Question

argumentive essay against the prodution of pennies

Answer 1

Title: Time to Let Go: Why the United States Should Stop Producing Pennies

Introduction
The penny—once useful in an economy where a cent bought something of real value—has become an anachronism. Rising production costs, dwindling purchasing power, transaction inefficiencies, and environmental costs make continuing penny production an expensive and unnecessary habit. Eliminating the penny would save public resources, simplify everyday transactions, and cause little or no harm to consumers or prices if implemented responsibly. For these reasons, the U.S. should stop minting the one-cent coin.

Argument 1 — Producing pennies costs more than they’re worth
A basic principle of sound policy is that the government should not sustain operations that systematically lose money. For many years the cost of producing and distributing pennies has exceeded their face value. That means taxpayers — effectively — subsidize routine cash transactions. Ceasing production would halt a steady flow of net losses and allow the U.S. Mint to reallocate resources to more useful coinage (or reduce costs to taxpayers).

Argument 2 — Pennies have negligible purchasing power
Inflation has eroded the penny’s purchasing power to the point where it rarely affects real buying decisions. Prices are typically set in larger units, and most retail transactions already ignore exact pennies through informal rounding or by using credit/debit. When cents matter, electronic payments record them precisely; the penny’s role in day‑to‑day cash transactions is largely symbolic rather than functional.

Argument 3 — Pennies waste time in everyday transactions
Handling pennies adds friction to retail operations and personal transactions. Clerks, customers, and banks spend cumulative time counting, sorting, transporting, and accounting for pennies. That time has an economic cost. Removing the penny streamlines cashier operations, reduces checkout time slightly but meaningfully over millions of transactions, and lowers handling and processing expenses for banks and retailers.

Argument 4 — Environmental and material costs
Pennies are made from metals (copper-plated zinc in recent decades) that require mining, smelting, and transportation—processes with environmental footprints. Producing millions of coins annually consumes resources and energy. Eliminating the penny would modestly reduce demand for these materials and associated environmental impacts.

Argument 5 — Other countries have eliminated low‑value coins without harm
Multiple comparable economies have removed their smallest-denomination coins with no adverse effect on inflation or commerce. Canada eliminated the penny in 2013 and introduced a cash rounding policy; studies and experience showed no measurable inflationary impact and high public acceptance over time. Australia removed 1- and 2-cent coins in 1992 with similar results. These precedents show the transition is feasible, manageable, and low risk.

Counterarguments and rebuttals

- “Rounding will cause price increases and hurt consumers.”
Experience shows that careful rounding rules (round to the nearest five cents for cash totals only) do not systematically raise prices. Electronic payments retain exact cents, so consumers who worry about rounding can use cards or apps. Retailers have little incentive to round in ways that systematically benefit them because competitive markets and consumer scrutiny penalize arbitrary price hikes.

- “Pennies are sentimental or fund charities.”
Sentiment is real, but sentiment alone is a weak basis for a continuing fiscal loss. Charitable penny drives can be preserved via coins already in circulation, dedicated donation boxes that accept small cash, or by encouraging direct rounding donations at checkout (e.g., “round up to the nearest dollar” programs) that are often more efficient and raise more funds.

- “Elimination would cost jobs or disrupt coin-dependent systems.”
Any transition can be phased to avoid sudden disruptions. The Mint could redirect labor to producing other denominations or to modernization projects. Retailers and banks can adapt organizationally over months; previous international transitions were managed without major job losses in the economy overall.

Implementation recommendations
To minimize disruption, a phased and transparent approach is best:
- Legislate an end to new penny production with a defined phase-out period (e.g., one to two years).
- Institute a clear cash-rounding rule (nearest five cents) applied only to cash totals; electronic and check payments continue to use exact cents.
- Run a public education campaign explaining rounding rules, the reasons for change, and examples to calm consumer concerns.
- Encourage retailers to adopt digital rounding/donation options to preserve charitable giving.
- Allow pennies already in circulation to remain legal tender for some period but stop ordering new ones; over time pennies will exit circulation naturally or be recycled.

Conclusion
The penny is a relic that costs more to produce, slows transactions, and serves little practical purpose in a modern economy while imposing environmental and fiscal costs. Practical, low‑risk alternatives—carefully designed cash rounding and reliance on precise electronic payments—exist and have been successfully used elsewhere. Eliminating penny production is a commonsense reform that would save public resources, simplify everyday commerce, and better align currency with contemporary economic realities.