,
 



PMG is the Official Grading Service of the Paper Money Forum
,
TogoThreeDollarBill

Hey all, 
I wanted the opinion of others on whether we should have currency denominations larger than the $100 bill in the U.S. I don't see why we can't reissue the $500, $1,000 and issue a new $200 bill. In all reality, I have read that, a $1,000 bill, going back in 1945 when they were last printed was $13,000 in today's money, so I see no reason not to reissue all large denomination currency, including the $5,000 and $10,000 bills and also, adding a $2,000 bill as well. Even with a reissued $10,000 bill, we would still not be coming out ahead, but rather $3,000 behind still.

I know what people are going to say "No, we can't do that, because of drug dealers, money launderers, tax evaders, counterfeiters, etc." Well, sorry to break it to those people, but, even if we got rid of physical cash, organized crime would resort to precious metals, and if owning precious metals were outlawed again, they would use expensive items such as artwork and antiques, and I don't see how the law can make you give up your personal antique and other valuable belongings.

I also, don't care about the Euro Zone getting rid of their 500 Euro note or "bin Laden" as they so-called it. We don't have to be "monkey see, monkey do" and don't even get me started on credit and debit cards, because I hate them, and they are more trouble than they are worth, as both of my parents had their identity stolen and had credit fraud problems more than once, and I had Capital One trying to rip me off, saying I owed them money many times after I paid them off and closed the account, and my mother had the same problem, and she didn't, as in did NOT even have a Capital One card to begin with. And you can't fraud a $10,000 bill. Furthermore, I see houses going for $50,000 or so, and the seller wants cash only. So I'd much rather give them five $10,000 bills, than fifty $1,000 bills, or God forbid, five hundred $100 bills.

So, does anyone else here think it's time for reissue of the big bills? I once read where someone suggested they should've issued a $200 bill in 1976 for the Bicentennial, and I have always suggested they should've issued a $2,000 bill in the year 2000, to celebrate the beginning of the Y2K.

Quote 0
 
EarlySmallSizeFanatic
Yes, I can see $500 and $1000 notes again. 

When they discontinued them 1969 (last printed in 1945) it was one thing and $500 was a lot of money.

Today, $500 or even $1000 is not that much, and these transactions are done all the time. 
Quote 0
Dan Cong

Whether you like it or not, we are moving in a cashless direction and I cannot see introducing new bills when paper money is not the choice of a large swatch of Americans. If you want to pay for a house in “cash”, I really don’t think people expect a cooler full of ones and fives. I don’t think using actual currency would be looked on as normal or acceptable by most people. Chasiers check or wire transfer is “cash”. It is also reportable. 

That is normal for a house anyway. People do not pay for houses with credit cards. The settlement for a mortgage is still a transfer. 


lots of stores won’t take $50’s or $100’s. Why would you introduce a bill or bills that would see a huge resistance in accepting?

Quote 3
Steve in Tampa
Yes, I can see $500 and $1000 notes again.  

I do not agree, and last reason behind it would be, “because collectors want to see them again.” 
Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill

Yes, I can see $500 and $1000 notes again. 

When they discontinued them 1969 (last printed in 1945) it was one thing and $500 was a lot of money.

Today, $500 or even $1000 is not that much, and these transactions are done all the time. 

Well, in the case, can you also see a $200 note, even though it would be a totally new denomination, as the U.S. has never printed a real $200 note. I will admit that $2,000, $5,000 and $10,000 bills is overdoing it a bit, but if it were up to me, I'd see no problem with it. But I do think that if we reissue the $500, and possibly the $1,000, that there should be a $200 as well, just as if they ever reissued the $5,000 and $10,000 they should also authorize a $2,000 bill as well, regardless of how popular or unpopular $200 and $2,000 notes would be.

Quote 0
EarlySmallSizeFanatic
Dan Cong wrote:

Whether you like it or not, we are moving in a cashless direction and I cannot see introducing new bills when paper money is not the choice of a large swatch of Americans. If you want to pay for a house in “cash”, I really don’t think people expect a cooler full of ones and fives. I don’t think using actual currency would be looked on as normal or acceptable by most people. Chasiers check or wire transfer is “cash”. It is also reportable. 

That is normal for a house anyway. People do not pay for houses with credit cards. The settlement for a mortgage is still a transfer. 


lots of stores won’t take $50’s or $100’s. Why would you introduce a bill or bills that would see a huge resistance in accepting?



