←back to thread

460 points andrewl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
nayuki ◴[] No.45902294[source]
We eliminated pennies in Canada in 2012 and the transition was a non-issue. The vast majority of retailers would round cash transactions to the nearest $0.05, but a few would round down to the nearest $0.05 in favor of the customer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_low-denomination...

Canadian cash is better than American cash in several ways: No penny, durable polymer banknotes (instead of dirty wrinkly cotton paper), colorful banknotes (instead of all green) that are easy to distinguish, $1 and $2 coins in wide circulation (instead of worn-out $1 bills).

replies(20): >>45902306 #>>45903233 #>>45903260 #>>45903385 #>>45903401 #>>45903410 #>>45903530 #>>45903652 #>>45903696 #>>45903720 #>>45903737 #>>45903848 #>>45903857 #>>45904034 #>>45904111 #>>45904341 #>>45904360 #>>45904561 #>>45905087 #>>45906936 #
simonw ◴[] No.45902306[source]
The linked article raises a few problems that the US could have with that solution:

> Four states - Delaware, Connecticut, Michigan and Oregon - as well as numerous cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Miami and Washington, DC, require merchants to provide exact change.

replies(4): >>45902420 #>>45902457 #>>45902542 #>>45903310 #
delecti ◴[] No.45902420[source]
If the US properly got rid of pennies (instead of Trump just doing another end-run around congress, by ordering the Mint to stop making them, on shaky legal ground), the legislation could easily supersede those state laws.
replies(3): >>45903231 #>>45903293 #>>45903552 #
mjd ◴[] No.45903552[source]
I think this is wrong.

As far as I can tell the relevant statute is 31 USC §5112, and it does not require the minting of all authorized coins:

“(a) The Secretary of the Treasury *may mint* and issue only the following coins: ... (6) ... a one-cent coin that is 0.75 inch in diameter and weighs 3.11 grams.”

(Emphasis mine)

There may be another clause somewhere that requires the Treasury to issue all coins, but that seems unlikely to me. The _number_ of coins to issue of each type is left to the discretion of the Treasury; why wouldn't that include the option to issue none?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112

replies(1): >>45903810 #
delecti ◴[] No.45903810[source]
I addressed in another reply that "'none' is all that's necessary" is probably a defensible interpretation of the law (the more relevant portion being in 5111 rather than 5112), but the penny being explicitly listed makes it clearly not the intention of congress. That's why I said it's a "shaky" and not "baseless" legal ground. The law is clearly written with the expectation that there will be some, which is why Congress felt the need to pass the Coinage Act of 1857 to phase out the half cent.

I think we should get rid of the penny, but it's Congress's responsibility to do that, and they haven't. I'm opposed to Congress abdicating its power and responsibility like that.

replies(1): >>45903960 #
mjd ◴[] No.45903960[source]
You're right, 5111 is more pertinent here.

5111(a)(1) says “shall mint and issue coins” but qualifies it explicitly with “in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States”. This is a clear delegation of authority.

If you don't think zero pennies is a permissible amount, what about one penny? Two? What minimum number are you arguing for here, and what's your justification for it?

If Congress had wanted to set a minimum number, they could have done so.

Reading it as ”shall mint” is wrong, I think. “Shall” qualifies the whole clause “mint in amounts the Secretary decides (etc.)”.

Understood that way, 5111 makes it unlawful to mint any pennies if the Secretary decides that none are necessary.

replies(1): >>45905592 #
isleyaardvark ◴[] No.45905592[source]
If Congress had wanted to get rid of the penny, they would have done so, since they specifically have the power to “coin money” under Article 1, Section 8.

In fact they have introduced a bill to do just that, that has not passed yet, which means they have not done that.

replies(1): >>45905938 #
1. ◴[] No.45905938[source]