US Mint February 2010 Coin Production: Dimes
Frank Galikanokus
The pace of striking coins at the US Mint has been much like watching a
crawling turtle stroll through the mud. Mintages levels were way down
last year, ...
JAM
Richard L. Hall
upheaval, the demand for coins decreases. And certainly the recession that
began in Jan 2008, the financial collapse in late 2008 and the slow recovery
are about as bad as I've seen in my lifetime. The last similar
depression-like economic situation occurred during the Reagan administration
when the unemployment rate hit 10.1% in September 1982 and 10.8% in November
and December 1982 and stayed above 10% for almost a year. SBA production
was discontinued. Half dollar production dropped in 1982 to 23 million
pieces from about 57 million in 1981. Quarter production dropped by about
200 million pieces at the two mints. Dime production dropped by 330 million
pieces, etc. And there were no mint sets produced in either 1982 or 1983.
Fortunately, Reagan, who claimed to be a fiscal conservative, became the
great fiscal liberal, borrowing and spending almost $300 billion a year that
he didn't have. In his 8 years, he quadrupled the national debt from about
$900 billion to about $3.2 trillion. Fortunately, in the early years of his
administration, the US was still the greatest creditor nation in the world
and the greatest net exporting nation in the world. That meant that most of
the $300 billion he borrowed and spent yearly stayed in our economy. And
with the average salary being about $15-20 thousand (closer to $15 thousand)
that meant that he created 15-20 million jobs. It took a year to bring the
unemployment rate under 10% (July 1983) and another 4 years to bring it
under 6% (5.9% in Sept 1987). I remember colleagues at the time comparing
the Reagan depression to the Nixon/Ford depression ( 9% unemployment in May
1975). I can speak from experience since I was caught up in the Nixon/Ford
depression.
The net result of Reagan's spending was that he took the United States from
a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation and from a net exporting nation
to a net importing nation. And despite all his talk about reducing the size
of the government, there were about 16% more government workers when Reagan
left office than when he took office. And that didn't include the military.
Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire friends,
he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that existed
before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure, there was a
need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for the inflation
of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making $30,000 per year
were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to the last dollar
earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of the tax code to favor
the highest earners still weighs heavily on us today. A typical person with
a million dollar income today (and there are more than 2 million such people
in the US today), still benefits from the Reagan tax cuts to the tune of
about $350,000 per year per million dollars of income. That's more than
$700 billion that's been removed from the tax rolls because of the Reagan
tax cuts. That tells me that if we need money for any of the programs
necessary to pull us out of this depression, I know where I'd go. And I'd
know who I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan tax cuts and adjust the
pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about 1960. Even Warren Buffet says
that the very wealthy in this country are under taxed in comparison to the
middle income people.
We've got to get the mint striking coins again.
--
Richard
http://coins.richlh.com/MyCoinLinks.htm
http://www.richlh.com
Don't lament that the rose bush has thorns. Rejoice that the thornbush has
roses. [Ancient Egyptian Saying]
"Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4B8E744E...@nospam.net...
Mr. Jaggers
> Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this
> country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income people.
But won't the rich be able to find (buy) loopholes to avoid any higher taxes
that are imposed on them?
> We've got to get the mint striking coins again.
I'm trying to remember when any of the branch mints failed to produce
certain denominations because of economic conditions, and in what years.
Certainly in the 1921-23 period, and again in the 1930-33 period, but now I
wonder if we'll see 2010-D nickels and dimes at all, with virtually the
entire 2009 Denver output languishing in vaults somewhere. 2009 is the
first time in my entire collecting experience that I have failed to get the
current year's circulation-strike coins by the end of the year.
James, with two holes gaping in my Danscos
Frank Galikanokus
Be careful with all those facts. Sara, Glen and Mitt will call you a
liar and a communists.
JAM
Bruce Remick
"Richard L. Hall" <richl...@richlh.com> wrote in message
news:hmmg5d$l0m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It would seem to me that when consumer spending diminishes, there's less
need for coins to make change. Sounds normal to me. Economics 1.
Meanwhile, IMO we should already have enough coins in circulation to satisfy
demand for the next five years without minting any new ones. The only ones
who panic seem to be coin collectors.
mazorj
"Richard L. Hall" <richl...@richlh.com> wrote in message
news:hmmg5d$l0m$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I remember talking to a federal civil servant at the time who said that
yeah, they riffed a lot of people - most of whom came back to work
(sometimes at their same desks) as consultants and contractors. The civil
service rolls went down but they ended up paying as much or more for all
those supposed "waste and abuse" positions on the payroll. The work still
had to be done. It was just an elaborate Kabuki dance so that Reagan could
claim he was shrinking the bureaucracy.
> Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire friends,
> he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that existed
> before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure, there was
> a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for the
> inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making $30,000
> per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to the last
> dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of the tax code
> to favor the highest earners still weighs heavily on us today. A typical
> person with a million dollar income today (and there are more than 2
> million such people in the US today), still benefits from the Reagan tax
> cuts to the tune of about $350,000 per year per million dollars of income.
