My idea for US currency reform

[JayhawkCO]

Do the dispensary businesses still have to use cash? Because it might be legal in their state, but it's not legal in the US, so banks and CC companies won't touch them.

In Colorado, yes.

[Rothman]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

[SEWIGuy]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

[Rothman]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

[SectorZ]

Do the dispensary businesses still have to use cash? Because it might be legal in their state, but it's not legal in the US, so banks and CC companies won't touch them.

In Colorado, yes.

Is that a blanket thing for the state? In Massachusetts some places do and some did and stopped accepting them so it's a hit-or-miss system.

[kalvado]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills. So they certainly couldn't care less. Moreover, $10k daily cash limit still exists...

[Rothman]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills. So they certainly couldn't care less. Moreover, $10k daily cash limit still exists...

That's just like government's opinion, man.  Surely there are governmental opinions you differ with.

[kalvado]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills. So they certainly couldn't care less. Moreover, $10k daily cash limit still exists...

That's just like government's opinion, man.  Surely there are governmental opinions you differ with.

Thing is, it's the government which literally signs those bills.
And from the federal perspective, this only underscores importance of limiting high value bill circulation.
You and I are certainly entitled for other opinions, but we don't have money printing authority.

[Rothman]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills. So they certainly couldn't care less. Moreover, $10k daily cash limit still exists...

That's just like government's opinion, man.  Surely there are governmental opinions you differ with.

Thing is, it's the government which literally signs those bills.
And from the federal perspective, this only underscores importance of limiting high value bill circulation.
You and I are certainly entitled for other opinions, but we don't have money printing authority.

Not sure how that pertains to just providing a reason for higher value bills.  Not my problem if government ignores it.

[kalvado]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills. So they certainly couldn't care less. Moreover, $10k daily cash limit still exists...

That's just like government's opinion, man.  Surely there are governmental opinions you differ with.

Thing is, it's the government which literally signs those bills.
And from the federal perspective, this only underscores importance of limiting high value bill circulation.
You and I are certainly entitled for other opinions, but we don't have money printing authority.

Not sure how that pertains to just providing a reason for higher value bills.  Not my problem if government ignores it.

If federal government recognizes dispensaries as a legitimate business, the need for large amounts of cash would disappear as other types of transactions take over. So it's really a circular argument - yes there is a case, but only because its not a good case for those in charge

[JayhawkCO]

Do the dispensary businesses still have to use cash? Because it might be legal in their state, but it's not legal in the US, so banks and CC companies won't touch them.

In Colorado, yes.

Is that a blanket thing for the state? In Massachusetts some places do and some did and stopped accepting them so it's a hit-or-miss system.

As far as I understand, blanket thing for the state.

[kphoger]

Do the dispensary businesses still have to use cash? Because it might be legal in their state, but it's not legal in the US, so banks and CC companies won't touch them.

Scott and I had this conversation a few years ago.  Pertinent quotes shown below.

And yeah, to pay the taxes, they have to show up at the IRS office with a suitcase full of $20s.

Why can't they use $100s?

Their customers pay in $20s, and they're not allowed to go to the bank to change them out.

I have no idea what the dispensary does when they run out of, say, quarters.

How do they get quarters to begin with?

This question bothered me so I asked. It sounds like the business lends managers a certain amount of money they are required to keep in their personal bank accounts for this purpose. Whenever the store needs small change, the managers supply it out of that money ("hey, can you stop and get us some quarters on your way in today?"). I would imagine in the case of a termination or resignation they have to repay the "loan".

I don't envy their accounting department.

[kphoger]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills.

For the sake of clarity:  It is the opinion of the government that reducing the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases is not a legitimate reason to have bills larger than $100.  This sounds accurate.

Thing is, it's the government which literally signs those bills.
And from the federal perspective, this only underscores importance of limiting high value bill circulation.
You and I are certainly entitled for other opinions, but we don't have money printing authority.

Not sure how that pertains to just providing a reason for higher value bills.  Not my problem if government ignores it.

If federal government recognizes dispensaries as a legitimate business, the need for large amounts of cash would disappear as other types of transactions take over. So it's really a circular argument - yes there is a case, but only because its not a good case for those in charge

Are you combining two conversations into one here?  I don't think anyone was claiming that dispensaries' being cash-only operations is a legitimate reason to have bills larger than $100.  I thought the original dispensary question by |GaryV| was just a neutral query.

