Q: The following is an approximate copy of my letter to the NZ Herald, published recently. I would be interested to know if you would like to comment on this subject.
"I am appalled at the latest decision concerning NZ coinage. If the authority had re-introduced a half crown (a quarter), and dropped the 20c piece in addition to the 5c piece, we would have no small-price inflation as a result.
Items currently costing 25c, 35c and so on would all remain the same. However as matters stand, when items currently costing 20c need to increase, they will go up to 30c, a 50 per cent increase.
This will be tough on mums and pocket money. How is it that this authority can make decisions affecting us all without consulting us?"
A: On your last question, the Reserve Bank says it "has undertaken some analysis of the potential impact of the removal of the 5c coin.
"This work, which was posted on the bank's website in December, concluded that the effect on prices faced by most households would be negligible. Statistics New Zealand checked this analysis and confirmed that it was sound."
That's fair enough. If the Government consulted us all widely on every decision, it would take so much time and money that nothing would ever be achieved.
More interesting, though, is your point about a 25c coin. The Reserve Bank's initial response to this: "The suggestion of introducing a 25c coin has been considered on a number of occasions without a great deal of support. A 1987 Treasury report concluded that a 25c denomination is inappropriate in a basic 10c system. A public opinion survey in 1994 showed a mixed response but the majority of people were opposed."
Okay, I said, but the correspondent's main point seems to be that, with 10c, 20c and 50c coins, we can pay the following: 10c, 20c, 30c, 40c, 50c etc. But if instead we had 10c, 25c and 50c coins, we could pay: 10c, 20c (2x10c), 25c, 30c (3x10c), 35c (25c + 10c), 40c (4x10c), 45c (25c + 2x10c), 50c etc. There would be much more flexibility.
Back came the following, from the Reserve Bank's head of currency, Brian Lang: "Our underlying criterion is not to make changes unless there is a clear benefit to the public. Feedback from retailers was not supportive of introducing a 25c coin, as it would result in them needing to hold additional coins in the till.
"Quoting your examples: 30c in change is three coins rather than two; 40c is four coins rather than two, etc. The retailers estimate that it would increase the number of coins they would handle by 23 per cent.
"The bank considered that there was no significant benefit for the public or retailers in introducing a 25c coin, thus our underlying criterion prevailed."
You could argue that retailers shouldn't hold sway. But, for the rest of us, big-price inflation matters much more than small-price inflation.
I think you'd find that most other people don't care all that much about 20c v 25c - given all the other worries in our lives.
And kids who are in for big pocket money increases will love it.
Here's another interesting point about the coin changes, in a recent Cairns Lockie newsletter: "We are surprised with the revision of our coins that our notes are not being reviewed. We could easily replace our $5 and $10 notes with coins.
"Back in 1967 when decimal currency was introduced a 50c coin was introduced. In today's money, this will now be worth $9 or $10.
"In the United Kingdom, they have a £2 coin, which is worth about $6. We think it is time to replace those dirty worn $5 notes with a new and more convenient coin."
The numbers are a bit iffy. According to the really useful CPI calculator on the Reserve Bank website, www.rbnz.govt.nz, 50c in July 1967 bought as much as $7.06 does today. But the point is a good one.
Again, a response from Lang: "The question of replacing the $5 bank note with a coin was considered by the bank during the recent review of our coinage.
"While it may seem an obvious option given the devaluation of currency over time, there are quite strong counter- arguments against having additional coins.
"One problem with coins is that they cannot be secured to the same extent as a bank note. It is understood that the UK has significant problems with the counterfeiting of £2 coins and, of course the higher the value of a coin, the greater the temptation.
"Another important factor is that the general public prefer to carry bank notes rather than coins. In countries where a bank note and a coin have circulated together, a clear preference has been shown for the note."
This raised the question: Is it easier to counterfeit coins than notes?
Lang: "Not necessarily, but notes have security features that are easily seen by the public (such as a watermark); coins really have no easily verifiable security feature.
"In addition, central banks and cash centres have fairly sophisticated machines checking 'hidden' security features in a note; coins are not subject to such scrutiny.
"The problem they have in the UK and in Europe with the higher value coins is that they are unsure how many fake coins are circulating as they go undetected."
Sounds a little alarming.
Anyway, look out for the new coins from Monday onwards.
Q: Tithing - an interesting article two weeks ago. My husband and I and our parents before us believed in the principle of tithing. Having been owners of a real estate company selling hobby farms we also believe in the necessity of mortgages.
We have prospered by hard work and tithing. We are indeed blessed financially if we follow biblical advice and give "back to God" with a spirit of willingness, thankfulness and cheerfulness 10 per cent of our income.
A: Tithing has obviously worked well for you. Read on for another perspective.
Q: It was with interest I read your column about tithing and how hard it can be to save 10 per cent of your income.
The previous week my wife and I had been to see a financial adviser who included in his list of questions: "Do you tithe?"
Being a Christian, I realise this is quite a common practice among religious organisations but would like to point out that the Bible nowhere commands Christians to tithe 10 per cent of their income.
Ideas like this are due to taking parts of the Bible out of context.
I don't want to turn this column into a religious forum but would just like to correct a few false ideas about tithing.
Tithing was only a mandate for the Israelites living under the Mosaic Law, which was at that time also a theocracy.
It was basically a tax on the landowner and people who had more than 10 animals.
You could only tithe agricultural produce or animals. It did not include people's incomes, money or other things like fish.
Tithing was effectively part of their welfare system and holiday pay system. It was to provide for widows, poor people and priests.
Malachi was saying God got pretty upset if they didn't pay their tithes, as the people who would suffer would be those widows, poor people and priests and equated the seriousness of this to the fact they might as well be robbing from God.
The New Testament principle for giving is freewill giving and we are encouraged to be generous according to our means and be wise and good stewards of our money and possessions.
Sounds like good financial advice to me.
I think this is quite an important issue as I once met a Christian who had tithed into debt using his credit card to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in the hope that some day God would miraculously bless him and turn his finances around.
A: That doesn't sound like that old saying: "God helps those who help themselves".
But as you say, let's not go further into religion.
I'm in no position to judge whether what you say is correct, but it is interesting.
<i>Mary Holm:</i> Just who's going to be coining it?
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.