A Redesign of the $2 Bill
Drago the Wolf
Do any of you guys think that, since the courts ruled that ALL
currency denominations "except the $1 bill", MUST be redesigned to
incorperate features for the visually impaired, that maybe the $2 bill
will see a redesign? I figure that, the court ruling did not say
whether or not the $2 bill would be redesigned, and I have seen
websites on Google, where they are saying that, the current $2 bill
design will be going away. Does anyone here think this is true? Also,
if they said "ALL" denominations except the $1 bill, don't "ALL"
denoninations except the $1 bill, still include the $2 bill as a
candidate denomination for a redesign?
I still, to this day, do not understand why the $2 bill was not
redesigned/colorized and promoted along side the new dollar coins,
especially seeing that all of the public opinion polls I've seen,
suggest that, if the $1 bill is phased out, most people will want to
use $2 bills, and a redesigned $2 bill would send out the message to
everyone that, $2 bills are still being printed, and are not "rare
collectibles".
Tom
Bruce Remick
"Drago the Wolf" <malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3da3383e-eac3-40b6...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
I often see the $2 bill promoted here on rcc. Would you rather see more tax
dollars used for this.....again? Do you believe that the public doesn't use
the $2 bill because of its design or lack of flashy color? Do you believe
that the government thinks up a coin or currency denomination to produce and
then spends millions to promote its use? Well, okay. I guess we both do.
Drago the Wolf
>
> I often see the $2 bill promoted here on rcc. Would you rather see more tax
> dollars used for this.....again? Do you believe that the public doesn't use
> the $2 bill because of its design or lack of flashy color? Do you believe
> that the government thinks up a coin or currency denomination to produce and
>
Well, if the government is wasting so much money promoting two new $1
coin series (Prez and native American), would it really hurt that much
to have them waste a few more millions on a redesigned $2 bill?
Besides, even if the new $2 bills did not circulate, people would
still hoard them, and buy redesigned $2 bill numismatic items, just as
the new $1 coins do now. So what would it hurt to spend, maybe
$500,000 to one million dollars (from what I hear a low-security
featured and low denomination would be) to redesign and try to refresh
the $2 bill? I know it failed in the past, with several $1 coins, but
I have been reading that, like $100 bills, the demand for $2 bills is
growing. I should also mention the government making money off new $2
bills, as they do with the new $1 coin, quarter, nickel, and penny
series they are producing.
Also, if people are so keen on using their "credit and debit cards"
why should the vending industry fear and oppose a redesigned $1 bill?
Why not just upgrade their machines to take debit and credit, as you
people have mentioned, and just refuse to upgrade those outdated
dollar bill readers? If credit and debit are so popular, as you claim,
why not just have vendors not accept any cash at all, when credit/
debit can be used, and the vendors would not have the costs of fixing
plugged up $1 bill readers and emptying all of the coin tubes?
Seriously, I think the government should just persue a half dollar, $1
and $2 bill redesign, use that polymer plastic for our paper money,
and scrap the $1 coin that (supposedly) nobody wants. $1 bills last up
to 18 months, and polymer lasts about four times as long as the cotton/
linen paper money we have now, so that would equal to about about 6
years or so, as polymer $1 notes, so, I think the $1, $2, and $5 bills
should all be redesigned every time the $10 and up are redesigned (I
mentioned the $5 due to the previous lack of the government wanting to
redesign the $5 at first) and by the time the current style $1, $2 and
$5 bills are worn enough to be destroyed and recycled (being able to
recycle the old polymer notes being an another bonus) it would be just
about time (7 years) to redesign these low denominations, along with
the higher denominations again, as the government's currency redesign
idea is every 7-10 years now. And even though some of you say there is
no real need for halves, I'd rather have cash registers set up, and
they were meant to be, with halves in the last coin slot, and $2 bills
in the second bill slot. If they used halves before, obviouly there
was a need, a demand and obviously a conveinience for them at one
time. All they have to do, is get certain machines to dispense and
accept halves and ($2s) and as I said, problem solved. People would
have to use what the machine spits out at them, right? I don't think
many people would go out of their ways to exchange an already workable
half for two quarters, or a workable $2 bill for two $1 bills. Also,
get banks and retailers to use them, once self-checkouts are capable
of accepting them.
Tom
Bruce Remick
>
> I often see the $2 bill promoted here on rcc. Would you rather see more
> tax
> dollars used for this.....again? Do you believe that the public doesn't
> use
> the $2 bill because of its design or lack of flashy color? Do you believe
> that the government thinks up a coin or currency denomination to produce
> and
> then spends millions to promote its use? Well, okay. I guess we both do.-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, if the government is wasting so much money promoting two new $1
> coin series (Prez and native American), would it really hurt that much
> to have them waste a few more millions on a redesigned $2 bill?
I don't think they are anymore. At least I haven't seen any promotions for
the president or Sac coins lately. On the other hand, first they'd have to
make the public aware that there still is a $2 bill in theoretical
circulation.
> Besides, even if the new $2 bills did not circulate, people would
still hoard them, and buy redesigned $2 bill numismatic items, just as
the new $1 coins do now. So what would it hurt to spend, maybe
$500,000 to one million dollars (from what I hear a low-security
featured and low denomination would be) to redesign and try to refresh
the $2 bill? I know it failed in the past, with several $1 coins, but
I have been reading that, like $100 bills, the demand for $2 bills is
growing. I should also mention the government making money off new $2
bills, as they do with the new $1 coin, quarter, nickel, and penny
> series they are producing.
If the demand for $2 bills is indeed growing, why the need to promote them?
And I'm curious as to where you're reading that the demand for $2 bills is
growing.
> Also, if people are so keen on using their "credit and debit cards"
why should the vending industry fear and oppose a redesigned $1 bill?
Why not just upgrade their machines to take debit and credit, as you
people have mentioned, and just refuse to upgrade those outdated
dollar bill readers? If credit and debit are so popular, as you claim,
why not just have vendors not accept any cash at all, when credit/
debit can be used, and the vendors would not have the costs of fixing
> plugged up $1 bill readers and emptying all of the coin tubes?
You seem to be talking sense here. What happened?
Sorry. My eyeballs got tangled up trying to follow your thoughts.
Obviously nothing I might say will change the way you're thinking, so pursue
whatever you think is necessary however you want to do it and let us know if
you get any positive results.
Mr. Jaggers
You're both forgetting the percentage of gross receipts that the card
companies would exact from the vending machine owners. My dollar to your
drachma sez that it would be more than just a few %.
James
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:h4nhc...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Hard to forget that. It's just the price a seller must pay to attract all
potential customers, be it cash or credit/debit cards. I'm not a vending
machine user, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the newer ones accept
credit cards, just like gas pumps.
Mr. Jaggers
The real bugaboo here is that a card company likes to think in terms of the
ratio of fixed cost per transaction to the amount of transaction.
Obviously, that fixed cost is a greater percentage of the amount of
transaction for a Three Musketeers candy bar than it is for an SUV fillup.
I'll bet they'd try to get 20% or more of the gate for allowing credit or
debit cards to be used for buck-at-a-time vending purposes.
James the Userer
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Judging by the price of candy bars in vending machines, a credit card
company could take that cut of 20% or more and everyone would still make a
healthy profit. Maybe I shouldn't have said "healthy". There may be
another fat tax in the offing.