[1995hoo]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills.

For the sake of clarity:  It is the opinion of the government that reducing the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases is not a legitimate reason to have bills larger than $100.  This sounds accurate.

....

I think you guys are basically just echoing the same point I made in reply #165: Yes, there are reasons to circulate large-denomination bills in excess of $100. But those reasons are not compelling enough to outweigh the concern about money laundering and the overall decline in the use of cash for large transactions.

(I, for one, like $50s and $100s. Easier to carry than a stack of $20s, although I don't use them much because the two $100s currently in my wallet have been there since last fall. But, as I have noted elsewhere, I also always get $5s when I travel because I use them for tipping hotel housekeeping and the attendant in the first-class car on the Acela.)

[JayhawkCO]

Other than when I've just finished my weekly bartending shift, I keep two $20 in my money clip. That's plenty.

[Rothman]

There is no reason to have bills larger than $100.

To reduce the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases.

If that is actually a concern, don't make cash purchases. It's 2025.

You said there was no reason.  I simply gave you one.

That's not a legitimate reason.

That just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills.

For the sake of clarity:  It is the opinion of the government that reducing the number of bills one needs for large cash purchases is not a legitimate reason to have bills larger than $100.  This sounds accurate.

....

I think you guys are basically just echoing the same point I made in reply #165: Yes, there are reasons to circulate large-denomination bills in excess of $100. But those reasons are not compelling enough to outweigh the concern about money laundering and the overall decline in the use of cash for large transactions.

(I, for one, like $50s and $100s. Easier to carry than a stack of $20s, although I don't use them much because the two $100s currently in my wallet have been there since last fall. But, as I have noted elsewhere, I also always get $5s when I travel because I use them for tipping hotel housekeeping and the attendant in the first-class car on the Acela.)

No, I am not echoing your point.  I am simply saying there is a reason to keep high-value bills.

[kphoger]

No, I am not echoing your point.  I am simply saying there is a reason to keep high-value bills.

I think he meant everyone except you.

[Rothman]

No, I am not echoing your point.  I am simply saying there is a reason to keep high-value bills.

I think he meant everyone except you.

That's just like your opinion, man.

[kphoger]

No, I am not echoing your point.  I am simply saying there is a reason to keep high-value bills.

I think he meant everyone except you.

That's just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills.

[Rothman]

No, I am not echoing your point.  I am simply saying there is a reason to keep high-value bills.

I think he meant everyone except you.

That's just like your opinion, man.

That's the opinion of the government issuing those bills.

Still doesn't mean there isn't a reason for higher value bills.

[kphoger]

Still doesn't mean there isn't a reason for higher value bills.

If it was OK to have $100 bills in 1969, then it should be OK to have $500 bills in 2025.

When the $500 bill was discontinued, it had an inflation-adjusted value of more than $4000.  A $500 bill today would be the equivalent of about $60 back when they discontinued the $500 bill but left the $100 in circulation.

On the other hand, maybe they should have discontinued the $100 bill back then too...

[Scott5114]

The $500 was pulled because law enforcement types dislike how it facilitates certain criminal activity.

I don't know that that is really as high of a priority as it was in 1969 when the $500 was pulled.

Another legitimate reason for $500 bills other than those mentioned above is casino payouts—if someone wins, say, $4875 (a common payout amount), having that in $500 bills is a lot better for the casino (someone putting a $500 bill into a machine is five times better than someone putting a $100 into it) and the patron (48 bills is clunky). A check is bad for the casino because it's a hassle to issue (you normally have to get ahold of some yahoo in accounting who's too much of a wuss to be there on swing or grave) and can't be put back into the machine.

If you want further proof of what casinos think of the $500 denomination...just about every casino with table games issues a purple $500 chip.

[Scott5114]

Do the dispensary businesses still have to use cash? Because it might be legal in their state, but it's not legal in the US, so banks and CC companies won't touch them.

In Nevada, the way the dispensaries have done an end-run around this is they have the cash register set up to also be an ATM. You "withdraw money from the ATM" to the next higher multiple of $20 above your total. Then they just give you back the change as if you paid in cash.

[freebrickproductions]

Weren't the larger bills above $100 (such as $500, $1,000, etc.) also used primarily to help transfer cash between banks, and not necessarily mean for public use despite technically being legal tender?

[Big John]

Earlier versions (1970s) of Let's Make a Deal sometimes used high-denomination bills as prizes or props.