I don't know about that. 

I run a primarily cash based business, and do not except credit cards, nor will I ever. 

Yard sales and private transactions require cash.  
Quote 0
mfontes
High denominations make it easier to transport large quantities of illegal money.  There really isn't any reason to carry large denomination notes.  As stated above too many other options such as Apple Pay, Visa, M/C, Venmo, PayPal, checks, m/o, certified checks, etc.  People just don't carry cash like they used to.  I would love to see the high denoms return, but unfortunately I am not optimistic there is a need for them.
Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill
Dan Cong wrote:

Whether you like it or not, we are moving in a cashless direction and I cannot see introducing new bills when paper money is not the choice of a large swatch of Americans. If you want to pay for a house in “cash”, I really don’t think people expect a cooler full of ones and fives. I don’t think using actual currency would be looked on as normal or acceptable by most people. Chasiers check or wire transfer is “cash”. It is also reportable.
That is normal for a house anyway. People do not pay for houses with credit cards. The settlement for a mortgage is still a transfer.

lots of stores won’t take $50’s or $100’s. Why would you introduce a bill or bills that would see a huge resistance in accepting?


That's highly impossible at best. As EarlySmallSizeFanatic pointed out, there are needs for cash, and I don't think everyone is going to run out and purchase an expensive special machine to scan phones, cards or such, just to make a little bit of chump change at a garage sale, and some private owners whom sell cars, boats, RVs etc. Do NOT accept checks, and only want cash.
And as far as going cashless goes, I've heard that cash still has at least two more generations to go before, if ever cash is eliminated and we go totally electronic, IF it ever happens, and that is a big "IF". And also, what happens if the power grid goes down and you can not access your electronic currency? Or if hackers hacked into the electronic cash database? You'd still need physical cash, to get by.
Not for me. I'd prefer cash, and sometimes need it for large purchases. However, with large denominations, the stores could always post signs saying "We do not accept $200, $500, or $1,000 bills for small purchases" too. And if I went to the appliance store and wanted to pay cash for a new refrigerator I know that the good ones cost around $1.200 or more, so I'd love access to a $1,000 and a $200 bill, or at least a $500 and a $200 bill. However, I see no reason not to bring back even the $1,000 bill as $1,000 is not a lot of money these days. (Look at how the President and his team laughed at Dr. Evil, in Austin Powers, when he said he stole a nuclear warhead, and told them if they want it back, they'd have to pay him (puts pinky finger to mouth) "One million dollars!" and even Number 2 told Dr. Evil that a million dollars is not a lot of money today. (Dumb reference and example, I know, but I couldn't resist. Sorry)
Quote 0
Steve in Tampa
I prefer my money to work for me. Cash is handy, but it’s lazy as hell. 
Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill

I prefer my money to work for me. Cash is handy, but it’s lazy as hell. 

Yeah, but I always heard that there is a processing fee for electronic payments, that the stores take up and pay as a convenience to the customers, however, they say that, if we became totally cashless, that the stores would pass those fees down to the consumer, and I don't want to pay that fee, even if it were a penny a pop. Even those pennies would add up with the billions of people using electro-cash. 

However, I must admit my credit card that I hate so much, seems a lot more comfortable to use during this damn coronavirus outbreak. ;-)

Quote 0
Dan Cong
Stores already pass the cost of credit cards onto to you. Some states allow a surcharge for credit, but things like bank charges, shoplifting, damaged goods, returns, etc are overhead and rolled into the prices you pay. Some banks charge for accepting coins as well. It costs more money the more you need a person to physically handle coins or cash. It is a fact. 

The idea that you are not paying a fee for credit card transactions when you pay cash is only true if you are not explicitly being charged a surcharge for credit. 

It is illegal to surcharge debit cards. So "cashless" includes debit as well as credit. That processing fee is already rolled back into overhead, and your prices paid. 

Smart people use credit cards that have "cash back" or other features that return value to you for your purchases. So you can pay $1200 for your new refrigerator in cash, I use my card and  pay $1176 for the same thing. 