> That's more than $700 billion that's been removed from the tax rolls
> because of the Reagan tax cuts. That tells me that if we need money for
> any of the programs necessary to pull us out of this depression, I know
> where I'd go. And I'd know who I'd tax. Personally, I'd undo the Reagan
> tax cuts and adjust the pre-Reagan brackets for inflation from about 1960.
> Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this country are under
> taxed in comparison to the middle income people.
IIRC, my first tax return in the 1960s still had a top marginal tax rate of
90%. LBJ was financing the Vietnam war and there even was a luxury tax on
things like yachts. I was nowhere near those stratopheric levels, but
knowing how the rich were protecting their sons from the draft, I figured it
was only fair that they pay in treasure if not in blood.
> We've got to get the mint striking coins again.
Congress has burdened the Mint with silly mandates that resulted in
languishing supplies of dollar coins that will never enter circulation, and
bullion strikes taking precedence over the 2009 AES proof strike. What say
they turn their micromanagement urges to something that would benefit
collectors. Mandate that one or two of those billion-dollar stimulation or
rescue packages be paid only "in Unted States coinage of existing issues in
denominations of less than one dollar". Instead of a check, beneficiaries
would get rolls and bags of coins. That would exhaust existing supplies and
have the Mint machinery running overtime. Who knows, the half-dollar might
actually circulate again and production demands might even cause some
quality control slips that lead to some interesting error varieties to look
for.
Richard L. Hall
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hmmh5...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Richard L. Hall wrote:
>> Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this
>> country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income people.
>
> But won't the rich be able to find (buy) loopholes to avoid any higher
> taxes that are imposed on them?
The IRS has closed many of the loopholes that existed. I don't see that as
being a big problem. And, just think, we won't even have to worry about big
bonuses in the banking system because most of it will be taxed away. The
net effect of a really high tax rate is that it will being salaries of
executives back in line with their workers.
>
>> We've got to get the mint striking coins again.
>
> I'm trying to remember when any of the branch mints failed to produce
> certain denominations because of economic conditions, and in what years.
> Certainly in the 1921-23 period, and again in the 1930-33 period,
Actually, there was a mild recession in the mid-1950's, and the mintages of
all the coins struck in 1955 (except the P and D cents) were well below what
they were in 1954. The San Francisco mint struck only dimes and cents in
quantities well below previous years, and no Denver half dollars were
struck. And, of course, the San Francisco mint closed after 1955 not to
reopen until the mid-1960's.
> but now I wonder if we'll see 2010-D nickels and dimes at all, with
> virtually the entire 2009 Denver output languishing in vaults somewhere.
> 2009 is the first time in my entire collecting experience that I have
> failed to get the current year's circulation-strike coins by the end of
> the year.
>
>
I know from whence you come. I've only found 3 professional life Lincolns
(P-mint) and 2 DC quarters.
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hmmmuj$7og$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
At least half of the people I worked with in the govt returned after
retirement as an independant contractor or consultant, often in the same
office. Many of those who didn't had the opportunity to but chose to retire
for good. One reason was that you could retire at age 55 with a healthy
pension and benefits, leaving another 20 or 30 years of leisure. Before I
retired I remember being irritated at having to find busy work for a couple
contractor hires in our office who were making more than many of our staff
employees.
In the early 1970's every office in our company had to maintain a "5% List"
of employees who were considered the "weakest" performance-wise. I suppose
others would have considered them deadwood, but it hurt to see them suddenly
disappear one day, several having been around sisce the 1950's.
I saw plenty of waste and abuse during my govt career, including military
service. I hold out no hope it will ever disappear.
Jass
Kennedy Half Dollar 1,700,000 1,800,000 3,500,000
Well, that isnt something you see every day!
Maybe it's just me, but from my anecdotal observations, less than 1%
of the nickels I encounter are post 2004.
Mind you, I also have never found a 2009 or 2010 penny in circulation.
Maybe my area stores enjoy using older coins?
Bruce Remick
"Jass" <jamesi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:27e430c4-0208-4dd3...@x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
No 2009 or 2010 cents in my pocket change yet either. Commem nickels--
maybe one in ten. State quarters- lately maybe 60%, the other 40% are
pre-1999. As for dimes, the other day I got a really bright shiny one in
change and thought for sure it had to be a 2009. I lifted my glasses,
squinted, and saw it was a 1994.
Peter
> At least half of the people I worked with in the govt returned after
> retirement as an independant contractor or consultant, often in the same
> office. Many of those who didn't had the opportunity to but chose to retire
> for good. One reason was that you could retire at age 55 with a healthy
> pension and benefits, leaving another 20 or 30 years of leisure. Before I
> retired I remember being irritated at having to find busy work for a couple
> contractor hires in our office who were making more than many of our staff
> employees.
