The power of the Tenth Amendment and State's Rights in action:
Earlier this month, we reported on the sound money bill which the Utah legislature passed. Last Friday, Governor Herbert signed this bill into law.
The core component of this new law is the legalized recognition of gold and silver coins (issued by the federal government) as legal currency within the state. They may be used voluntarily by consenting parties, and rather than recognizing the face value of the coin (a horribly distorted metric of the coin’s worth), the market price of the gold or silver content is recognized as its value.
Further, the law provides for relief from certain taxes, including sales tax and capital gains tax. As gold and silver are rightly considered a currency and not a commodity, when in coin form, it is ludicrous to consider the exchange of dollars for gold a “purchase” subject to a sales tax. One does not pay sales tax when going to the bank to exchange a dollar for a peso, yuan, or other fiat note. It follows, then, that the exchange of currency between a dollar and gold or silver should likewise be exempt. This new law provides for that common sense tax exemption.
Cool. Relief from capital gains and sales tax, while being allowed legally to avoid the devaluing paper. Sound money for a change.
Economic knowledge should dictate your politics.
Read the rest at the Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
It's a step in the right direction, but I take strong issue with a federal only coin. .999 oz. of fine gold in a Krugerand or Maple Leaf is the same gold as in a US Liberty. The difference is that I've found you have to pay a $50 premium to get the US gold coin! Now consider silver. I guess the pre-1965 US issued silver coins are fine (90% silver and readily recognizable), but consider this: the older ones have lost as much as 10% of their weight due to wear. So which would you rather have - the old coins adding up on paper to 1.00 oz of silver or a fresh little bar of 1.00 oz of silver? My point is this: trading partners need only mutually trust the source of the precious metal in hand. Governments shouldn't even enter into it!!!
ReplyDelete- Dutchy
I agree 100%, Dutchy.
ReplyDeleteMore than likely, it was restricted to coins minted by the U.S. Mint, already declared by the U.S. Congress to be "legal tender," in order to avoid any legal challenge to using something besides U.S. legal tender coins. The U.S. Mint itself has stated, "By statute ( 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a) ), Congress specifies the coins that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to mint and issue and requires the Secretary to carry out these duties at the United States Mint (31 U.S.C. § 5131). Accordingly, the United States Mint is the only entity in the United States with the lawful authority to mint and issue legal tender United States coins."
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess it boils down to this: a legal tender "coin" in the U.S. is one that is minted at the U.S. Mint. A "coin" that is used as currency in another nation is "legal" but it is not "legal tender" in the U.S. Could the banks accept it for our purposes? Yes... BUT it would probably cause great confusion, at least at the beginning here, to include foreign coin as acceptable under the Act. If we stick with U.S. legal tender, we can bypass a lot of the questions that are bound to be asked by legislators out of complete ignorance.
Bill Greene
http://www.ConstitutionalTender.com/
What happens if they decide to confiscate all gold as happened before.
ReplyDelete