I guess I never considered the need for a $1000 bill to buy something at a garage sale though.  
Quote 1
TogoThreeDollarBill

Dan Cong wrote:
Stores already pass the cost of credit cards onto to you. Some states allow a surcharge for credit, but things like bank charges, shoplifting, damaged goods, returns, etc are overhead and rolled into the prices you pay. Some banks charge for accepting coins as well. It costs more money the more you need a person to physically handle coins or cash. It is a fact. 

The idea that you are not paying a fee for credit card transactions when you pay cash is only true if you are not explicitly being charged a surcharge for credit. 

It is illegal to surcharge debit cards. So "cashless" includes debit as well as credit. That processing fee is already rolled back into overhead, and your prices paid. 

Smart people use credit cards that have "cash back" or other features that return value to you for your purchases. So you can pay $1200 for your new refrigerator in cash, I use my card and  pay $1176 for the same thing. 

I guess I never considered the need for a $1000 bill to buy something at a garage sale though.  

 

Way back when, in the early 2000's up to around 2017, when I thought we'd be replacing $1 and $2 bills with $1 and $2 coins, I thought that, as long as people had a "choice" between $1 and $2 bills and $1 and $2 coins, then, why shouldn't we have a choice between $200, $500, and $1,000 bills, and credit, debit and checks? Just a way I used to feel, but now I no longer support the $1 or $2 coin and believe they should stop minting any more $1 coins, even for collector purposes, push the half dollar coin back into circulation, as all the self checkout stands I've used have accepted halves with no problem, make the half our new "workhorse" coin in the U.S. and melt down all of those worthless $1 coins that we are paying people to guard in warehouse vaults, at taxpayer expense, and use all of that dollar coin metal for something more useful than stopping the fault floors from floating away into outer space.

Furthermore, they should also have self checkouts dispense halves and $2 bills as my mother and I shop a lot together, because she has a bad back and bad knees and I help her out with lifting things, and you'd be surprised at how fast she can accumulate 10-12 $1 bills as well as many quarters, and she agrees with me that she'd rather have more halves, $2 and even $3 bills in circulation to take the place of many of those quarters and $1 bills. The self checkouts in my area can dispense up to eight different coin denominations, and up to six different bill denominations, so the way they should be set up is COINS: penny, 2-cent, nickel, dime, quarter, half, and BILLS: $1, $2, $3, $5, $10, $20 as I don't think we'd need to give out any $50s in change and a reissued 2-cent coin might save a little money cutting down on penny and nickel production, as the $2 bill, and my $3 bill idea would cut down on $1 bill production. But if we did reissue larger denominations such as $200, $500 and $1,000 bills, some small denominations, such as $2 and $3 bills might have to be left out, to dispense $100 and perhaps $200 bills to make change for much larger denominations, unless there were rules put into place with signs posted stating "No $200, $500, or $1,000 bills unless you spend most of the bill's value"

Quote 0
EarlySmallSizeFanatic
Here is a great example: 

I pay my rent with money orders and have since 2013 (when I moved to my current place).

In 1969, rents were no where near $1000 a month. Today they are all that and more. 
Quote 0
Dan Cong
Canada killed the penny, the one dollar bill and the two dollar bill (which had much wider circulation than the US $2 had in the last 50 years). Smallest bill is the $5 with $1 and $2 dollar coins in exceptionally wide circulation. They stopped printing the $1000 in 2000 and plan on withdrawing it's legal tender status. This should be our way forward, not the complete reverse of this by adding small change and a multitude of new denomination bills.  
Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill

Dan Cong wrote:
Canada killed the penny, the one dollar bill and the two dollar bill (which had much wider circulation than the US $2 had in the last 50 years). Smallest bill is the $5 with $1 and $2 dollar coins in exceptionally wide circulation. They stopped printing the $1000 in 2000 and plan on withdrawing it's legal tender status. This should be our way forward, not the complete reverse of this by adding small change and a multitude of new denomination bills.  

You do realize that, although they support the phase-out of the penny, the GAO has already done a study and confirmed that, killing the $1 bill for a $1 coin would actually "cost" money now, rather than "save" money and that they no longer support the idea? And I'm guessing the issue is no different with killing the $2 bill for a $2 coin.

