3 ms·

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 num

by simonw 1y ago

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.

delecti 1y ago
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.
- taylodl 1y ago
  [flagged]
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  What exactly is the law? Can you show me the statute requiring the treasury department to coin pennies?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - delecti 1y ago
    Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress the authority responsibility to coin money. And in the coinage act of 1792, 31 USC 5111(a)(1), congress directs that the treasury "shall mint and issue coins described in section 5112 of this title in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States", with the list in section 5112 explicitly listing the penny (31 USC 5112(a)(6)). It's clearly intended to instruct the treasury to mint pennies without congress needing to proscribe the varying amount every year. It also clearly demonstrates the intent that pennies "shall" be produced. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/politics/2025/04/30/common-cents-act--aims-to-stop-u-s--from-minting-pennies https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/politics/2025/04/3... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 The fact that all of that gives leeway for "'none' is all that's necessary" is why I said the legal basis was "shaky" and not "baseless". I think getting rid of pennies is good, but this is something that Congress needs to do, rather than continually abdicating its responsibilities.
    - throwawaymaths 1y ago
      Exactly. I believe the treasury will continue minting commemorative pennies, which would even not make it "none" and give a stronger argument that "well yeah we are meeting the [numismatic] needs"
- mjd 1y ago
  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 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112
  - delecti 1y ago
    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.
    - mjd 1y ago
      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.
      - 1y ago
ianferrel 1y ago
This seems like a non-issue as long as they round the price down. Because there's no law that the store can't discount their total by a small amount and then provide exact change. "Congratulations customer, we have a special coupon today for $0.03 off your purchase. Here's your change :)"
- MostlyStable 1y ago
  I don't see why you couldn't do it in either case. If you modify the actual price, then you are giving exact change. Why wouldn't round() be as valid a price modification as floor()?
  - simonw 1y ago
    Maybe sales tax makes that harder? I guess you could calculate all of your prices such that, once sales tax is added, they round to a 5 cent value.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      You don't need to do that. Compute the total sale, then figure the tax, then round. You don't need to round per item.
  - ianferrel 1y ago
    Presumably "increase the price a small amount to avoid giving exact change" is exactly the sort of thing that laws requiring giving exact change were designed to prevent. There will surely be some customer pissed about the extra 2 cents they were charged who will raise hell over the exact change law. But what customer is going to be upset over a small discount?
- simonw 1y ago
  > In addition, the law covering the federal food assistance program known as SNAP requires that recipients not be charged more than other customers. Since SNAP recipients use a debit card that’s charged the precise amount, if merchants round down prices for cash purchases, they could be opening themselves to legal problems and fines, said Jeff Lenard, spokesperson for NACS.
skylurk 1y ago
> require merchants to provide exact change All the items in my dad's farm shop were priced so they came out to a round dollar amount after tax, and that was 40 years ago.
- tempodox 1y ago
  But less decent people can’t resist the dark pattern of using $x.99 prices everywhere.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    At big retailers the price tag code indicates what type of price it is. For example the last digits can mean: 0: full 9: sale 8: reduced 7: clearance (item will not restock) I forget the exact system Sears used but we could tell at a glance if a deal was really “good”. I’m curious if Sears and WalMart used different systems and if WalMart exploited knowledge of the Sears system to signal better prices to shoppers. Like a full WalMart price being .97 and clearance being .94.
    - redwall_hp 1y ago
      That sounds close to the Sears system to me, but they used the tens place. 8x was used for returned big ticket items, like appliances and treadmills. It would start at 88 and the rightmost digit would decrement to indicate how many weeks it had been sitting there. It was 00 for full, 99 for sale (the majority of items, except for the one week every year they established the full price for that product), 8x for clearance.
      - mulmen 1y ago
        Ah yeah, I forget the details. It was a sophisticated system. I’m curious of the origins. Did this have bookkeeping or business reporting benefits in the pre-digital age? Even when we were using computers at the turn of the millennium it helped signal discount eligibility without having to update and synchronize inventory with promotional offers.
- 1y ago
criddell 1y ago
How do they deal with sales tax? Connecticut has a 6.35% sales tax so if I buy something for $1, the total will be $1.0635.
- wasabi991011 1y ago
  Paying cash, you would pay $1.05.
  - criddell 1y ago
    I'm referring to states that don't allow rounding. > in some states, merchants could face legal trouble for rounding up or down It seems obvious to me they are already rounding to the $1/100. Why is rounding to $1/20 a problem?
    - wasabi991011 1y ago
      Ah I see. Yeah I agree then.
- UncleSlacky 1y ago
  They could do what every other country does, and include the sales tax in the shelf label price.

