on Summer 2009 when I visited last) combined with prices before tax in multiples of 100 yen results in no need for 1 yen coins. Examples: A vase for 1,575, or a wallet for 3,150 after tax. For low valued goods (usually purchased in supermarkets and convenience stores) the 1 yen coin is needed. Example: Ice cream on a stick for 126 yen. The point is that just as in Eurozone, you get a few small coins every now and then whereas in the USA you're flooded with them. And it seems that if the Americans make a law requiring posted prices to include all taxes, this will change! 87.228.193.251 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Eliminated in Europe

Finally found a reference for this: "The coins were eliminated at U.S. military bases in Europe in 1980 to cut the expense of transporting them."[[1]] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More nickels?

The article states: "Decrease dependence on copper — the penny is 97.5% zinc, and its removal might require more nickels. The nickel is 75% copper, and copper is less abundant than zinc."

But why, exactly would we need more nickels? Cash purchases rounded to the nearest nickel that would require actual nickels to be given in change are those that end in 10¢ (“Ninety cents is your change — three quarters, one dime, and a nickel.”), 20¢, 35¢, 45¢, 60¢, 70¢, 85¢, and 95¢. In other words: 8 out of 20 transactions, or 40% of the time.

I noticed that shops and casinos in Las Vegas do not get any dimes from the banks, using nickels instead. 87.228.193.251 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The Las Vegas shops you describe currently give out 5 times as many nickels as a normal establishment. Under the proposed rounding system they would continue to give out 5 times as many. This is not an increase. --Freshmutt (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Let’s compare this to the situation we have currently, where there are 100 different possible combinations (0-99) of coin change every time you go through the checkout. You get a nickel whenever you’re owed 5-9, 15-19, 30-34, 40-44, 55-59, 65-69, 80-84, or 90-94 cents. That’s 40 times out of 100 or 40% of the time.

The relevant calculation would take the actual distribution of prices into account, not an assumed uniform distribution; at the very least, the validity of latter assumption would need explicit proof using statistical information gathered in the field (such proof cannot be given by a purely mathematical argument). 151.198.251.10 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe those studies have been done and they do support my conclusions. Have any studies been done to demonstrate an increased need for nickels? Remember that field data would only be a small sampling of past transactions. What makes you think that would be more valid than my mathematical model? --Freshmutt (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating pennies just eliminates pennies. It doesn’t require more of any other coins.

This should be listed in the "Arguments for preservation" list because is has been publicly put forth by lobbyists, but we should also point out that it is a fallacy.

I've removed this from the main page because it has several flaws in its logic at the moment. (There's also the "original research" issue, but I think it's fairly straightforward to derive the above probabilities and I don't really agree with this being "original research".)
Quote - "'No original research' does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable." I am an expert (Math teacher) and my knowledge is verifiable (by anyone with a 7th grade education or better).--Freshmutt 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"Verifiable", in the wikipedia sense, has to do with being published in a reliable source. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." - Mdsummermsw 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
However, I think the solution is not to introduce a complicated refutation of the "Decreased dependence on copper" point. I think the solution is to remove that point entirely, with the above as an explanation here on Talk. So that's what I'm going to do.--chris.lawson 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This should not be removed because it is one of the major arguements of those fighting the ban and has been widely disseminated by the media. It should be treated like the article on the moon-landing hoax. All of the arguements should be listed and debunked in the same space. The first 4 arguments in this section have caveats, and so should this one.--Freshmutt 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a paragraph from a CNN story"Kolbe is from Arizona, the largest-copper producing state. The nickel is made predominantly of copper, as is the dollar coin, which he also supports. If we introduced a rounding bill, we would need more nickels. The whole proposal is special-interest lobbying at its worst," said Mark Weller, president of Americans for Common Cents.#REDIRECT --Freshmutt 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Freshmutt. If pennies are removed, more nickels are not needed. The arguement is a fallacy and can be verified by anyone doing the math. It should stay as an argument used by preservationists, but be re-worded to show the argument is not valid. I will make the modification. --Mattarata 03:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that eliminating pennies does not increase the demand for nickel coins (75% copper and 25% nickel). However, I would not believe that Kolbe's motive is not completely selfless. One advantage of removing pennies is "Gains from moving to a dollar coin". It is the increased demand of dollar coin, not of nickel coin, that benefits Arizona. Neverthelss, I personally still support both eliminating pennies and replacing dollar notes with coins. Both save tax payers' money. Btw, anyone who says eliminating pennies would increase the demand of nickel coins is either