My experience was different. A few came back as contractor or
consultant. Typically, they were ones that were exceptional. Some
stayed quite a long time. I was not aware of retired annuitants or
consultants that were kept beyond their usefulness. Generally, those
that took contract work had to submit a proposal and show tangible
results commensurate with the work promised and funds expected. There
was perhaps a little more leeway, there, but for the most part what I
saw looked pretty sound.
What I also saw was normal and happy retirements and some exceptional
employees that struck out in business in unexpected ways (in some
cases quite successfully). Naturally, it was a small organization and
I did not know everyone.
Richard L. Hall
When Reagan assumed office, he was going to cut spending, freeze government
hiring, etc. And predictibly within two years the country was in a
recession. The 7.2% unemployment rate he inherited from Jimmy Carter
swelled to the 10.8% rate that I cited for November and December 1982. Those
figures come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was the highest
unemployment rate since the end of the Great Depression. Reagan changed
course and not only unfroze the government hiring but he started funding all
kinds of programs from the Strategic Defense Initiative to the
Superconducting Super collider to the beginning of the Space Station to the
1000 ship Navy. After November 1982, Reagan didn't meet a science program
he didn't like. And as spending increased dramatically, government
employment also began to rise. Thee 16% increase in government workers I
cited came from the 1990 Information Please Almanac.
>> Had he not been so generous with his tax cuts for his millionaire
>> friends, he could have paid for his spending with the tax structure that
>> existed before he came to office with slight modifications. To be sure,
>> there was a need for tax reform. The tax code had never been adjusted for
>> the inflation of the late 60's and 70's. Middle income people making
>> $30,000 per year were burdened with a marginal rate (the rate applied to
>> the last dollar earned) of 50%. And Reagan's radical restructuring of
>> the tax code to favor the highest earners still weighs heavily on us
>> today. A typical person with a million dollar income today (and there
>> are more than 2 million such people in the US today), still benefits from
>> the Reagan tax cuts to the tune of about $350,000 per year per million
>> dollars of income. That's more than $700 billion that's been removed from
>> the tax rolls because of the Reagan tax cuts. That tells me that if we
>> need money for any of the programs necessary to pull us out of this
>> depression, I know where I'd go. And I'd know who I'd tax. Personally,
>> I'd undo the Reagan tax cuts and adjust the pre-Reagan brackets for
>> inflation from about 1960. Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy
>> in this country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income
>> people.
>
> IIRC, my first tax return in the 1960s still had a top marginal tax rate
> of 90%. LBJ was financing the Vietnam war and there even was a luxury tax
> on things like yachts. I was nowhere near those stratopheric levels, but
> knowing how the rich were protecting their sons from the draft, I figured
> it was only fair that they pay in treasure if not in blood.
President Kennedy's tax cut in early 1961 reduced the top marginal rate from
73% or so to 70%. Reagan reduced it from 70% to 28% initially. IIRC,
Johnson did have a surcharge that was levied to support the war.
Actually, getting a deferment was easy in the early stages of the Vietnam
War. When I entered college as a Physics major in 1962, I got my first
draft classification. It was a 2-S. I didn't know what that meant. It
turned out to be a student deferment. But you could get a deferment by
getting married, having kids, etc. At least that was true initially. After
I entered graduate school in 1966, I kept my deferment. However, the
following year, to keep a deferment, entering graduate students had to be
teaching classes. My class just had to be enrolled in a science program.
Actually, the 2-S deferment was a holdover from WWII. And back then, only
the children of the wealthy and the very smart usually went to college. So
there weren't that many.deferments. But all that changed with the GI bill,
when all of the returning soldiers were eligible for government paid
tuition. And then by the end of the 50's, lots of kids were going to
college using borrowed money. And then came the kids who were born during
the war. There were a sizeable number of them including myself. And then
came the baby boomers, born after the war to returning soldiers. College
became a matter of right for just about everyone, a 4-year extension of
childhood.
Richard L. Hall
It would certainly point them in the right direction. Their only solution
to the current recession is tax cuts. But history tells us that the only
thing tax cuts accomplish is to drive up he naional debt. It's no accident
that the two biggest tax cutters, Ronald Reagan and George Bush 43, created
about 80% of the national debt that existed when George Bush 43 left office.
And a significant part of the debt in Obama's first year came from George
Bush 43's final budget. The way out of a recession/depression is to spend
your way out.. Tax cuts just don't cut it. Pardon the pun.
mazorj
"Richard L. Hall" <richl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hmmru0$9gb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:hmmh5...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Richard L. Hall wrote:
>>> Even Warren Buffet says that the very wealthy in this
>>> country are under taxed in comparison to the middle income people.
>>
>> But won't the rich be able to find (buy) loopholes to avoid any
>> higher taxes that are imposed on them?
>
> The IRS has closed many of the loopholes that existed. I don't see
> that as being a big problem. And, just think, we won't even have to
> worry about big bonuses in the banking system because most of it
> will be taxed away. The net effect of a really high tax rate is
> that it will being salaries of executives back in line with their
> workers.
