That’s not the point. If you had $9 all in singles, what would you rather carry?
No, that is the point. Spend the coins as you go. Why is this so damned difficult for Americans to comprehend? I never, NEVER end up with a a large amount of change in my pocket, and I’m sure I’m not the only Canadian to have figured this out.
:rolleyes:
Hell, I would find it annoying to have nine dollar bills in my pocket, and can’t imagine a scenario in which that would happen to me.
Here’s another vote for just going cashless. Even if it means getting a microchip for transactions implanted in the back of my hand and/or my forehead. 
Just as an example, I have friends who never have cash. It always take us longer to pay at restaurants, because we have to wait for the server to come back with a handful of credit cards. And yes, I know that in other countries, they bring the credit card processing machine to the table and handle it all at once. That isn’t done in most places in the US.
I have enough cash in my wallet in various denominations that I can pay my bill and tip appropriately.
In fact, I can do that for lunch and dinner in the same day, even though it might mean I have more than four $1 bills.
It’s all about what matters to you. Sure, I could live in a world where $1 is a coin. I’ve been to Canada plenty of times, for instance. I’d have to change some of my patterns. Without a good reason, I’d just as well keep my life the way it is.
I usually carry a few $2 bills for such occasions.
As I’ve noted in previous threads on the topic, unless the goal is to get rid of cents entirely and become like the Yen, we’re going to have to shift the decimal point to the left eventually. Or even if we do want to get rid of cents and have the “dollar” be the smallest unit of currency, eventually that will become equivalent to the penny as it currently stands and be too small a denomination to be worthwhile, so again, eventually we will have to shift the decimal point to the left.
If everyone is happy with the ratio of coins to bills and the existence of dollars and cents, it makes far more sense to slide the decimal point to the left one than it does to discontinue the penny. As of yet, I’ve never seen anyone provide any cogent argument against this other than that it would be too hard. That doesn’t matter since, as has been noted, there’s no getting around the eventual need to shift the decimal point to the left. Kicking the can down the road doesn’t serve any purpose and it’s not really all that hard to come up with a strategy for moving to the new currency. Hard tomorrow isn’t any easier than hard today, so just get it over with.
Yes. In Aus when the change first came in, retailers did some pricing at $xx.95, and some offered “always round down”, but it turned out that nobody cared, and prices have mostly gone back to $xx.99 — and nobody cares.
Certainly the retailers don’t care about the extra cent – they’ve already demonstrated that they are willing to give up the extra cent in return for the slight sales advantage of the smaller leading number, and if they were prevented from pricing at .99 they’d just go to .95
Most of the US has been rounding for many decades now since sales taxes are added on to the price. If you buy $37.94 in taxed goods and the tax is 7%, you don’t pay $40.5958, you pay $40.60.
Indian here. We have come to the point where anything less than 1 rupee is worthless (not sure if they are legally abolished yet). You will look weird if you give or expect (say) half-rupee coins anywhere. And, I don’t think anyone misses them at all. These coins are typically old, damaged, and smelly.
Bit of a tangent. What’s worse is that there’s an acute shortage of useful change (1, 2, 5 rupee coins). We cope by
- Going cashless to the extent possible.
- Rounding to the nearest 10 while tipping.
- Maintaining “change accounts” with familiar shopkeepers, i.e., both parties agree to carry over the change to the next transaction.
- Most annoyingly, sometimes when the shopkeeper runs out of change, she might pay you back in terms of toffees and other inexpensive items you didn’t need or ask for.
That’s not a solution, that’s just being a spendthrift for no good reason.
Now take your rolleyes elsewhere. Maybe somewhere you actually have an argument.
Clearly it’s not being spendthrift if you’re making a purchase that you would otherwise have made anyway. It’s simply choosing to offload the coins you already have to pay for the purchase, rather than hand over a note and receive even more coins in change. And cashiers are always thrilled.
I think American coins are so low-value (including the quarter) that we’ve become unfamiliar with the idea of actually being able to buy something useful with spare change.
It seems to me that the reason why Americans tend to accumulate coins is that they’re used to not regarding coins as “real money”. The largest coin that is in widespread use is (AFAIK) the quarter, the purchasing power of which is very limited nowadays, even at vending machines. So Americans tend to view coins as worthless little bits of metal that you get as change in cash transactions, but not as something that can really buy you anything; for buying stuff, banknotes are needed. When you view coins that way, it is natural that they pile up in your wallets, because you’d never think of coins as something to spend.
But that is simply so because America doesn’t have, or at least use, high-value coins. Lots of other countries do, and in these countries it comes very natural to people to regard coins as “real money”, in the sense that it is not at all odd or uncommon to do a cash transaction entirely in coins. Once you adopt that point of view - which Americans would undoubtedly do if $1 and $2 coins were introduced and the corresponding banknotes discontinued -, then coins wouldn’t accumulate in wallets; they’d simply be spent on an ongoing basis, just as happens anywhere else. Or, to put it differently: The alleged annoyance of $1 and $2 coins is a result of them not being common enough; if they were, that annoyance would disappear.
I don’t have an argument at all. When buying anything with cash I (presumably we) always use coins first, then top it up with bills. It’s a pretty damned easy concept.
You get used to spending coins when you could easily have 3 or 4 dollars in your pocket. If you don’t do this you’ll end up with $20 in your pocket at the end of the week. Anyway, we mostly don’t use cash for most transactions.
Within a couple of years our $5 bill is going to also be replaced by a coin. I am in full favour of this.
When my wallet becomes too heavy with coins I just sort them into a bunch of plastic containers, and when I get a significant amount in those containers I roll the coins and take them to the bank (where I can deposit them without any service charge or hassle). Unlike some others in this thread, I do like to pay for inexpensive items with cash rather than credit/debit; easier to control my spending that way.
These penny/no penny threads always seem to end up with the “I never carry cash” v. “I use cash” sides arguing. I like using cash and don’t care if others don’t. I like coins and believe there should be more denominations, not fewer. I miss half dollars. Every now and then, I’ll go to a bank and get dollar coins and two dollar bills just to educate certain cashiers. Who says one-cent coins have no purchasing power? I recently took a gallon of them and cashed them in at a Coin Star machine. Now I have $42 credit at Amazon!
I think the US should issue one- five- and ten-dollar coins.
The only way I’d end up with $9 in singles is if a shop/store owes me $9 in change and is out of $5 bills, or I’m purposely hoarding singles for some reason.
I have worked places where the vending machines didn’t take fives, but everything cost a dollar. I would deliberately break fives and tens so I could carry around a wad of singles.
Right, because nobody’ll confuse those with bitcoins.
The only change I ever re-use is quarters; all the rest goes into a coffee can and when it’s filled, I go to the bank and swap it out for bills.
Just to ask for clarification to get your point: Are you suggesting the dollar should (analogous to a reverse stock split) be consolidated so that 10 old dollars become a new dollar, and the old dollar becomes a new dime? I don’t quite get the supposed benefit of this. You seem to suggest that this move will eventually be inevitable, but I have two problems with this argument:
[ul]
[li]There’s no need for it. Suppose inflation continues at a rate of, on average, 2 % per year. So what? It would mean that a hundred years from now, what is now a dollar in terms of purchasing power would be $7.20. What would be the advantage of calling that sum $0.72, as it would be called under your scheme, rather than $7.20, as it would in the absence of your reform? It’s just a figure, after all.[/li][li]To reach the objective of your scheme in the long run, it would require periodic readjustments to keep up with inflation. Say one reverse split every 50 or 100 years. Is that really worth it?[/li][*][/ul]