Slashdot Mirror

Just void their US debt holdings and we'd have almost 25% of it.

One possibility is the SDN list: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

Q? I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

  The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

He look! Another idiot who knows nothing about what he speaks!

From here:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

What it says on US currency is true: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" (yes, it's in caps). That means buying an iPad, or buying a cup of coffee.

I suggest you actually read up on the statute before shouting your mouth off:

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

From here.

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Apple does not run a credit business so it isn't really possible for you to ever have a debt to apple. Thus there is no law forcing them to accept your legal tender that is for debts to a creditor only.

Last I looked, Apple did partner with MBNA bank for credit applications, however going that route your debt would still not be with Apple but with MBNA. And MBNA does accept cash, as required by law.

for all debts, public and private. Oh, except debts to apple.

A purchase is not a debt. As per the US Treasury's faq (here):

"all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

It is even legal for Apple to refuse payment in cash?

Of course it is. A private business can determine what form of payment they will accept.

That smacks of a federal crime or something....

Except for that pesky fact that it isn't one. I suggest you give this page a read:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

While cash is legal tender for private debts; there is no requirement on the creditor to accept it. source

Sorry, but "In God We Trust" only appeared on currency after the civil war.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

E Pluribus Unum is a much better motto, because I don't trust your invisible friend.
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html

Me saying that "Water is all you need to drink" doesn't mean that's all that you _can_ drink. That statement doesn't require them to accept currency, it just says that if they do, it's a legal means to settle the debt.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q1

This is simply not true in the USA. You can accept any currency, or no currency.

China holds about 23% of the US Treasury securities. Whether that means that China owns the US or if the US owns China that remains to be seen. In the corporate world, 8% is usually considered controlling shares. China has that three times over. So it is up to how much they are willing to lose.

Another player is Gates or the whole Bill Gates Movement. China, Israel and others are probably playing him like a jig doll against the US. For them, the longer run the Gates Party has, the more it tears down the industrial and academic capacity in the US. The former is short term strength, the latter longer term and its loss hurts more. The US doesn't manufacture much now, not for about a whole generation. The same is happening to research and advanced education, especially in regards to ICT. You get once famous, high tech universities that can't even scrape up the skill in house among its student body to manage even a simple web site, groupware service or authentication system. Instead, brushing the loss under the rug by outsourcing while the faculty spend their time in useless meetings and clicking Windows Widgets.

No, in the U.S. you may do anything you want to a coin as long as it is not with fraudulent intent, e.g. bleaching a $1 bill and reprinting it to look like a $100 bill, etc.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/coins/portraits.shtml#q13

For a debt, I don't think such a law exists. From http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q1: ...the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

The page goes on to further explain that private businesses can refuse certain denominations as an exchange for services, but that would not seem to pertain in this situation.

Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?

Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.

People keep saying this, but it ain't illegal at all. Show me the law.

Exploiting computers and stealing aren't illegal you say?

Links to a number of laws: http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html

More sources of reading pleasure:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/cc.html
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/financial_crimes.shtml#Computer
http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/technology/electronic-crime/welcome.htm

And in case the .gov websites aren't legit enough for you, there is always wikipedia ;}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_crime

Oh, and as for stealing not being illegal, you are wrong there too.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

Go to that link, scroll down to "PEN" for penal laws and click, then go down to section 155 on Larceny.
(Their site sucks and uses javascript for navigation, so I can't directly link. Bastards :} )

You can look up your own state laws similar (Under penal law, for the crime larceny)

Just to head off the inevitable "But I don't live in the US so everything you said doesn't matter", the answer is "no, it does, you are wrong."
Google is in the US, so is bound by US laws, which is the topic of conversation in this thread.
(Granted, California state laws for theft and not New York, but that was the link I had handy, they are all basically the same except for some minor details, and it was painful enough looking up anything on the NY site as it is :/ )

Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.

I do wish people would stop saying that.

Total US debt in 2009 $12,867.5 Billion. Total debt owned by China 789.6 Billion. China owns only about 6% of US debt and the odds are they will reduce that gradually to reduce their risks if the dollar depreciates or there is inflation in the US. The Iraq war is forecasted to cost $2 trillion by the CBO - Afghanistan is a bargain at a mere $500 Billion. The US spends almost that much a year on defense. $8.3 trillion evaporated in the financial crisis, way more than any of these numbers.

So even if the Chinese T bills were destroyed instantaneously it would still be a shock 10x less severe than the financial crisis, or less than half an Iraq war.

Of course the Chinese gradually diversifying away from US debt is likely to have much less effect than that.

And if China responds to our (at least for America) new iron curtain style of business by leveraging their hold on us (http://ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt/); potentially kicking the legs out from under an already fragile economic recovery... What is more empty than a husk?

