does minting coinage incur federal reserve interest?

[chad]

say they mint 2 million dollars worth of quarters and put them in to circulation, does that incur interest to the fed? coins don't say 'fed note' anywhere on them, and they're minted by the treasury, right? just wondering if coinage is treated the same or not.

[madfranks]

Well, the thing is, the mint doesn't put them into circulation, the Fed does. So the mint could strike $2 million in coins but they'll just sit in the Fed vaults until the Fed releases them and "monetizes" them. Theoretically, if you took a case of coins out of one of the Fed's vaults without them authorizing the release, then you'd have coinage not incurring interest.

[chad]

Well, the thing is, the mint doesn't put them into circulation, the Fed does. So the mint could strike $2 million in coins but they'll just sit in the Fed vaults until the Fed releases them and "monetizes" them. Theoretically, if you took a case of coins out of one of the Fed's vaults without them authorizing the release, then you'd have coinage not incurring interest.

huh, didn't know that. thx mf.

[palani]

say they mint 2 million dollars worth of quarters and put them in to circulation, does that incur interest to the fed? coins don't say 'fed note' anywhere on them, and they're minted by the treasury, right? just wondering if coinage is treated the same or not.

Lawful money has no usury attached.

Lawful is what is not forbidden.

Usury is forbidden.

Legally interest may be charged.

6% interest is legal.

Edited to add --- Some misguided souls will tell you that it is the SOCIAL SECURITY contract that establishes whether interest is due. These people have not thought entirely through the problem or the concept of "lawful" is foreign to them.

[Bigjon]

I don't know, but I think that there would have to be a bond issued by the U.S. Treasury to finance the coins.

Bond equals interest paid on coins.

Coins are money, so why would they be treated any different than FRN's?

[7th trump]

Lawful money has no usury attached.

Lawful is what is not forbidden.

Usury is forbidden.

Legally interest may be charged.

6% interest is legal.

Edited to add --- Some misguided souls will tell you that it is the SOCIAL SECURITY contract that establishes whether interest is due. These people have not thought entirely through the problem or the concept of "lawful" is foreign to them.

Please do yourselves a favor and dont listen to anything about "lawful money".

There is no such thing as "lawful money"!

Palani can not find any definition to lawful money because "lawful money" is a made up theory from a nut case who calls himself David Merrill Van Pelt.
Van Pelt, in court action, has been found legally incompetent.....so do yourselves a favor and do some due dilligent research on the matter before beleiving what some people will spout.
This Van Pelt and Palani are cohorst over at the Sui Juris site.
Theres a statute 12usc 411 that this incompetent VanPelt uses to get you to beleive that fiat is what causes income taxes and Palani well...........hook line and sinker.
The truth to taxes on your labor rests with participating in Social Security which I'm gearing up on starting a thread to end that arguement once and for all.
By the way, Palani in another thread said all statutes are "evil", but in the "lawful money" venue Palani clings to these "evil" statutes, so take the advice from Palani with caution.
Heres the federal reserve website http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm that straightens the story of lawful money out for you.

[Sparky]

Not sure if this helps, but here's what I found:

The earnings from issuing both coins and currency reduce government borrowing costs; however, how these earnings are budgeted and accounted for differs. Production costs of coins and currency are generally treated the same in the budget and accounting statements. The difference between the face value of coins and the costs of minting them results in earnings, called seigniorage, which is shown in the budget as a reduction in needed borrowing for the government, after the deficit or surplus for the year is calculated. The budgetary impact of seigniorage is interest avoided from the borrowing it displaces and is not visible because it is neither quantified nor shown in the budget. The government also generates earnings by issuing currency, but it is handled differently. The difference between the face value of currency issued and its production cost goes to the Fed. The Fed buys collateral, usually Treasury securities, to back up the currency issued. The interest collected on those Treasury securities is used to pay for Fed costs, and the remainder is returned to Treasury. The budgetary impact of issuing currency comes from the interest returned by the Fed, which is shown as a budgetary receipt and counted in the calculation of the deficit or surplus. Production costs of both coins and currency are shown as costs of operations in Treasury’s financial statements. According to the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, seigniorage should be shown as a source of financing in Treasury’s statement of changes in net position, whereas interest returned by the Fed for currency is shown as revenue in Treasury’s statement of custodial activity. Treasury has not been reporting seigniorage this way but made the correction beginning with its fiscal year 2003 financial statements.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/242107.html

[madfranks]

The way it used to be: People and/or businesses could bring gold to the Mint, the Mint would produce coins from the gold, the Mint would charge for the service, give the gold coins to the owner, and viola, gold coins a.k.a. money with no debt or counterparty risk involved.