  1. someone who has no sense of high school (if not middle school) math (like me), or
  2. someone who knows math, but is in some interest group and tries to take advantage of someone that is #1 (like me).

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Although elimination of the penny would not necessarily involve its direct replacement by the nickel and hence a massive need for nickels, wouldn't there be a greater need for other coins in general, including the nickel, dime and quarter, although this need would not be critical or perhaps even noticeable? Bustakey (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The need would be less, actually. We will need the exact same number of quarters, dimes, and nickels as before, we just won't need any pennies. Now if you assume we would also move to dollar coins (which we should) then yes you will see more coins. But dollar coins are more cost effective than the dollar bills they would replace. --Freshmutt (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not eliminate both the penny and nickel?

Instead of rounding to the nearest nickel, why not get rid of both useless coins? And we're rounding anyway to two decimal places. Consumers already lose money when the sales tax makes something cost $7.255 and this is rounded to $7.26. They lose $0.005. So now it would be rounded to $7.3 and they now lose $0.045. Big deal. The aggregate cost of counting out and transporting and minting all those pennies and nickels are all passed on to the consumer anyway. Who cares if the US Mint makes a profit or not, the taxpayer still pays the US Treasury to pay the US Mint. Hello, geniuses, they're both government agencies. It's not like the US Mint passes the profit on to us with a tax rebate. They just buy $50 pens instead of $5 pens. Meanwhile the US Treasury gets saddled with extra debt since they're forced to buy the expensive coins. Of course, there's demand for pennies and nickels, because retailers are forced to give change in pennies and nickels. Eliminate them, and retailers would be glad to give change only in dollars and dimes. Then ask how many retailers are asking for pennies and nickels and you'd have none. The arguments for preserving the penny and for that sake the nickel are circular and absurd. Preservation is a huge loss in our productivity and hinders our global competitiveness for the sake of ridiculous sentimentality. With inflation, the value of the penny is decreasing to absurd lows. In relative terms, the value of the penny today is lower than any circulated currency in the past. In other words, every day we live with the penny, we reinvent with continually lower value. Congress shows its ignorance and uselessness by avoiding this issue because of a few, weird, irrational, sentimental lunatics who lack common cents because cents are really uncommon and illogical.

What would be the restraint on inflation without zinc pennies and cupronickel nickels? -Servant David (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
New Zealand eliminated 1c and 2c coins in the early 1990's, and the 5c coin in 2006. --B.d.mills 06:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The business world has all the power to decide the fate of the penny themselves. It doesn't require an act of law to bring about price rounding. A merchant who doesn't want the 'hassle' and 'expense' of handling a denomination of coins can choose to round prices voluntarily. The Mint manufactures coins proportional to commercial demand. If merchants, one by one, choose not to give out pennies, then pennies would be minted in fewer and fewer numbers. This has already happened to the half dollar. The reason this hasn't happened to the penny yet is that merchants still ask for pennies. Price rounding will occur when it becomes good business sense to do so, like what is already done at gas stations and when calculating sales tax. If the expense of using pennies is so high, businesses won't wait for an act of Congress; they will simply stop using them. Until that happens, businesses have decided that the penny is still helpful after all, and it is the Mint's responsibility to produce them in an economical manner. (Personally, I think the hundredths digit of a doller is trivial in the eyes of most consumers.) - Deeplogic 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in the report I wrote on what should be done to the U.S. currency. Some of those are direct copy from Wikipedia, I admit. But the comparative study and some other stuff are original. I wish I could put it in my user page so that everyone can review and edit. But unfortunately, it is against Wikipedia:User page. Nevertheless, I welcome any suggestion, from grammatical mistake to overall content. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As long as the US has the quarter, it will need nickels. The only way the dime could be the lowest value is if the quarter is retired, or replaced with a 20c piece. 70.107.25.136 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Should prices in the USA be expressed in dollars and dimes and when adding taxes rounded to the nearest dime, then, following American custom, the quarter would become useless, but the half dollar would become useful and no 20-cent coin would be needed, just like no 2-cent coin was needed. Q43 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Making the half-dollar useful would require upgrading all vending machines, coin-operated laundromats, etc. in the US. Might as well introduce a new coin.DanBishop (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Aluminum