Ever hear the term "grossing up"? It means adding enough to a bonus,
salary bump, or other benefit in order to cover the added income tax
that the recipient will have to pay as a result. I doubt that
grossing-up will suddenly disappear from the corporate compensation
bag of tricks. So higher taxes won't do much, if anything at all, to
curb executive compensation. In fact, since employee compensation
usually is deductible from taxable corporate profits, it makes every
dollar paid to executives cheaper than it's nominal cost. And if the
corporate tax rate also goes up along with the rates paid by the
executives, it costs the company even less in terms of post-tax
profits to pay those high executive salaries.
Bruce Remick
When I entered college in 1959, there was no war to speak of, but there was
the draft. That's why many college kids sought deferments. I was one who
didn't bother. Then in 1962 a couple of my classmates, who like myself
neglected to get a deferment, were drafted. I checked with my local draft
board and found that I, too, was in line to be drafted. Too late to apply
for a deferment so I dropped out of college and enlisted in the Army with a
guarantee for specific training assignment. When I completed training in
1963 they were soliciting volunteers to do a tour in Saigon. We had to be
shown on a map where that was and were told that the job would be mostly
administrative. I don't recall anyone volunteering so most ended up with
orders for Germany, Korea, or stateside duty. I ended up in Alaska.
Frank Galikanokus
I don' think so. Only the congress can change the tax laws. The IRS only
enforces them.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that use
cash are becoming a minority.
JAM
Paul Anderson
Frank Galikanokus <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote:
> There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that
> use cash are becoming a minority.
I just don't understand why people are willing to put up with higher
prices instead of just paying with cash.
<http://truecostofcredit.com/>
If people knew who they were making rich by their use of credit cards,
and how much it costs all of us, maybe the Mint would need to produce
more coins.
Paul
Bruce Remick
Exactly.
Bruce Remick
"Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:paulranderson-702...@news.charter.net...
> In article <4B8FF128...@nospam.net>,
> Frank Galikanokus <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> There is also the effect of the coming cashless society. People that
>> use cash are becoming a minority.
>
> I just don't understand why people are willing to put up with higher
> prices instead of just paying with cash.
>
> <http://truecostofcredit.com/>
I haven't run across many stores that charge less if you pay with cash.
>
> If people knew who they were making rich by their use of credit cards,
> and how much it costs all of us, maybe the Mint would need to produce
> more coins.
>
I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price is
acceptible. All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not
I use a credit card to pay for something. To me, a credit card is handy, it
eliminates the need to carry more cash than I'm comfortable with, and
there's no other way to take advantage of online shopping. I haven't paid
any credit card interest in 30 years. Any fee for this convenience that is
incorporated in an item's price is invisible to me. It's just one of dozens
of bites taken along a product's history trail that end up establishing that
product's final retail price.
Paul Anderson
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price
> is acceptible.
It's not fair that people who pay with cash pay more to subsidize
people who pay with credit cards.
> All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not I use
> a credit card to pay for something.
It would be great to allow stores to offer a "cash" price and a "credit
card" price. Some gas stations offered a cash discount when prices
were so high, but I've also heard such a discount is illegal. I don't
know the details.
> To me, a credit card is handy, it eliminates the need to carry more
> cash than I'm comfortable with, and there's no other way to take
> advantage of online shopping.
I use a credit card for online shopping, but I see no need to use one
in a face-to-face transaction.
> I haven't paid any credit card interest in 30 years.
That is admirable, but I suspect you are in the minority.
> Any fee for this convenience that is incorporated in an item's price
> is invisible to me.
That's my point. This demonstrates the insidiousness of the entire
credit card industry. I understand using a credit card for a large
purchase, but when I see people buying toast at the cafeteria or a
candy bar with a credit card, that's just throwing money away and
inflating the cost of goods for everyone.
To me, there's nothing more convenient than paying with cash. Plus I
know the item is paid for and I won't get a bill for it in a few weeks.
Paul
Mr. Jaggers
> In article <M0Wjn.12555$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price
>> is acceptible.
>
> It's not fair that people who pay with cash pay more to subsidize
> people who pay with credit cards.
To have a two-tier pricing schedule could conceivably cost more than the
one-price system close to universally in place. I'm certain that
professional bean counters have already investigated this issue and found
the current setup to be preferable, and it wouldn't surprise me, to all
parties.
>> All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not I use
>> a credit card to pay for something.
>
> It would be great to allow stores to offer a "cash" price and a
> "credit card" price. Some gas stations offered a cash discount when
> prices were so high, but I've also heard such a discount is illegal.
> I don't know the details.
It might also be illegal to "plus up" the purchase price when a credit card
is used, but there are plenty of coin guys who do just that.
>> To me, a credit card is handy, it eliminates the need to carry more
>> cash than I'm comfortable with, and there's no other way to take
>> advantage of online shopping.