The way it is now: The mint makes billions of base metal tokens with fiat values stamped on them, and they are stored in the vaults of the Fed. Via debt creation, the Fed releases the coins to a commercial bank which then distributes them to the public. The result is coinage based on debt with value determined by the full faith and credit of the USA.

[palani]

There is no such thing as "lawful money"!


Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

I suppose you had better inform your congressman of your advanced intelligence on this matter and inform them that they don't know how to write legislation. Better yet, why not get yourself elected to congress so you might be in a better position to argue your version of reality?

[palani]

By the way, Palani in another thread said all statutes are "evil"

In your confused state I don't suppose you realize I made the statement that facts were evil. Nowhere will you be able to find a post of mine where I state statutes are evil. Instead you might find a post or so where I stated that statutes exist for legal fictions who are incapable of carrying their own law and must be guided by others law.


Seriously, your reading comprehension needs work.

[7th trump]

I suppose you had better inform your congressman of your advanced intelligence on this matter and inform them that they don't know how to write legislation. Better yet, why not get yourself elected to congress so you might be in a better position to argue your version of reality?
Go back read what I said Palani............there is no definition to "lawful money".
Did you even read anything in the link I provided?
Its says right in the link that there has never been a definition to "lawful money".
And if you posted 12usc 411 as a definition to "lawful money" you need to have your brain checked!

[palani]

there is no definition to "lawful money".
I never said that there was. I stated words to the effect that "lawful was that which was not forbidden" and "usury is forbidden". You are supposed to supply the logic between these two statements to come to the conclusion that "lawful money bears no interest". I did not intend to define what lawful money was or give you a source for such a definition. I intended YOU to define it using LOGIC.



Did you even read anything in the link I provided? Sorry. I got diverted by the rest of your hyperbole. But I did go back and read it just now. It says that a Federal Reserve Note may be lawful money. I agree with this. The Federal Reserve note does not NEED to bear interest if you cite 12 USC 411 and request redemption. YOUR ACTION IS WHAT MAKES IT LAWFUL, nothing that the FED needs to do.



if you posted 12usc 411 as a definition to "lawful money" you need to have your brain checked! Nonsense. I posted no definition of "lawful money" derived from 12 USC 411. The restriction upon usury is derived from the bible.

Seriously, if you are upset it is because of your misinterpretation. I suggested the Trivium before. Have you bothered to look it up? The book costs less than $15.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Lawful money has no usury attached.

Lawful is what is not forbidden.

Usury is forbidden.

Legally interest may be charged.

6% interest is legal.

Edited to add --- Some misguided souls will tell you that it is the SOCIAL SECURITY contract that establishes whether interest is due. These people have not thought entirely through the problem or the concept of "lawful" is foreign to them.

This of course is calling attention to the difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'. Lawful is associated with a higher form of law--Natural Law, which is embodied in Common Law. Lawful comes from the laws that came from God, and therefore consider some sense of morality. These are laws you better obey, under severe penalties from God himself. Legal refers to a lesser lawform where the laws are made by men--just like ourselves, and they call them statutes, which are given 'the force of law'. Which makes them nothing more than policy statements of the ruling elite. And in my mind, what Palani was expressing was the distance between what God would allow you to do and what your fellow politicians would allow you. I think I have a clear understanding of Palani's contempt for the lower law forms. They have had the morals stripped out of them. That is my interpretation. I hope I'm not far off the mark.


Hatha

[palani]

That is my interpretation. I hope I'm not far off the mark.


Hatha

I'd say you hit a homer. Lawful is not forbidden. Legal is what is permitted. Usury is not lawful but is legal. Usury is "permitted".

Murder is not lawful but abortion is legal. Abortion is a special case of murder.

[7th trump]

Lawful money has no usury attached.

Lawful is what is not forbidden.

Usury is forbidden.

Legally interest may be charged.

6% interest is legal.

Edited to add --- Some misguided souls will tell you that it is the SOCIAL SECURITY contract that establishes whether interest is due. These people have not thought entirely through the problem or the concept of "lawful" is foreign to them.
I'm not misguided....social security is the cause of paying the federal income tax.
I have statutes, regulations and court sites that say when you earn 3121(a) "wages" (participating in Social Security) federal tax impositions will be reported and imposed on the earnings.
So far you have not one (1) piece of evidence that private credit (reserve notes....which says is legal tender for private and public debt...so much for the private credit aspect) is the root cause of the imposition on labor.
When I start the tread about how your labor is taxed you'll see where following David Merrill Vanpelt will make a fool out of you.

Furthermore I never said Social Security is the cause of interest to the reserve banks. I said and have always said social security is the root cause of being taxed on your labor....get it straight!