And as far as $200, $500 and $1,000 bills go, I hope they never withdraw the legal tender status of them, as I have a $500 bill and want to get a $1,000 bill, and killing their legal tender status would probably make them worthless. And furthermore, with the cost and demand of the $100 bill steadily increasing, especially overseas, printing a few larger denominations would help save the U.S. government money, on having to print so many new $100 bills with a bunch of new-fangled security features every 7-10 years or so. The same thing would be true to get a wider circulating half dollar coin and $2 bill, and if I could ever pass it, the idea of a $3 bill wouldn't be so bad either, even if made mainly for a souvenir for people who visit the U.S. from other countries, similar to the Bahamas printing a $3 bill, as half dollar bill, and minting a 15-cent coin for such purposes. I think our half dollar coin needs to be made just a "little" smaller, to make it a bit more practical in savings, due to the same amount of metal going into minting a half as two quarters, just as the same amount of metal went into an Ike as four quarters. Perhaps a half the size of the Canadian $2 coin, small enough to fit in a vending machine, yet large enough to tell from a quarter.

Quote 0
Dan Cong
Here is a PDF that is called "The Future of Money" from 2018. It makes the same points I have made, eliminate the penny and dollar bill. 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg31573/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg31573.pdf

Some excerpts for the TLDR crowd

Most transactions are through an electronic payment system. We
have to make sure that remains in U.S. control. If we push Europe
too hard they will invent a system to close major oil and other
major transactions without touching U.S. soil or perhaps U.S. currency.
‘‘Future of Money’’ is not cyber and as the Chairman points out
the seigniorage is very valuable to the United States, we should not
lose it nor should we create a method of payment that, while it can
be used and is often used for legitimate transactions, is particularly
well designed for tax evasion and the evasion of sanctions legislation.
As to the currency we can actually touch, as long as we have a
paper dollar people will not use a dollar coin. We would save an
awful lot of money at the Federal level if people would use a dollar
coin because it costs so much to make a paper dollar, it doesn’t last
that long or doesn’t last nearly as long as a coin, after all we have
coins from the Roman Empire; coins last a long time.
But the real savings of having a society in which people carry
dollar coins will be its use by transit systems and vending machines, although gradually our technology is taking us beyond the
need for a coin in either of those cases.
We ought to abolish the penny. 


Mr. OLIJAR. We are prohibited by statute from redesigning the $1 note so at this point in time we have no plans for a redesign
on that


I would say that no other transaction provides the same level of
anonymity. Understanding this, will it be worth studying a gradual
phase-out of our large denominations?
Mr. OLIJAR. The largest denomination that we produce today is the $100 bill.
Mr. PITTENGER. I understand that.
Mr. OLIJAR. We do have the authority to print 500-, 1,000- or
10,000-notes. I don’t think that we could look at doing that. It
would have a very adverse impact on Commerce, the $100 note is
increasingly used in transactions.
The higher denomination notes when we stopped printing them in 1969, the $100 note today is worth $17 compared to the hundred
it was in 1969.

Ms. TENNEY. Yes. It is interesting because the GAO says that savings would be about $4.5 billion over 30 years. That is pretty
significant when you realize the paper version lasts about 5.8 years
and the coin lasts longer.
I know when I was in Europe and you get the coin, as an American citizen we are so used to having the dollar bill but actually
you find the coin is pretty convenient.
Maybe your point is right, maybe if the Americans didn’t have
the choice maybe they would actually decide they liked the dollar
coin better. That is up for debate at this point.
Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill

Dan Cong wrote:
Here is a PDF that is called "The Future of Money" from 2018. It makes the same points I have made, eliminate the penny and dollar bill. 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg31573/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg31573.pdf

Some excerpts for the TLDR crowd

Most transactions are through an electronic payment system. We
have to make sure that remains in U.S. control. If we push Europe
too hard they will invent a system to close major oil and other
major transactions without touching U.S. soil or perhaps U.S. currency.
‘‘Future of Money’’ is not cyber and as the Chairman points out
the seigniorage is very valuable to the United States, we should not
lose it nor should we create a method of payment that, while it can
be used and is often used for legitimate transactions, is particularly
well designed for tax evasion and the evasion of sanctions legislation.
As to the currency we can actually touch, as long as we have a
paper dollar people will not use a dollar coin. We would save an
awful lot of money at the Federal level if people would use a dollar
coin because it costs so much to make a paper dollar, it doesn’t last
that long or doesn’t last nearly as long as a coin, after all we have
coins from the Roman Empire; coins last a long time.
But the real savings of having a society in which people carry
dollar coins will be its use by transit systems and vending machines, although gradually our technology is taking us beyond the
need for a coin in either of those cases.
We ought to abolish the penny. 