Just switch to aluminum. Problem solved. Jigen III (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rounding in the Eurozone

"However, in the Eurozone, posted prices include all taxes and for most goods they are already round to the nearest 5 eurocents. As a result, 1 and 2 eurocents coins are used very little." Says who? I'm in the Eurozone, and retail prices around here are not rounded even with tax included, and the small coins see regular usage (I'm in Slovenia, and have been to Italy and Austria recently, and this applies to all these countries). Granted, caffees and restaurants round their prices, but markets certainly don't - and procentually speaking, "most goods" are sold in market retail, not restaurants. I realize this is a minor quibble and not really connected to the article matter, but still, it's a pretty sweeping generalization. Can we afford it? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a very sweeping statement. I think it should be removed. Practice probably varies from country to country. Si Trew (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it -- It seems dubious and is unreferenced. It should not return unless it is referenced and much more specific. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If you had been to the USA you'd know what I was talking about. Examples: A pair of jeans sells for $49.95 and at the cash register they add a 7.25% (varies with administrative area) sales tax and the amount owed is $53.57; An order to a fast food place before tax at $9.35 ends up with 7.25% tax to be $10.03... They use pennies on every transaction every day, while in the Eurozone we use them only in supermarkets once a week (and on occasion at convenience stores). This is true also for Japan where the one yen coin is used very little. 194.42.133.227 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It is true that, throughout Europe, all labelled prices include tax. This means that the price you see is the price you pay.
This means in Europe, we can set all price points to the nearest €0.05 (or in my country, £0.05) and never have to deal with coins smaller than that. And many do, to save in handling costs. In the US the final digit is effectively randomised by the addition of taxes, and so in practice every vendor that uses cash has to deal with single cents.

maybe we could, but we don't. in the netherlands most prices end in .99 even though we haven't had physical cents in decades (save a few months when the euro was introduced) so if you buy one of those the price is rounded up. only if you buy say 3 of those items the price ends in .97 and is rounded down to .95 since most people buy several items when shopping prices end up being rounded up as often as rounded down because sales-tax is already included we don't have a problem with 1/2 cents complicating rounding (except for gas, which is priced to 1/10 of cents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.34.31.254 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't universal. Outside the Netherlands and Finland, people are still likely to use 1- and 2-cent coins on a reasonably regular basis. They aren't nearly as frequently used as in the US, but I wouldn't describe them as "very rare". Pfainuk talk 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
But if you plan to buy a house or an apartment in Cyprus, have in mind that the advertised price might not contain the 15% VAT and the 3-8% title deed issuance fee! 87.228.193.251 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I restored the citation tags because, though the arguments make sense, I still feel that the amount of small change eliminated by these types of transactions may not be significant enough to make a huge difference in the amount of cents that would change hands. I guess since I live in the US I instinctuallly look for ways to give pennies to clerks so that they are not piling up in my pocket. (And sort of off topic, but everywhere I go, people have 20 dollar bills to use as change.) --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In Las Vegas they give you fives. Almost no tens, but on occasion twenties. But the ticket redemption machines of the casinos do have twenties. Also, almost no dimes from shops and none from the machines! 87.228.195.251 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A Gradualistic Penny Tax, Diminished Production, Creation of New Coins

Here's a perfect trifecta of measures to eliminate the penny.