[7th trump]

This of course is calling attention to the difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'. Lawful is associated with a higher form of law--Natural Law, which is embodied in Common Law. Lawful comes from the laws that came from God, and therefore consider some sense of morality. These are laws you better obey, under severe penalties from God himself. Legal refers to a lesser lawform where the laws are made by men--just like ourselves, and they call them statutes, which are given 'the force of law'. Which makes them nothing more than policy statements of the ruling elite. And in my mind, what Palani was expressing was the distance between what God would allow you to do and what your fellow politicians would allow you. I think I have a clear understanding of Palani's contempt for the lower law forms. They have had the morals stripped out of them. That is my interpretation. I hope I'm not far off the mark.


Hatha
I'd say you're spot on Hatha
Would you say participating in Social Security is legal or lawful?

[BrewTech]

Please do yourselves a favor and dont listen to anything about "lawful money".

There is no such thing as "lawful money"!

Palani can not find any definition to lawful money because "lawful money" is a made up theory from a nut case who calls himself David Merrill Van Pelt.
Van Pelt, in court action, has been found legally incompetent.....so do yourselves a favor and do some due dilligent research on the matter before beleiving what some people will spout.
This Van Pelt and Palani are cohorst over at the Sui Juris site.
Theres a statute 12usc 411 that this incompetent VanPelt uses to get you to beleive that fiat is what causes income taxes and Palani well...........hook line and sinker.
The truth to taxes on your labor rests with participating in Social Security which I'm gearing up on starting a thread to end that arguement once and for all.
By the way, Palani in another thread said all statutes are "evil", but in the "lawful money" venue Palani clings to these "evil" statutes, so take the advice from Palani with caution.
Heres the federal reserve website http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_15197.htm that straightens the story of lawful money out for you.

Dude, you are a troll. The only time you post is in response to something palani posts.

Got anything else to contribute?

[BrewTech]

Dude, you are a troll. The only time you post is in response to something palani posts.

Got anything else to contribute?
ETA: It is possible that palani is the troll and 7th Trump is a sock puppet of palani's to be used to dilute and divert the board. I don't care if he is really, I'm just sayin'.

(I'm practicing to take magnes's position when he retires.}

[Hatha Sunahara]

I'd say you're spot on Hatha
Would you say participating in Social Security is legal or lawful?

I'd say first that it is stupid. Your participation is not what I would consider informed consent. They do not tell you that if you participate, you also agree to pay Federal Income Taxes. And to top off this idiocy, if you set aside what they take out of your paycheck until you are 65, and put all that money into interest bearing accounts, you would have far more wealth than you will ever get from Social Security old age benefits.

Now, is it lawful? If you agree to it it's lawful until you discover it is a fraud, at which time is becomes unlawful. As for 'legal'? Yes it is perfectly legal because it was created by Statutes. That doesn't mean it is a good idea for you to participate. They have to trick you (use fraud) into agreeing to participate in this plan. And once you are in, they do not make it easy to get out if you feel that is the best thing for you. In exchange for a small promised benefit out in the unforseeable future, they require you to pay in a pretty hefty percentage of your pay--now when they need it and for all the nows until you qualify for benefits--at age 62 or 65, and before you get there they will raise the retirement age. It's a fraud, and in my view, it's unlawful.


Hatha

[7th trump]

I'd say first that it is stupid. Your participation is not what I would consider informed consent. They do not tell you that if you participate, you also agree to pay Federal Income Taxes. And to top off this idiocy, if you set aside what they take out of your paycheck until you are 65, and put all that money into interest bearing accounts, you would have far more wealth than you will ever get from Social Security old age benefits.

Now, is it lawful? If you agree to it it's lawful until you discover it is a fraud, at which time is becomes unlawful. As for 'legal'? Yes it is perfectly legal because it was created by Statutes. That doesn't mean it is a good idea for you to participate. They have to trick you (use fraud) into agreeing to participate in this plan. And once you are in, they do not make it easy to get out if you feel that is the best thing for you. In exchange for a small promised benefit out in the unforseeable future, they require you to pay in a pretty hefty percentage of your pay--now when they need it and for all the nows until you qualify for benefits--at age 62 or 65, and before you get there they will raise the retirement age. It's a fraud, and in my view, it's unlawful.


Hatha
And without social Security the government cannot tax your labor.
To the astute tax researcher heres the most important statutute.