>
> I use a credit card for online shopping, but I see no need to use one
> in a face-to-face transaction.
>
>> I haven't paid any credit card interest in 30 years.
>
> That is admirable, but I suspect you are in the minority.
A very tiny minority, I suspect..
>> Any fee for this convenience that is incorporated in an item's price
>> is invisible to me.
>
> That's my point. This demonstrates the insidiousness of the entire
> credit card industry. I understand using a credit card for a large
> purchase, but when I see people buying toast at the cafeteria or a
> candy bar with a credit card, that's just throwing money away and
> inflating the cost of goods for everyone.
But why does size of transaction matter? A large purchase contributes in
the same way to inflation. Besides, hidden credit card charges are no
different from any other markup or rakeoff that takes place along the way.
Insidious is not the best word here, because it connotes evil, where I don't
see evil intentions, but rather, profit motive. I've yet to meet anyone who
will consistently provide his services for free. To echo a shibboleth
current in the coin industry, market value is determined when knowledgeable
buyer meets knowledgeable seller. People can be ignorant for a variety of
reasons, but willful ignorance seldom garners pity.
> To me, there's nothing more convenient than paying with cash. Plus I
> know the item is paid for and I won't get a bill for it in a few
> weeks.
To me, there's nothing more convenient than paying with a debit card. I can
swipe the card and key in my PIN while the cashier is still scanning the
merchandise and the transfer of physical wealth doesn't emburden the
transaction at all. Cash is kind of in between. Oftentimes the cashier has
to waste time breaking open a roll of this or that to make change, or they
get confused if I add cents to my tender in order to simplify the change
process. Now, people with checkbooks, that's another story...
James the Timewaster
Bruce Remick
> In article <M0Wjn.12555$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price
>> is acceptible.
>
> It's not fair that people who pay with cash pay more to subsidize
> people who pay with credit cards.
The option is available to everyone who can qualify for a card and it's
quite popular. If you pay $25.00 in cash for an item and I pay the same
with a card, how are you paying more than me? You pay a lot more for
products to subsidize shoplifters and thieves who get away with their
crimes.
>
>> All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not I use
>> a credit card to pay for something.
>
> It would be great to allow stores to offer a "cash" price and a "credit
> card" price. Some gas stations offered a cash discount when prices
> were so high, but I've also heard such a discount is illegal. I don't
> know the details.
I have seen that at some stations. The final price difference wasn't all
that much unless you were filling up a semi. I have also read where two
different cash-card price structures were illegal. Maybe it's a state
regulated issue.
>
>> To me, a credit card is handy, it eliminates the need to carry more
>> cash than I'm comfortable with, and there's no other way to take
>> advantage of online shopping.
>
> I use a credit card for online shopping, but I see no need to use one
> in a face-to-face transaction.
Others apparently do. We buy family groceries and gasoline with a card.
Very convenient and eliminates the need of first having to go to the bank
for cash.
>
>> I haven't paid any credit card interest in 30 years.
>
> That is admirable, but I suspect you are in the minority.
Again, the option is there for most everybody. Don't charge more than you
can pay off at the end of the month and you'll never be charged interest.
Furthermore, you can get rebates of up to 5% with many cards. What really
pisses me off are those TV commercials offering relief for people who have
accumulated over $10,000 in credit card debt and can't pay it off. The
"actors" boast of having $15,000 in debt reduced to only $3,000. I thought
I heard of proposed govt stimulus handouts designed to help those same
irresponsible people, but it may have been from Glen Beck or someone like
that.
>
>> Any fee for this convenience that is incorporated in an item's price
>> is invisible to me.
>
> That's my point. This demonstrates the insidiousness of the entire
> credit card industry. I understand using a credit card for a large
> purchase, but when I see people buying toast at the cafeteria or a
> candy bar with a credit card, that's just throwing money away and
> inflating the cost of goods for everyone.
I agree that it's silly and maybe over the top to pay for a candy bar with
plastic. But some people just don't want to carry cash. Do you really
believe that the price of that candy bar would be lower if there were no
credit cards?
>
> To me, there's nothing more convenient than paying with cash. Plus I
> know the item is paid for and I won't get a bill for it in a few weeks.
Others surely feel the same. I usually pay for routine daily purchases with
cash. Otherwise, I don't like to keep lots of it around the house. And if
you're an ATM user, you may be paying more vigorish to the rich bankers for
that convenience than you would to a credit card issuer (maybe the same
bank) for the card convenience. To each his own.
Paul Anderson
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> If you pay $25.00 in cash for an item and I pay the same with a card,
> how are you paying more than me?
We're both paying more for that item because of the fees charged by
credit card companies. And if I can interject another hot topic, such
an amount is much larger than the fictional losses to the consumer by
eliminating the one-cent coin. Some people seem riled up by getting
rid of a useless coin but don't seem upset by the larger issue of
increased credit card use.
> You pay a lot more for products to subsidize shoplifters and thieves
> who get away with their crimes.