1) Introduce a unique tax on the use of pennies that would gradually be increased over time.

a) First, after sales and excise taxes were completed on purchases, a one-cent tax would be added to totals that ended in four or nine cents. So if a bill came to $67.14 after sales tax, then it would be raised to $67.15; likewise, if one bought something for $1.49 after sales tax, the price would be raised to $1.50.

b) Later, after a few years of this, a two-cent tax would be added to totals that ended in three or eight cents. So if a bill after sales tax came to $4.23, then the final price would be raised to $4.25, and if a bill totaled to $56.48, then it would be raised to $56.50.

c) Still later, after a few more years of this, a three-cent tax would be added to totals that ended in two or seven cents, so if a bill totaled to $10.02, it would be raised to $10.05, and if it totaled $10.07, it would go up to $10.10.

d) A few years after this, a four-cent tax would be levied on totals that ended in one or six cents ... you get the idea. (The federal government is already talking about an excise tax to help balance the budget, so this might be a good supplement to that.)

2) Penny production would be phased out gradually, but perhaps at variable rates. My favorite formula: Penny production would be lowered by a percentage equal to the number of years it would be in effect -- starting at the number one and moving upward. So in the first year, penny production would be lowered by one percent for one year; the following year penny production would be lowered by two percent a year for two years; after that it would be lowered by three percent a year for three years; and so forth. This formula has the virtue of slowly squeezing the penny out of production in a way that few would notice it at first, but by the time it would become a drastic cutback in production, the penny would have already subtly been pared out of the marketplace (by year ten penny production would already be cut by 30 percent).

3) We need to create new coins in various dollar denominations. Inflation is a force of nature. One hundred years ago, for instance, a penny was worth a quarter in today's terms, and fifty years ago a penny was worth a dime. That means that a dollar bill's worth today is less than what a nickel was worth a century ago, and that that same dollar today is equal in value to a dime fifty years ago. We can use zinc and steel to make these new one-, two- and five-dollar coins, and the zinc industry will forget all about the penny.

I've heard this third argument, but not the first two. Has anyone else heard of these arguments? Bustakey (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That third argument is simply false, at least the first sentence of it. Monetary inflation as known today is not a force of nature, it's primarily the result of monetary policy. In fact, "real" money (gold, etc.) has increased in value relative to material goods, due to greater production efficiency of those goods. For example, a hundred years ago, a (gold) dollar would buy around 20 loaves of bread (http://www.foodtimeline.org/WWIprices.pdf). Today that same gold dollar is worth around $85 (just as scrap gold not including collectors value), which will buy around 40 loaves of bread (http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apmw.htm). The "natural" fluctuations in the relative values of material goods and commodities are tiny compared to the overwhelming impact of artificial monetary inflation. 75.227.50.99 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:1959-Penny-Front-Back.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1959-Penny-Front-Back.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rounding

The article (under Arguments for preservation) imples all rounding will be in the favour of the seller. A CNN article on the subject imples rounding will be to the nearest 5c. When Australia eliminated the 1c and 2c pieces all rounding was in the buyer's favour for 6 months (a government directive to encourage community acceptance). Thereafter all rounding was to the nearest 5c.