26usc 3101
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

Theres no other statute explaining when you earn 3121(a) "wages", in respect to 3121(b) "employment", (participating in Social Security) not only are you imposed the SS taxes for particiapting you are also imposed OTHER ADDITIONAL taxes.
The bases of a W2 is codified at statute 26usc 6051. And the only two wages 6051 refereneces are 3121(a) "wages" and 3401(a) "wages".
3401 is simple 3121(a) "wages" and government employee "wages" all wrapped together to be imposed the 3403 imposistion to off set the Section 1 federal income tax.
Without earning 3121(a)"wages" first a person doesnt earn 3401(a) "wages". In order for the government to be able to deduct the offset imposition for the Section 1 federal income tax your earning must be in respect to 3121(b) "employment" participating in Social Security.
If you dont participate in Social Security none of your earnings can be in resepct to 3121(b) "employment".

[palani]

I'm not misguided....social security is the cause of paying the federal income tax.
I never stated that you were misguided. I stated that there were some misguided fools who believe as you believe. Get it straight.

Your statement is easy to defeat. The signature card at the bank is your acceptance of all federal reserve regulations. The IRS is the collection arm of the federal reserve. You don't need to have earned any wage at all if you have sufficient bank interest you are going to be dunned for the tax owed upon the USURY (legal ... not lawful) that you earned.


I have statutes, regulations and court sites that say when you earn 3121(a) "wages" (participating in Social Security) federal tax impositions will be reported and imposed on the earnings.
A part of the puzzle. Not the whole puzzle.



So far you have not one (1) piece of evidence that private credit (reserve notes....which says is legal tender for private and public debt...so much for the private credit aspect) is the root cause of the imposition on labor. IRS collects more taxes than just upon labor. Take a farmer now. His return on labor is mixed in with everything else and maybe he gets paid (or pays himself) and maybe he doesn't (decides to buy a new combine this year). You would have us believe that just having a SSN is enough to make his labor taxable.



When I start the tread about how your labor is taxed you'll see where following David Merrill Vanpelt will make a fool out of you. I have never met David Merrill. I don't follow his teachings. As it relates to use of lawful money (non-interest bearing) I follow congress (12 USC 411) when handling FRNs for other people.

Then too I have just found out about 31 USC § 5115 and I might decide to start using United States Currency Notes soon (for other people).


Furthermore I never said Social Security is the cause of interest to the reserve banks. I said and have always said social security is the root cause of being taxed on your labor....get it straight! Again you have it wrong. You CHOOSE to be paid in FRNs. Pick some other means for balancing your labor account (apples, coupons anything other than FRNs) and then check your tax liability EVEN WITH A SSN. There is no column to add up apples on a 1040.

[palani]

It is possible that palani is the troll and 7th Trump is a sock puppet of palani's

Is it possible that YOU are the troll and the members who thanked you for your post are YOUR sock puppets?

[Hatha Sunahara]

I'm still struggling with the relationship of 'lawful money' in this morass of juristic deception about social security and income taxes. We do not have lawful money. FRNs are legal tender, but they are fiat--meaning they have no substance, They are only money because the law says they are. We once had lawful money. Gold and silver.

There is one concept that I can call on to give this any meaning. That is 'counterparty risk'. Gold and silver have no counterparty risk associated with them. They are not a 'promise to pay'. They are PAYMENT itself. FRNs on the other hand have counterparty risk in the sense that if you keep them (savings) their value can and will erode because the issuers are not diligent in maintaining their value. In fact, the issuers deliberately erode the value of FRNs by printing each year the 'inflation rate' amount more of them than is required to keep their value. The value of FRNs is determined to a large extent by the amount of money the government borrows from the Fed. Because our money is created by 'borrowing money' from a bank, the FRNs have limitless counterparty risk. If the economy falters, and people find it hard to repay their debts, what does that do to our money? If they can't make their debt payments, the borrowers declare bankruptcy, and the money associated with that bad debt is destroyed, making the money supply smaller, and the value of the money more dear because of its scarcity. The Fed, the manipulator of the value of the money can counter this increase in the value of the money by printing more money, and making everything look like is is just hunky dory. Which is what they are doing now. This practice risks people grasping what machinations are afoot, and dumping their FRNs for something with less counterparty risk,like gold and silver. Or farmland, or some assets that are not FRNs. The risk of mass flight from FRNs is the manifestation of the counterparty risk associated with that 'money'. All this is a demonstration of the lack of substance FRNS have. Can you imagine people fleeing from gold and silver? People are much more comfortable with those metals as money. Because gold and silver are not somebody else's debt, they have 'substance'. If you accept them as payment, you do not have to immediately get rid of them because their value will go down as sure as the night follows the day.

I'd like to hear an argument about how taxes fit into this fiat money scheme. If the government accepts FRNs as payment for taxes, then the only issue is whether they have the legitimate power to tax our incomes.


Hatha