| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 3,170 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2295 Posts |
Please read it here: http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/abo...alReport.pdfIt is interesting to note what they have said about cost of the cent (err penny, which the Mint has been calling it more frequently now) and nickel on pages 2, 7, and 10. The nickel is taking a huge loss at a cost of over 11 cents each. So for all of you for stopping the cent for its loss, the nickel is the real loser and the one that really needs to change. I don't think the Mint is planning any changes to coin composition this year, but maybe next year? Wes |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1943 Posts |
If you look at it from the face value the cent is costing 2.4 times it's face value and the nickel is costing 2.2 times it's face value. I see both as a problem.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Yeah, but the mint issues almost 5 pennies for each nickel, so the cent is losing more total ($1.40 lost for every dollar worth of cents shipped, and $1.24 lost for every dollar worth of nickels).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2295 Posts |
On page 11, it lists the loss per denomination. The cent lost $60.2 million and the nickel lost $56.5 million in total costs, so the overall loss for each is very close. They both need to be changed or stopped. Hopefully they make an announcement this year.
The "mutilated and other" column had a loss of $23.3 million, so that is another big loser.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187702 Posts |
Changing the composition is pointless and only delays the inevitable. I will continue to advocate ceasing circulation strikes of both the cent and five cent coins.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
253 Posts |
I concur with stopping making the one cent coin. With today's prices, bumping up to or down to the next five cent point, I don't think will have much impact. I think it will take years to have the cent attrit out of circulation anyway, so it would be around for a long time and be of little to no usefulness by the time it is gone. I think we should keep the 5 cent coin-just change its metal composition to where it costs less than 5 cents to make it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2295 Posts |
Quote:
Changing the composition is pointless and only delays the inevitable. I will continue to advocate ceasing circulation strikes of both the cent and five cent coins. I agree, but what are you doing to advocate it and what can we do to stop the cent from being minted and change the composition of the nickel? We need to write to someone and do it in a large mass to have any affect. Would it be the US Treasury, Senate, House of Representatives or all three? Anyone care to write a form letter to share? There must be at least one person good at writing letters in this forum.  I know a few people in Congress have tried, but it takes more than 1 or 2 people. |
|
Valued Member
United States
410 Posts |
Those losses make the $1.5 million the mint is spending to determine possible replacement metal compositions look tiny.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
You should write your own congressperson and both of your senators. You should also write members of the relevant committees. I believe that would be the Committee on Finance in the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services in the house, though it may be possible that multiple committees have jurisdiction.
It's hard to make any headway with congress without cash, but the banking and small business lobbies may have some financial interest in ending the circulation of small coins, as they are costly to handle.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Changing the composition of the cent is pointless because no matter what you change it to it is still going to be a money loser. The cent NEEDS to be eliminated. The nickel can still be saved for awhile through a composition change but its days are numbered as well for the same reason. It won't be too long until no matter what its composition is it will also be a money loser. Changing the composition of the nickel has the additional problem that no matter what you change it to, every vending machine in the country is going to need a new coin mechanism to handle both the old and new compositions at the same time. Quote:
On page 11, it lists the loss per denomination. The cent lost $60.2 million and the nickel lost $56.5 million in total costs, so the overall loss for each is very close. They both need to be changed or stopped. Hopefully they make an announcement this year. That first chart on page 11 is important. Many people say that it is OK to lose money on the cent and nickel because it can be off set by the seigniorage from the other coins. Well look at that chart. It shows a 60.2 million dollar loss on the cent, a 56.5 million dollar loss on the nickel for a total of 116.7 million in losses. Now on the plus side we have 61 million on the dime, 45 million for the quarter and 382.8 million on the dollar coin for a positive seigniorage of 428.8 million. Total profit then is 428.8 - 116.7 = 312.1 million. But this year we aren't going to have that great big dollar coin seigniorage so lets drop that out and you get a positive of 106 million and a loss of 116.7 million and we show a net LOSS of 10.7 million dollars! Throw in that loss of 23.3 million for the mutilated and other and you are looking at a total loss of 34 million dollars. Now that the dollar coins are being dropped the seigniorage profit of the other coins no longer makes up the loss on the cents and nickels. (And they said dropping the dollar for circulation would save 50 million dollars. The mints own figures show it is going to mean a loss of at least 288.8 million dollars.) Did you notice the bar graph at the bottom of page 7? This year the amount of money turned over to the general fund dropped by over 300 million dollars. they only turned over the profits from the numismatic coin sales and the bullion coin sales. They are hanging on to the 300 million they made on seigniorage last year in order to be able to offset losses for this year. Edited by Conder101
02/01/2012 2:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
That's what I found so exasperating about all the hubbub about the dollar coins in the media. I don't a single one of them spoke to an actual economist or even mentioned the word seigniorage. Even considering storage costs, the mint makes money from dollar coins. I'm sure a lot of people were patting themselves on the back for ending the program after a round of whipped-up faux-outrage.
Congratulations, media, on wasting tens of millions of dollars in the name of eliminating "waste"! At least you got the opportunity to misinform the public.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2295 Posts |
 Yes, politicians at work.  And that is really amazing they are saving $300 million for this year's losses. I think they expect to mint more cents and nickels this year than last, so that will increase the losses too, along with not having the dollar coins to help offset the losses. Oh well. What does the government do that doesn't waste money?  Seems like business as usual. Edited by wquinn
02/01/2012 4:04 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
268 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
268 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2295 Posts |
Also, I think why many people, don't want to get rid of the cent, is because it is the basic unit of our decimal monetary system. It is hard to imagine having a monetary system without the cent, since it has been around so long. I imagine we'll see some change in the next year or two. It probably won't be ideal, but it might be an improvement. I'm really geared up to make a movement, if others will follow. I can't do it all by myself.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
410 Posts |
I believe the mint is looking at changing the composition of all coins, not just the penny and nickel.
|
| |
Replies: 27 / Views: 3,170 |
Posted 02/01/2012 10:30 am