That may be, but I try not to purposely increase the cost to the
storekeeper by using a credit card when I have the cash in my pocket.
What shoplifters do is out of my control; how I spend my money is not.
> Others apparently do. We buy family groceries and gasoline with a
> card. Very convenient and eliminates the need of first having to go
> to the bank for cash.
I go to the bank once a week and get enough cash for spending for the
week. And I do pay for my gas at the pump as not having to go into the
store twice (once to pay and once to get your change) is a convenience.
> What really pisses me off are those TV commercials offering relief
> for people who have accumulated over $10,000 in credit card debt and
> can't pay it off.
Me too.
> Do you really believe that the price of that candy bar would be lower
> if there were no credit cards?
Yes, by the percent of people who buy items at that store with a credit
card multiplied by the fee charged by the credit card company.
> To each his own.
Thankfully we can do so in this country. But won't it be sad when
coins and bills go away? I hope I don't see that day in my lifetime.
Paul
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> Paul Anderson wrote:
>> In article <M0Wjn.12555$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
>> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price
>>> is acceptible.
>>
>> It's not fair that people who pay with cash pay more to subsidize
>> people who pay with credit cards.
>
> To have a two-tier pricing schedule could conceivably cost more than the
> one-price system close to universally in place. I'm certain that
> professional bean counters have already investigated this issue and found
> the current setup to be preferable, and it wouldn't surprise me, to all
> parties.
>
>>> All I know is that it costs me exactly the same whether or not I use
>>> a credit card to pay for something.
>>
>> It would be great to allow stores to offer a "cash" price and a
>> "credit card" price. Some gas stations offered a cash discount when
>> prices were so high, but I've also heard such a discount is illegal.
>> I don't know the details.
>
> It might also be illegal to "plus up" the purchase price when a credit
> card is used, but there are plenty of coin guys who do just that.
Many moons ago there was a federal law or regulation enacted governing cash
versus plastic pricing.
There are two ways to tack on a surcharge for using plastic. One is to
quote the price for cash (or check or M.O.) and then list a surcharge' or
the higher price including the surcharge, for plastic. This is why you
occasionally see vendors quoting an added fee or higher price if paid in
plastic. I've seen that at gun shows.
The other is to quote a price then list the discount or the lower price for
cash. I don't ever recall seeing this.
So IIRC, the former is legal, the latter is not. I don't know how they
concluded that it's okay to quote a price then add a charge for plastic, but
it's not kosher to quote a price and then discount it if paid in cash. You
get to the same end point in the final price. Go figure.
Mr. Jaggers
It's very simple. The one benefits the politician who voted for it, the
other does not. Case closed. Next!
James the Adjudicator
Bruce Remick
> In article <ZS8kn.69245$Ye4....@newsfe11.iad>,
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> If you pay $25.00 in cash for an item and I pay the same with a card,
>> how are you paying more than me?
>
> We're both paying more for that item because of the fees charged by
> credit card companies.
Well, you said that YOU would be paying more by using cash. There are so
many hands in the pie from the mfg of a product to its price on the shelf
that any minor credit card-related cost may well be eaten by the merchant
just to remain competitive. You and I will never know. The grocer who
accepts plastic will usually do better than a comparable one who doesn't.
And if I can interject another hot topic, such
> an amount is much larger than the fictional losses to the consumer by
> eliminating the one-cent coin. Some people seem riled up by getting
> rid of a useless coin but don't seem upset by the larger issue of
> increased credit card use.
Most people never see a breakdown of all the factors that go into a final
shelf price of a product. Maybe some people don't get upset by increased
credit use because they use credit cards themselves. You said you do for
some things.
>
>> You pay a lot more for products to subsidize shoplifters and thieves
>> who get away with their crimes.
>
> That may be, but I try not to purposely increase the cost to the
> storekeeper by using a credit card when I have the cash in my pocket.
> What shoplifters do is out of my control; how I spend my money is not.
So you have no problem accepting a price markup to cover shoplifting losses,
but you do have a problem with any perceived markup because a merchant
accepts credit cards. If the price of a product is acceptible to you, you
shouldn't care what went into it.
>
>> Others apparently do. We buy family groceries and gasoline with a
>> card. Very convenient and eliminates the need of first having to go
>> to the bank for cash.
>
> I go to the bank once a week and get enough cash for spending for the
> week. And I do pay for my gas at the pump as not having to go into the
> store twice (once to pay and once to get your change) is a convenience.
There again. The price of convenience. I always used to pay for gas with
cash. But once I discovered a credit card that offered a 5% rebate, I
kicked myself thereafter for having to trudge into the store, stand in line
behind lottery ticket buyers, and then pay for my gas.
>
>> What really pisses me off are those TV commercials offering relief
>> for people who have accumulated over $10,000 in credit card debt and
>> can't pay it off.
>
> Me too.
If we wanted a new piece of furniture, we saved until we could afford it.