Also, I overlooked your last paragraph. According to Timothy Geithner and the OMB, the US Federal government had Fiscal Year 2009 receipts of $2.105 trillion and outlays of $3.522 trillion. That's a long way from tens of trillions of dollars -- the entire annual US Gross Domestic Product is only about $14 trillion.

This is the same way it works in the US.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

TFA says the 5 year bonds are 0.95% above treasury bonds, which are currently at 2.02%, so MS' bonds are 2.97%, and the 10 and 30 year are 1.05% above, currently 3.17% and 4.16% respectively, so 4.23% and 5.21% for MS.

No one is required to accept any particular form of money in any particular amount for things that are not debts. Thus, retailers are not required to do anything.

There is [...] no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. [...] unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

However, for debts:

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

In other words, an offer to pay in any form of legal tender is considered a valid attempt to pay the debt, whether the payment was actually accepted. The reason that this does not apply to retailers etc. is that no debt occurs.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

Just because it's "legal tender" doesn't mean they have to accept payment in that form. The notion that businesses have to accept cash in any form is a persistent urban legend.

See http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.htm for a long explanation. A relevant quote:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

At least in the US, even a penny is legal tender and can't be rejected because of its denomination

Commonly held belief, but incorrect. According to the United States Treasury:

There is no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

There's a Democrat in the White House who's in the process of making his own blocks on this chart look like the freakin' Sears Tower in comparison to what's there now.

That chart doesn't include 2006, 2007 or 2008.

30-Dec-2005: $8,170,424,541,313.62
29-Dec-2006: $8,680,224,380,086.18 (CY06 increase: +$509,799,838,772.56)
31-Dec-2007: $9,229,172,659,218.31 (CY07 increase: +$548,948,279,132.13)
31-Dec-2008: $10,699,804,864,612.13 (CY08 increase: +$1,470,632,205,393.82)
Source: www.publicdebt.ustreas.gov.

That CY08 number is close to TRIPLE the size of the maximum from that chart.
Your Sears Tower was already in place before that Democrat was sworn in.

But he said put it in a bank, not buy gold. And T-bills are yielding under 4%, even for 30-years (http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interest-rate/yield.shtml)

Only a fool would argue with the basic logic of the Laffer Curve. The only puny argument would be that we are on the good side of it, but history rebuts that so completely even The One didn't attempt it.

I guess I'm that fool - how sad. The main problem with the Laffer curve is a type mismatch. The space of possible tax policies is a high-dimensional system, and expected tax revenues over time depends not only on these policies, but also on additional inputs like trade policy, currency management, and vagaries of the business cycle. When Laffer attempts to distill a complex system to a single curve like this, he communicates essentially zero useful information. However, one can take something resembling a partial derivative, and ask whether cutting income tax by, e.g., 10 percent, while holding most other variables steady is expected to yield revenue growth. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office studied exactly that (pdf warning) in 2003, and found that you're wrong. Also, the US treasury studied historical effects (another pdf, sorry) of tax cuts and raises, and found that contrary to your assertions, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were highly revenue-negative. The revenue act of 1964 was signed by Johnson, not Kennedy, and was also revenue-negative.

Where are your sources? Do you have any data to back up your claims?

Really? There is no such thing as the Secret Service?

High school called, they want your social studies grade back.

WE DON"T OWE ANYONE A DAMNED THING!

US Gross External Debt

We owe plenty.

Had to do it :)

"...quickly spreads to more insidious things..."

Really?

"In God We Trust" first appeared on US coinage in 1865.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

You seem to be confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion". The only thing the US federal government is prevented from doing is establishing a state religion or designating a single religion as state-sponsored.

I don't understand the huge emotion involved in purging religion from our history. I'm not a very religious person, and I'm not offended by this. Our laws are indeed based on the Ten Commandments, at least on their base level.

Finally, if you own a business, you should be able to refuse service for any reason, or no reason. A pharmacist does not owe you anything --- either pay for his services at the price they are offered (if they are offered), or go elsewhere.

(including people who paid NO taxes and earned NO income, but yet for some insane reason were allowed to get a "refund" anyway)

That isn't entirely true.

I guess if by "swimming in money" you mean "less than one quarter US GDP per capita", then yeah, they sure are!

I was thinking more along the lines of spare pocket change they could decide to throw at the project.

To stay ahead of counterfeiters, the [industry] anticipates introducing new . . . designs every 7-10 years.

Sound familiar? We are passing the point where it was arguably about quality.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. This tax on personal income was a new direction for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise taxes and customs duties. Certain inadequacies of the income tax were quickly acknowledged by Congress and thus none was collected until the following year.

By the spring of 1862 it was clear the war would not end quickly and with the Union's debt growing at the rate of $2 million daily it was equally clear the Federal government would need additional revenues. On July 1, 1862 the Congress passed new excise taxes on such items as playing cards, gunpowder, feathers, telegrams, iron, leather, pianos, yachts, billiard tables, drugs, patent medicines, and whiskey. Many legal documents were also taxed and license fees were collected for almost all professions and trades.

