Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 428 posts

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#401

Post by efreak »

vkou wrote: post #242
Sebb767 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that if the average transaction is say $50 (which seems kinda low) that means your turnover for the day was $100 million. I don't think that seems low. A grocery store or a bakery probably sees a lot of transaction in the 2$ to 5$ range. But, to be fair, even at 'only' 4 million $ turnover your point still stands.

I don't know what grocery stores you go to, but I've never seen someone standing at the checkout line, holding a single turnip. Corner stores have the occasional sub-$5 purchase, as do, of course, coffee shops.

I have seen people purchase a single Brussels sprout in order to use a coupon that requires 'any purchase' to get a free item. Getting two of the same item is more common, but having someone go back to find the smallest vegetable that exceeds the tare isn't unknown.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#402

Post by throw0101a »

bumby wrote: post #96
throw0101a wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely When the party that made the "malevolent" change is kicked out, then whatever they did can be reverted very easily. Contrast that with: if passing anything is hard, and a "malevolent" change does manage to be rammed through somehow (e.g., one party controls things for a two-year period), then reversing it will also be very difficult.

I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case. It's probably true for some types of changes like Executive Orders than can be easily repealed. Others, like laws and judge selections, take much longer to revert. I wonder if this is due to the lobbying culture in combination to competing interests. Somewhat humorous example: In response to the need for warm clothing in the Korean War, US lawmakers instituted…

> I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case.

Probably because you're only thinking about it from a US-centric POV.

As a Canadian who lives under a Westminster-style style system, there tends to be less gridlock here under majority governments.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#403

Post by smichel17 »

ghaff wrote: post #73
smichel17 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the US, bills are much different from regular printer paper, closer to fabric. As long as you're not taking them for a swim regularly, they should be fine. (That said, when I've lived in Germany, I very much enjoyed the existence of €1 and €2 coins -- I've written about it on here before, if you're willing to scroll very far back in my post history).

>I very much enjoyed the existence of €1 and €2 coins Uggh. When I travel in Europe-- especially Germany with its remaining heavy use of cash--I hate coinage that is sufficiently valuable that I can't just basically ignore it. The US seriously tried to do a dollar coin (the Susan B. Anthony)--which was arguably ill-conceived for at least a couple of reasons but I'm very happy with US coinage being basically loose cha…

> I hate coinage that is sufficiently valuable that I can't just basically ignore it.

Funny, that's basically the inverse of the reason I liked it — it allowed me to ignore cash some time.

The wonders of search helped me find my old comment without scrolling, here's more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502882

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#404

Post by bkor »

stewjacks wrote: post #141
stilley2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a key difference between US policy & Canadian policy that I have informally noticed while growing up on the border (with family ties on both sides). My wife's Canadian and I'm American, and we've discussed this point too. My theory is that Canada's parliamentary system generally puts one party in charge of the executive and legislative, so it's easier for that party to get things done. Of course there are t…

I've always thought of two factors in Canadian federal politics that make a huge difference operationally: Many political parties (diversity of platforms/views), and the vote of no confidence. Canada generally has at least three official political parties (more than 12 seats in the house) at any given time. Currently there are four. You need the most seats but not necessarily a majority of seats to form a government.…

> If a party has fewer than 50%, they form what's called a minority government.

No, that's when a political party _or_ a coalition of parties does not have the majority. Netherlands often/always has a coalition / combination of parties. They're never considered a minority government unless the combination is <50%.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#405

Post by tgb »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #128
tgb wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense would rounding of sales taxes be in the favor of companies? Surely it goes to the government, not the company.

The rounding takes place at the point of sale, after tax is calculated. Receipts still list the un-rounded price, and tax is also paid on the un-rounded price. So to the government, it's as is if no rounding is taking place.

That is fishy.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#406

Post by Dylan16807 »

jakeogh wrote: post #399
Dylan16807 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where what law is? And something like this can't be undone by being clever. The intent of congress is for income tax to exist, and so it is enforced by the executive, under the supervision of the judiciary. That's all that really matters. And the case law is solid on how to interpret the rules. The most that could happen is congress going 'oh, that was worded badly' and fixing the wording. The 16th amendment cannot b…

It's a good doc, check it out. All taxes: no. Tarrifs for example are... excellent ethical and thoroughly constitutional.. Otherwise country X can just attack with slave labor. Inalienable rights aren't called that because they can be overridden.

The gap between a sales tax and an income tax is not that big. It's not a human rights issue.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#407

Post by Sebb767 »

vkou wrote: post #242
Sebb767 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except that if the average transaction is say $50 (which seems kinda low) that means your turnover for the day was $100 million. I don't think that seems low. A grocery store or a bakery probably sees a lot of transaction in the 2$ to 5$ range. But, to be fair, even at 'only' 4 million $ turnover your point still stands.

I don't know what grocery stores you go to, but I've never seen someone standing at the checkout line, holding a single turnip. Corner stores have the occasional sub-$5 purchase, as do, of course, coffee shops.

I work near a grocery store and quite a few people by a salad or a small snack for lunch. Some also quickly go and some small things that have run out, i.e. some milk, before heading home.

This might also be a currency difference, through; 5 Euro in Germany can get you quite far (at least outside of metropolitan areas).

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#408

Post by jdhawk »

lostapathy wrote: post #199
jdhawk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

last year they made 8.4BN pennies, which would be about 21 million KG of Zinc, worth about ~$40 million?

That's a lot of money, but not "change public policy" levels of cash, either. On the other side, handling pennies is expensive for businesses and banks, I bet it costs at least that much. There are special interests on both sides of this.

I'd imagine you also have to take into account all coin to cash machines that issue gift cards for change, and take decent percentages. They probably make several orders of magnitude more than the mineral companies.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#409

Post by kwhitefoot »

syshum wrote: post #305
crdrost wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that you can also, while you're at it, abolish rounding. You already have this in some sense on gas pumps: the price advertised has taxes included so you are not always playing guess-the-final-total with your money. Just pass a law that requires fair advertising of the actual amount the purchaser will pay, taxes etc. included. If there are special circumstances that might make certain people exempt from a tax --…

Absolutely not, I want to see the practice end on Gas Pumps. Every business should be requried to adversite, print, and clearly mark the amount of the tansaction is going to taxation Hiding taxation in the purchase price allows government to increase those tax rights with out facing the same amount of public back lash as they do when the taxation is calculated secretly from the transaction or advertised rate This is…

> Every business should be requried to adversite, print, and clearly mark the amount of the tansaction is going to taxation

That's exactly what happens in Europe, the receipt tells you exactly how much you paid for each of tax and goods.

Re: Is It Time to Kill the Penny?

#410

Post by bumby »

throw0101a wrote: post #402
bumby wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case. It's probably true for some types of changes like Executive Orders than can be easily repealed. Others, like laws and judge selections, take much longer to revert. I wonder if this is due to the lobbying culture in combination to competing interests. Somewhat humorous example: In response to the need for warm clothing in the Korean War, US lawmakers instituted…

> I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case. Probably because you're only thinking about it from a US-centric POV. As a Canadian who lives under a Westminster-style style system, there tends to be less gridlock here under majority governments.

Correct, but as stated in the parent I was asking specifically about the characteristics of the US system.

I personally think it was deliberately put intended as a check/balance. Af the far end of spectrum, the most “efficient” form of government is a dictatorship. I’m not sure if what the US has is the correct balance, though.

Post reply on HN