We didn't charge it and gradually pay it off at a high interest rate.
>
>> Do you really believe that the price of that candy bar would be lower
>> if there were no credit cards?
>
> Yes, by the percent of people who buy items at that store with a credit
> card multiplied by the fee charged by the credit card company.
If you ever use an ATM to get your cash, do you accept paying a fee just to
withdraw some of your own money?
>
>> To each his own.
>
> Thankfully we can do so in this country. But won't it be sad when
> coins and bills go away? I hope I don't see that day in my lifetime.
I don't think they'll totally go away, as long as there are coin collectors.
But I'm not sad at all in having other ways to pay for stuff that doesn't
involve cash. I grew up always paying in cash and getting paid in cash in
the Army and in a pay envelope on civilian payday. Now, our pay usually
goes directly into the bank and routine monthly purchases can be made
without handling any money. For me it's been pretty easy to adapt.
mazorj
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ZS8kn.69245$Ye4....@newsfe11.iad...
>
> "Paul Anderson" <paulra...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:paulranderson-423...@news.charter.net...
>> In article <M0Wjn.12555$mn6....@newsfe07.iad>,
>> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't care who profits when I make a purchase, as long as the price
>>> is acceptible.
>>
>> It's not fair that people who pay with cash pay more to subsidize
>> people who pay with credit cards.
You're also paying for the public restrooms in most stores, Paul. Is that
fair if you never use them? Often the cost of soft drinks, beer and wine is
the same whether you get them out of a cooler - which costs money - or off a
shelf. The price for fast food is the same whether you use the
drive-through (very cost-effective for the owner) or sit at a table in a
heated/air-conditioned store with a duplicate set of registers and staff.
Is that fair?
The cost of plastic and restrooms and coolers and tables is built into the
retail price. As noted, everyone pays the same price. That's the ultimate
in fairness unless you want to start unbundling all the store's services and
amenties. Once you start with that, where do you stop? Going back to
coin-operated rest room stalls? Imposing a cover charge to eat your burger
inside? Charging for straws?
Furthermore, there are costs associated with using cash. Coins and bills
must be tallied - time is money! - and then physically deposited, either by
having someone take time to run to the bank, or have an armored car pick-up,
either of which adds another cost. Banks add a surcharge to merchants for
those nice rolls of coins they keep in the store safe and parcel out to cash
registers - something like 2% IIRC. My guess is that for anything bigger
than a Mom and Pop pop stand, the cost of using cash carries its own
significant cost to the operation.
Also note that many of those buyers swiping a card are probably doing a
debit card transaction, not a credit card purchase. Debit card transaction
fees to merchants are far, far lower than credit card fees. That's why
credit card issuers have promotions and rewards to motivate buyers to opt
for the credit card tied to their bank's dual purpose debit/credit card.
The costs of promos and rewards are built into the scalping that the
merchant takes per transaction. Debit card transactions just involve a
quick direct transfer from existing money in the account, so the fees are
trivial compared to a credit transaction.
(My youngest children routinely use their debit cards for the smallest of
purchases. I find this puzzling. But as with the GEN-whatever attachment
to smart phones and IM and Twitter and social networking, it's largely a
generational thing. It's convenient, and they don't have the resources to
carry a couple hundred dollars in their wallets at all times like I do.
Unfortunately, that leads to $35 overdraft fees - "How did you like that $39
hamburger, Hon?" I've finally been able to pound it into their heads that
they need to watch their balances, but we're raising a generation of
clueless consumers when it comes to managing their plastic.)
Anyway, I understand your pique because whether or not you use credit cards
is a common and obvious discriminator between buyers. But that doesn't
change the overall fairness of charging one price for one product or service
regardless of payment method or whether or not you use the rest room or grab
a straw and napkins or whatever.
...
Paul Anderson
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> So you have no problem accepting a price markup to cover shoplifting
> losses, but you do have a problem with any perceived markup because a
> merchant accepts credit cards.
Of course I don't like prices that are higher because of shoplifters.
But there's nothing I can do about that.
> If the price of a product is acceptible to you, you shouldn't care
> what went into it.
A price is acceptable mostly in comparison to other merchants selling
the same item. Since everyone's price is higher because of credit card
fees, everyone pays more. The additional cost of credit card fees will
probably not make you decide not to purchase an item at all.
> If you ever use an ATM to get your cash, do you accept paying a fee
> just to withdraw some of your own money?
No. In an emergency I might, but I always go to my own bank and don't
pay an ATM fee.
> I don't think they'll totally go away, as long as there are coin
> collectors.
I meant coins and bills going away in everyday commerce. If the Mint
made all their coins only for collectors, it wouldn't be as much fun.
> But I'm not sad at all in having other ways to pay for stuff that
> doesn't involve cash. I grew up always paying in cash and getting
> paid in cash in the Army and in a pay envelope on civilian payday.
> Now, our pay usually goes directly into the bank and routine monthly
> purchases can be made without handling any money. For me it's been
> pretty easy to adapt.