A source on the method of rounding should be available somewhere Robert Brockway 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of an interesting way to do this. You could program all cash registers to figuratively flip a 5-sided coin whenever a transaction would involve a penny. When, for example, the cashier owes you an extra 2¢, it instead gives you a 2/5 chance of getting a nickel. The expected payoff is the required 2 cents, and regardless of the result, you don't actually have to deal with pennies, saving your time (and the U.S. Treasury's resources).--Johnthescavenger 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This would raise a lot of suspicion from the consumer on whether or not the random generator is really fair. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought of that, too. (I'm so full of ideas. :) One could have a constantly running "counter" on the desk, and when someone misses out on a cent or two, it adds that value to the counter. When the counter exceeds 5, it subtracts 5 and gives a nickel to the customer. One doesn't have to make it completely tamper-proof, either; beyond a certain point, the 4 cents is not worth the time spent messing with it. Likewise, squatting in front of the counter waiting for it to read "4 cents" when you'll buy something with one extra cent is also not worth the time, so... I think that works. Otherwise, someone else can think of a way to implement it.--Johnthescavenger 03:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The rounding method would be obvious and trivial. There are four possible outcomes where pennies would be required: 1, 2, 3, and 4 cents over a 5-cent increment. 1 cent and 2 cents round down to zero cents, whereas 3 cents and 4 cents round up to 5 cents. There are no half-cent issues to worry about. — wfaulk 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

@wfaulk. that's the way it's been done in the netherlands for the last few decades: the final prize of your combined purchases is simply rounded to either 0c or 5c. since there are no 1/2c prices in shops there is no possibility for argument over the rounding. i might point out that getting rid of the 1 and 2 euro-cents was initialized by the shops, as a way of saving money (f.i. less time needed to make transactions). at first customers had the right to ask for 1 or 2 cent change. but because nobody bothered with those few cents it has now become official government policy not to mint these small denomination anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.34.31.254 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it not possible that by rounding customers will save money? For example if you buy something costing $4.99 currently then the tendency of shopkeepers to price things just under a dollar means in a penny-free world you'd only pay $4.95, doesn't it?

Some retailers may choose to do this. Other retailers would keep the price at $4.99, and one would pay $5.00 at the register. It depends on the individual retailer. --B.d.mills 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
In the Netherlands, they keep the .99 in the listed price and only round the total (after taxes, combined with other items) (and only round cash transactions), as described in this article. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

isn't this really a mute point since large scale cash exchanges are on the way out. if the retailer or consumer are really concerned over 999.99 or like the gas pump 2.36 9/10 then just figure out a way to do better business. I don't see people at the gas pump bitching so why would it happen on the 1 cent level? I will how ever miss the take-a-penny leave-a-penny tray...

Is rounding even necessary if the penny were to be eliminated gradually? If fewer and fewer pennies were minted every year, merchants would slowly introduce prices that were already rounded into fives and zeroes. This would not have to be done by government fiat. The government could simply reduce the amount of pennies produced each year by the previous year's rate of inflation. The zinc and copper used in pennies would then be used in fifty-cent coins or in one- or two-dollar coins. Production of those coins would be ramped up as production of pennies was gradually lowered. If the inflation rate were high, pennies would be worth less anyway and nobody would miss them. Bustakey (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird math

From the "Historical precedents" sub-section:

When the United States discontinued the half-cent coin in 1857, it had a 2008-equivalent buying power of 11 cents.[12] After 1857, the new smallest coin was the cent, which had a 2008-equivalent buying power of 26 cents.

One of those numbers (either 11 cents or 26 cents) can't be correct. By definition, the value of the half cent (whether in 1857, 2008 or 2012 money) was half of one cent, and 11 is not half of 26. Funnyhat (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I contributed part or all of those lines years ago. The sources might have contradicted, or errors might have crept in. I hoped "someone" would improve it, but not yet.
Also, I have always wanted to declare that those sourced numbers seem WAY too small. Going from 1857 to today, the value factor really is more like 50x, depending on the year and measure of value selected. In 1909 you could buy hot dogs from a pushcart in Manhattan, at two for five cents. Today, hot dogs are $1 or $2. The 1889 Sears Catalog showed men's dress shirts for $0.49 to $1.25; items that are easily $10 to $75 today. Things weren't "cheap" way back when; rather, a dollar was a LOT of money. Pennies were respected, like a dollar is today, and used until they wore flat. People counterfeited dimes and quarters because you could buy a fine dinner for 25 cents; now $25. A living wage was once 20 cents an hour, not $20. - A876 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Pride, Vanity, Betrayal

Other arguments in favor of keeping the penny that I couldn't source were Pride or Vanity, and denial of inflation. Other countries have been greatly embarrassed by hyperinflation and the resulting billion-Mark notes and postage stamps. To eliminate a coin is to admit that inflation is real.