by simonw 1y ago

delecti 1y ago

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.

taylodl 1y ago
[flagged]
throwawaymaths 1y ago
What exactly is the law? Can you show me the statute requiring the treasury department to coin pennies?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- delecti 1y ago
  Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution gives Congress the authority responsibility to coin money. And in the coinage act of 1792, 31 USC 5111(a)(1), congress directs that the treasury "shall mint and issue coins described in section 5112 of this title in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to meet the needs of the United States", with the list in section 5112 explicitly listing the penny (31 USC 5112(a)(6)). It's clearly intended to instruct the treasury to mint pennies without congress needing to proscribe the varying amount every year. It also clearly demonstrates the intent that pennies "shall" be produced. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/politics/2025/04/30/common-cents-act--aims-to-stop-u-s--from-minting-pennies https://spectrumlocalnews.com/mo/st-louis/politics/2025/04/3... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112 The fact that all of that gives leeway for "'none' is all that's necessary" is why I said the legal basis was "shaky" and not "baseless". I think getting rid of pennies is good, but this is something that Congress needs to do, rather than continually abdicating its responsibilities.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    Exactly. I believe the treasury will continue minting commemorative pennies, which would even not make it "none" and give a stronger argument that "well yeah we are meeting the [numismatic] needs"
mjd 1y ago
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 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5112
- delecti 1y ago
  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.
  - mjd 1y ago
    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.
    - 1y ago

ianferrel 1y ago

This seems like a non-issue as long as they round the price down. Because there's no law that the store can't discount their total by a small amount and then provide exact change. "Congratulations customer, we have a special coupon today for $0.03 off your purchase. Here's your change :)"

MostlyStable 1y ago
I don't see why you couldn't do it in either case. If you modify the actual price, then you are giving exact change. Why wouldn't round() be as valid a price modification as floor()?
- simonw 1y ago
  Maybe sales tax makes that harder? I guess you could calculate all of your prices such that, once sales tax is added, they round to a 5 cent value.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    You don't need to do that. Compute the total sale, then figure the tax, then round. You don't need to round per item.
- ianferrel 1y ago
  Presumably "increase the price a small amount to avoid giving exact change" is exactly the sort of thing that laws requiring giving exact change were designed to prevent. There will surely be some customer pissed about the extra 2 cents they were charged who will raise hell over the exact change law. But what customer is going to be upset over a small discount?
simonw 1y ago
> In addition, the law covering the federal food assistance program known as SNAP requires that recipients not be charged more than other customers. Since SNAP recipients use a debit card that’s charged the precise amount, if merchants round down prices for cash purchases, they could be opening themselves to legal problems and fines, said Jeff Lenard, spokesperson for NACS.

skylurk 1y ago

> require merchants to provide exact change All the items in my dad's farm shop were priced so they came out to a round dollar amount after tax, and that was 40 years ago.

tempodox 1y ago
But less decent people can’t resist the dark pattern of using $x.99 prices everywhere.
- mulmen 1y ago
  At big retailers the price tag code indicates what type of price it is. For example the last digits can mean: 0: full 9: sale 8: reduced 7: clearance (item will not restock) I forget the exact system Sears used but we could tell at a glance if a deal was really “good”. I’m curious if Sears and WalMart used different systems and if WalMart exploited knowledge of the Sears system to signal better prices to shoppers. Like a full WalMart price being .97 and clearance being .94.
  - redwall_hp 1y ago
    That sounds close to the Sears system to me, but they used the tens place. 8x was used for returned big ticket items, like appliances and treadmills. It would start at 88 and the rightmost digit would decrement to indicate how many weeks it had been sitting there. It was 00 for full, 99 for sale (the majority of items, except for the one week every year they established the full price for that product), 8x for clearance.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      Ah yeah, I forget the details. It was a sophisticated system. I’m curious of the origins. Did this have bookkeeping or business reporting benefits in the pre-digital age? Even when we were using computers at the turn of the millennium it helped signal discount eligibility without having to update and synchronize inventory with promotional offers.
1y ago

criddell 1y ago

How do they deal with sales tax? Connecticut has a 6.35% sales tax so if I buy something for $1, the total will be $1.0635.

wasabi991011 1y ago
Paying cash, you would pay $1.05.
- criddell 1y ago
  I'm referring to states that don't allow rounding. > in some states, merchants could face legal trouble for rounding up or down It seems obvious to me they are already rounding to the $1/100. Why is rounding to $1/20 a problem?
  - wasabi991011 1y ago
    Ah I see. Yeah I agree then.
UncleSlacky 1y ago
They could do what every other country does, and include the sales tax in the shelf label price.