I've adapted to such things also. We get direct deposit of paychecks
and pay our bills online and have so for years. Many recurring bills
are paid directly automatically. But these are things that weren't
typically handled in cash anyway.
If I'm in a store, I'll always pay with cash. I like how it reminds me
how much money I'm spending. I also like to spend twos, dollar coins
and halves, as you know, so that makes it more fun too.
Paul
Bruce Remick
> In article <HS9kn.16538$ND2....@newsfe05.iad>,
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> So you have no problem accepting a price markup to cover shoplifting
>> losses, but you do have a problem with any perceived markup because a
>> merchant accepts credit cards.
>
> Of course I don't like prices that are higher because of shoplifters.
> But there's nothing I can do about that.
So you accept it then. Why not accept the other? There 's nothing you can
do about that either.
>
>> If the price of a product is acceptible to you, you shouldn't care
>> what went into it.
>
> A price is acceptable mostly in comparison to other merchants selling
> the same item. Since everyone's price is higher because of credit card
> fees, everyone pays more. The additional cost of credit card fees will
> probably not make you decide not to purchase an item at all.
You're assuming that every merchant factors the cost of accepting credit
cards into the price of every item. How do you know for sure? How do you
know which ones might absorb that small cost in order to remain competitive
or to gain a competitive advantage? There are so many things that decide
the final price of an item that it's silly to be obsessed with any one of
them.
>
>> If you ever use an ATM to get your cash, do you accept paying a fee
>> just to withdraw some of your own money?
>
> No. In an emergency I might, but I always go to my own bank and don't
> pay an ATM fee.
I'll bet you DO pay for that convenience in the same hidden way you might be
paying those alleged higher prices from a merchant. You'll probably never
know how, but banks seldom give out "free" services without getting their
pound of flesh elsewhere.
>
>> I don't think they'll totally go away, as long as there are coin
>> collectors.
>
> I meant coins and bills going away in everyday commerce. If the Mint
> made all their coins only for collectors, it wouldn't be as much fun.
I don't buy a lot of stuff and typically go all week without handling cash
except maybe for a case of beer or a greeting card. And those could easily
be purchased on a card if I had a mind to. I consider whatever coin change
I get from the beer purchase to be a useless nuisance anymore. It will
never see my hands again unless it's to roll it up to cash it in once a
year.
>
>> But I'm not sad at all in having other ways to pay for stuff that
>> doesn't involve cash. I grew up always paying in cash and getting
>> paid in cash in the Army and in a pay envelope on civilian payday.
>> Now, our pay usually goes directly into the bank and routine monthly
>> purchases can be made without handling any money. For me it's been
>> pretty easy to adapt.
>
> I've adapted to such things also. We get direct deposit of paychecks
> and pay our bills online and have so for years. Many recurring bills
> are paid directly automatically. But these are things that weren't
> typically handled in cash anyway.
We (my wife) still pay some of our bills by check. Some old habits die
hard. What would be inconvenient for some is not at all so for others.
Where you might consider it odd or unusual to see someone pay for a magazine
at a drug store with a credit card, I might find it odd and unusual to see
someone pay for a laptop at Best Buy with cash.
>
> If I'm in a store, I'll always pay with cash. I like how it reminds me
> how much money I'm spending. I also like to spend twos, dollar coins
> and halves, as you know, so that makes it more fun too.
If you like it, do it.
Scurvy Dog
I save paying the sales tax by paying my mechanic in cash...
Mr. Jaggers
The low rates they're paying on CDs and the even lower rates on passbook
savings are part of that POF. Right now, my bank is paying less on savings
accounts than it did when I was 16, and that was just a few short years ago.
James the Usurer
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I thought I would never see my credit union offering passbook/share interest
at less than 1%. Now the only way to avoid seeing it is to cover my eyes
when I get my statement. Lately, the stock market is the only thing that's
been been paying off, for me anyway. It's not too hard to beat 1% annual
interest.
Frank Galikanokus
I think you have that backwards. I have seen the "quote a price and then
discount it if paid in cash". And, it's not illegal, it's against credit
card company rules applied to the seller.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
I like the anonymity of a twenty dollar bill.
JAM
Mr. Jaggers
Hey, I've got an idea, we should invest in rare coins! After all, they're
not making them any more. Oops, wait, um...er...
James the Conniver
Mr. Jaggers
They're really good for making purchases at dens of iniquity far from home!
James the Anonymous
Scurvy Dog
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
$20 doesn't get as much iniquity as it used to.
mazorj
Well, as I said, I've seen it the first way a fair number of times - add a
fee to the cash price or pay a higher quoted price - and never the second
method.
If it's just a credit card company rule, then maybe some do it the first way
and others do it the other way.
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
You should have learned by now that one should NEVER buy coins with a profit
motive-- only for enjoyment.
Mr. Jaggers
Exactly, but I enjoy them a lot more if they are the genuine article.
James the Realist