One major reason that the US penny continued for the last 20 or 50 years is because our lawmakers and budgetmakers serve small private interests more than us unworthy "people". - A876 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Math

Quoting from article: "Lost productivity and opportunity cost of use — With the average wage in the U.S. being about $17 per hour in 2006, it takes about two seconds to earn one cent. Thus, it is not worthwhile for most people to deal with a penny. If it takes only two seconds extra for each transaction that uses a penny, the cost of time wasted in the U.S. is about $3.65 per person annually, about $1 billion for all America. Using a different calculation economist Robert Whaples estimates a $300 million annual loss."

This math is completely false. If average wage of the U.S. is $17/hr, then the average wage earner earns approx. 0.0011 cents per second ($36,000 per year / 365 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds), NOT 5 cents per second. The 5 cents per second figure is if you consider a week to be 40 hours long, but there are 40 WORK hours in a week. The "time wasted" on spending pennies must include non-work hours, also, because it is not a given that a person who is "wasting time" on spending pennies is doing so on a billable job clock (quite the contrary, as a matter of fact). To consider a week to only be 40 hours, you must calculate the time wasted on pennies while at work, excluding a person's everyday activities.

Considering this, the actual annual amount each person wastes on pennies would be closer to $0.86. $0.86 per year x 300 million people = $258 million.

I am going to delete the entire calculation and blog article reference, if for no other reason than to stir up discussion on this issue.

This seems like a heated topic and I just want to let it be known I really don't care whether the US gets rid of the penny or not, thus I have no bias. But I like facts (particularly math) to be accurate. Just because the Washington Post said it, doesn't make it true. Ryguy40 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)ryguy40

Your calculation would be correct if people were working 24 hours a day, which is not correct.
36,000 $/year (the rather low value asserted in the article) / 52 weeks = 692.3077 $/week / 144000 (# of seconds in an average work week (40hrs)) = $0.0048076 $/hour. (not 5 cents per second, but 0.5 cents/second)
It is very common to measure the monetary value of time as if it is being billed, to show the value of the time to your employer. This typical assumption is made to show the amount of money that would be gained if you were "on the clock" and not doing whatever. If you search around, you will see this type of cost analysis is prevalent. You are not being paid to eat dinner, sleep, update Wikipedia, ect., so that time is not counted into the analysis. This is not to say that it is costing the employer any time, or that that wasted time is on the clock, but is merely trying to put an objective dollar value to time. For this reason, I have restored the information. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well then, it seems that I have the unfortunate task of being wrong or fighting the entire world on the prevalent way to objectively evaluate what "time" is actually worth. It seems like a contradiction to me, however, to evaluate cost of time without free-time factored in, yet compare it to a time-frame ("annual" = 365 days = 8,760 hours) that does include free-time. Misleading and for all intents... wrong.
I suppose the "cost of time" could be calculated two ways: Cost of billable (ie, at-work) time, and cost of free time. The former being equivalent to your wage and the latter being extremely close to zero for most people. In this specific example, I would assume most "penny-hassle-seconds" to fall into the "free-time" category, which would bring the figures down very substantially.
The more I consider the notion that all time is assessed as if it is billable, the more ludicrous this sounds. If the U.S. collectively loses $1 Billion annually in time wasted messing with pennies, try figuring out the amount lost in doing other, more time-consuming tasks. If 730 seconds per year equates to $3.65 x 300 million = $1 Billion, then 1 hour of TV per day = 1,314,000 seconds lost per year. 1,314,000 x $0.005 / second = $6,570 per person annually. That's $1,971,000,000,000, or 2 trillion dollars lost annually if everyone watched 1 hour of TV per day. Don't you see how incredibly ridiculous that notion is?
I won't change the article again because if everyone else is wrong then I will just let Wikipedia reflect the majority view. But, simply put, the math is wrong. =/ 71.203.171.199 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)ryguy40
I guess the reasoning is that one values the time that they spend by their own choosing ("free time") quite a bit, but it is hard to put a monetary value on it, so the easiest value to put on it is the value of one's wage. People could work another job, but many choose not to because they value their free time. But I agree that the amount wasted annually is also rather small. In comparison, watching TV for 13 minutes would net the same loss of income as an entire year of dealing with pennies. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Free time is worth more than work time. That's why employers must often pay time and a half for overtime work. Because it's cutting into the workers free time. Here is a better way to think about the problem: If your job was picking up pennies all day, and your pay was to keep those pennies, but you'd only ever be able to pick up about $17 worth per hour, would you take that job? Most people wouldn't because they could make more money doing more interesting jobs that will also give them raises and benefits. If it's not worth collecting pennies all the time, why is it worth it to collect them some of the time? --Freshmutt (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The number of pennies on the ground is a nonzero amount but also a finite amount. The amount of time spent picking up pennies is also unlikely to exceed or cut into time spent doing other pursuits that are at a monetary gain or even enjoyable. Much time is spent standing around waiting, and picking up a penny generally cuts into these non-earning, non-relaxing times. Hence, picking up pennies is profitable for the lay person. However, dealing with pennies as a business owner is not profitable, as it is cutting into the total number of transactions you can make in a day. The two arguments should be made separately 76.21.107.221 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Charity as a pro-elimiation element