(RFID in the keys? A second key? A dongle?)

One or more very well trained groups of men with guns, watching the place 24 hours a day?

In the case of the last eight years we've tried to combine spending increases and the need to fund two wars with massive tax cuts on the rich.

I don't argue that spending is out of control and something that should be slowed down a lot, but I have an issue with the tax cuts on the 'rich'*. The only places that taxes can be cut is on the rich* b/c they are the only ones paying taxes! From here:

In 2005, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one half (59.7 percent) of all individual income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 39.4 percent; and
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In 2005, they paid 96.9 percent of all individual income taxes.

So when we cut taxes who else do you want to cut them on? Or are you talking more about income redistribution. The whole take money from those who have it and hand it out to those who don't?

* what defines 'rich'?

Furthermore, it's a huge tax shelter since the B&MGF is a non-profit private foundation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)#501.28c.29.283.29 and http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/irm/part7/ch11s06.html#d0e106703), and such enjoys freedom from federal and other taxes as long as the profits it earns from investments go back into the organization it self. This is how B&MGF add to their personal wealth (hint indirectly):

1) According to IRC 4942(j)(3) you can make donations to private organizations, e.g. pharmaceutical corporations (making HIV, TB, Malaria drugs) as long as the foundation makes equivalent donations to non-profits and other charities.

2) Re-invest in the regular corporations using your personal wealth and the foundation's money.

3) Profit!

The secret service deals with /financial/ fraud and theft, including money laundering, and the equipment (sometimes computers) to assist in such crime.

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/investigations.shtml

This matter doesn't fall under their domain as there is no evidence of financial crime or fraud.

You can get it all from the IRS and the Congressional Budget Office, and also from the Department of the Treasury. In fact, if you look at the 1040 instructions, there is even a pie chart that tells you where federal expenditures are spent (at least there was 10 years ago when I actually needed the instructions).

Here are some links to get you started.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Not true in the US.

Here's a US Treasury Dept. link from a comment I recently modded Informative:

      http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

I cannot find the comment now, Slashdot's search function is too under-powered :(

You misunderstand what that term means in a legal sense.

eg. Several pages of it are fuzzy variants of...

LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Grigorievich (a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aleksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alexander Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Aliaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKA, Alyaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aleksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alexander Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Aliaksandr Ryhoravich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Grigorievich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Grigoriyevich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Hryhoryavich; a.k.a. LUKASHENKO, Alyaksandr Ryhoravich); DOB 30 Aug 1954; POB Kopys, Vitebsk oblast, Belarus; President (individual) [BELARUS]

Some bloke "Hassan the Old" (Sort of like George Sr.)

And oh yes, for the US's latest bestest allies Columbia, there are 784 entries.

For the record, the unsourced Wikipedia claim was plagiarized directly from http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.html, and while it isn't very clear either, it certainly implies that the important difference is whether you are buying a good or service versus paying off a debt. I don't know that I buy the GP's claim that his tuition bill is a debt, but it seems that the Coinage Act of 1965 requires acceptance of US dollars and coins for any debt, public or private.

The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.

Well only 25% of US debt is foreign owned and 47% of that is owned by Japan or China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Consequences_of_foreign_ownership_of_U.S._debt

Looking at this

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

About 40% of that is owned by China. So China owns 25% * 47% * 40%, or about 5% of US debt. Even if by some magical process it evaporated overnight the US would survive. If they sold, the dollar would fall which would improve the trade balance from a US perspective, the US economy would be dinged but China would be desperately short of money. And once they started to sell the price of the remaining bonds would fall - they'd actually cause a crash in the price of the ones they still held.

None of that is the Chinese interest. Plus the actual money is in the US. So the US government actually owns a chunk of money which China needs.

Now I hate the Chinese government, but them lending money to the US government doesn't seem like a problem to me. In fact as people have pointed out if China attacked Taiwan I'd expect the US Treasury to seize the money in some way so it acts as a stabilising factor on them.

You are completely wrong. Let's go to the original source, the acts that created the treasury department. For some background on the how and why, I'm using what I recollect from history class in school. That being many years ago, I tried the Wikipedia article United States Treasury Department and I see nothing substantiating any claims about the Treasury department conducting search and seizer. And the US Coast Guard has nothing to do with the Treasury Department.

I find it funny when people say things like "I don't know where you are getting this info from, but I think ...." and provide no links. I'm open to being wrong, but don't challenge someone elses sources unless you present your own.

On US Currency, is says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".

However, according to the U.S. Treasury, "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services."

Question I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

Answer The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

Q: I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn't this illegal?

A: The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/lega l-tender.shtml