Mr. OLIJAR. We are prohibited by statute from redesigning the $1 note so at this point in time we have no plans for a redesign
on that


I would say that no other transaction provides the same level of
anonymity. Understanding this, will it be worth studying a gradual
phase-out of our large denominations?
Mr. OLIJAR. The largest denomination that we produce today is the $100 bill.
Mr. PITTENGER. I understand that.
Mr. OLIJAR. We do have the authority to print 500-, 1,000- or
10,000-notes. I don’t think that we could look at doing that. It
would have a very adverse impact on Commerce, the $100 note is
increasingly used in transactions.
The higher denomination notes when we stopped printing them in 1969, the $100 note today is worth $17 compared to the hundred
it was in 1969.

Ms. TENNEY. Yes. It is interesting because the GAO says that savings would be about $4.5 billion over 30 years. That is pretty
significant when you realize the paper version lasts about 5.8 years
and the coin lasts longer.
I know when I was in Europe and you get the coin, as an American citizen we are so used to having the dollar bill but actually
you find the coin is pretty convenient.
Maybe your point is right, maybe if the Americans didn’t have
the choice maybe they would actually decide they liked the dollar
coin better. That is up for debate at this point.

Again, this was back in 2018. It's 2020 now, and last I heard, the GAO was actually "against" replacing the $1 bill with a $1 coin, saying it would actually "cost more" than save money, but still agreed with the penny elimination. Are there even still efforts out there to kill the $1 bill? Because I'd also read before that all the way back in 2011 was when the $1 coin savings would be the "break even" year, before the $1 coin would cost more than it would save. Nearly 20 years ago.

If they did eliminate the penny and $1 bill, what would this mean for the nickel and the $2 bill? My hopes are for eliminating the nickel and $2 bill, and replacing the nickel with a reissued half dime, to make the 5-cent denomination a lot cheaper and smaller than a dime which makes more "cents" to me (sorry about the pun. I just had to), and replacing the $2 bill with a $2 coin, using Canada's bimetallic $2 coin as the prototype for the U.S. $2 coin, or at least, redesigning the $2 bill, however, if the $1 and $2 bills were both eliminated for coins, I still believe that they should look at my Togo $3 bill proposal, which the main purpose of my $3 bill, is to honor K9 heroes of U.S. history. And having a $3 bill in circulation, while confusing at first, could help people cope with $1 and $2 coins a bit more, because, with a $3 bill as our lowest paper denomination in circulation, the American public would have to only carry a maximum of one $1 coin, or one $2 coin at a time, as opposed to one $1 coin and one $2 coin ($3) or two $2 coins ($4). And with no $1 and $2 bills in the cash register, the five bill slot cash registers could be set up $3, $5, $10, $20 and $50, while $100 bills could go under the till, or into a safe. And for coins, merchants should adopt those cash drawers with eight coin slots, for half-dimes, dimes, quarters, half-dollars, $1 coins and $2 coins, and spare rolls of coins in the other two coin slots.

Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill
Oh, and they also left out that they have the authority to print $5,000 bills as well as $500, $1,000 and $10,000 bills, (I wonder if they are still authorized to print $100,000 Gold Certificates made only for Federal Reserve Bank use, and not made available to the public, and were illegal for private ownership)
Quote 0
MEC2
Large denoms are never coming back... you used to be forbidden from charging more for credit cards but that went by the wayside, look at Heritage. By the way, that's why they no longer take Amex - Amex will not do business with a group that surcharges to use it's card. And Heritage isn't making enough money at 20% so they really need that extra 2.5% on the card transaction, or else...
Quote 0
YoungCollector

(I wonder if they are still authorized to print $100,000 Gold Certificates made only for Federal Reserve Bank use, and not made available to the public, and were illegal for private ownership)


yes, that authority still exists 

Quote 0
TogoThreeDollarBill

 


yes, that authority still exists 

Well even though I know they'd never dare issue a denomination as high as $100, 000 again, especially for public and private use, could they make a $100,000 "Federal Reserve note" instead of a $100,000 "Gold Certificate" if they desired to? Just curious.

Quote 0
YoungCollector
I don't know what the rules are for FRN denominations.
Quote 0
 
Forum Sponsors

 
 

,