I removed a few lines, which I will paste below:

* Charity — by adjusting most cash registers to round up any transactions to the nearest nickel (or dime as some suggest?) the difference would be collected by each merchant and sent in with taxes collected. The Charitable portion would then be donated to charities in percentages as decided upon by the merchants and distributed by the government to ensure proper collection and distribution. The merchants would apply a charity pie chart to thier doors or websites to indicate the charities they support. This woiuld create many 1000's of times the funds any penny/coin jars would generate.

I can find no sources that document that this would be instituted, and it furthermore undermines the other principal that prices would not be higher. This seems to be a dream of one or a few people; the idea that the government would be assisting in this charity collection is absurd. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, if such a policy were implemented, I find it difficult to imagine that many businesses would set prices that resulted in the need for rounding when they would have to pass on the costs to consumers without keeping any of the revenue for themselves. They could simply raise their prices by between 1 and 4 cents and keep that rounding difference for themselves instead. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates required

I've made some research, and while I question the validity of this debate personally, I do not question the validity of this Wikipedia entry. The debate is real, even though this entry seems to give it more importance than it deserves. The reason why I say this is because only few arguments and their respective references are presented to justify the "preservation" side. And as I found out and you'll be able to, such references are doubtful to say the least.

References 15, 16 and 17 clearly demonstrate that the few arguments presented come from:

a) Americans for Common Cents: “We make no secret that one of our major sponsors is a company that makes the zinc ‘blanks’ for pennies,” said Mark Weller, executive director of Americans for Common Cents, a pro-penny interest group.Do Pennies Still Make Sense?, Washington Post, 13 February 2009 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/13/do-pennies-still-make-sense/)

b) One of the arguments "inserted" into the text by Americans for Common Cents, the one about the penny holding inflation within limits, comes from the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada. On their website's 'About Us' section you can read this description of one of their directors: Chris Horlacher, Director - Chris is the Founder and Managing Director of Maple Leaf Metals Exchange Inc.

c) Americans for Common Cents' has not renewed the domain pennies.org they have acquired. Hard to say if they're even still active.
I would suggest merging this page into a broader entry about Coinage history in the US, but I reckon some editors can fix the obvious imbalance on this one and yet still keep the entry. If anyone has valuable information coming from the pro-penny lobby, which can pass a minimum source verifiability test, now would be the time to present it. Ebacci EN (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Factors in support of keeping the penny are 23 years old and need severe updating and impartial referencing

The factors in support of keeping the penny are SEVERELY dated and need fact checking and proper sourcing.

1) most of the referencing dates back to 1990... 2) Most polling etc is essentially sponsored by the zinc lobby. We need independent third party polls, not polls via the zinc lobby and its public action lobbying group.

1990 was a very different time. A penny bought alot more then it does today. Many of the 23 year old arguments are no longer even remotely relevant or valid. We need to find INDEPENDENT sources and polling from the last few years....not 1990. And citations that can actually be followed, that don't require you to look into the congressional record 23 years ago which cannot even be found on the internet. Im going to start labeling these citation needed, and we need to source them with up to date and credible sourcing. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Pro" penny side reads like an unsourced release from the zinc lobby in 90s. The arguments need citations, or they should be removed. The "Popular support" point needs polling from an unbiased source. I've searched for any sort of credible source for the charitable contribution one, for example, and can't find anything. The only way getting rid of a penny would hurt charities is if more than 80% of people who currently give pennies wouldn't give nickels in their place. And I've never found the "software costs" argument anywhere but on this page, since getting rid of the penny wouldn't change the way we handle electronic transactions, which would still be down to the cent. Human cashiers would just have to learn to give the proper change with nickels. -AlexDitto 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
You know what? Since the request for citations for these statements has been up for almost a year and no one seems to have found anything, I'm going to remove them for now. If anybody finds anything, feel free to add them back in. Better to be incomplete than counter-factual, I'd say. AlexDitto 15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

REASON FOR PRESERVATION: Impracticality/Practicality/Educational value/Tradition

Short and simple: how many of you learned math at the most basic level with money as an example? How darn hard would that be without a penny? But no, seriously. I mention impracticality/practicality as a reason too because of this aforementioned reality: the penny has just become too ingrained in American culture. Millions of books/textbooks that reference the penny. The possibility of educational value. Etc... I dunno - some thoughts here would be good. Kinda made this one up on the fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAsianYouNeverHeardOfUntilNow (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dangerous for children

Is there a reason the penny elimination advocates haven't grabbed on to the child poisoning idea? Pennies are poison. Pretty simple.--Zachbe (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this what you are talking about? ComfyKem (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Zinc toxicity and copper toxicity are already covered in the "Hazards" section a bit, but I'll expand it. ComfyKem (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual COST of making a penny, *does not matter*

People constantly state with a gasp that we're creating a 1 cent unit of exchange that costs 2.4 cents, as if that means something. It does not. The problem isn't with the cost of making the penny at all. If the penny were an integral part of keeping our system running, then 20 cents each would be a supportable argument. The point is, even if it took 0 cents to make a penny it is still impeding the economy. It's entire job is to be put in a jar or otherwise groaned at. There is a what I consider a slight risk of the raw material being melted down (a different issue), but that's hardly the primary point here. The penny needs to go, and it has nothing to do with the cost of making it---let's not confuse people further with this. Currency is just not required to turn a profit in itself.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tax drain

the idea it hurts poor people is stupid, it makes them have more tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I have been in poverty for the past year, almost becoming homeless a few times, so obviously money is important to me. However, if something I buy is $1.61 or $108.28, do you REALLY think it affects me to round it to $1.65 or $108.30? No! Not at all. All together, that is a savings of SIX cents. Sorry, but that isn't going to make or break me. There is a reason why I only put silver change in my coin jar. MegaZega93 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

I've added the above mentioned tag since many points have been raised by the accuracy of referenced material, and also because some references have been removed by their information is still on the text. I personally still believe this article should be turned into a section of History of Coinage in the U.S., but let's see if any reliable sources are presented in order to improve it. Ebacci EN (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Penny debate in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penny_debate_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1064612899"