Posted on Apr 23, 2016
Is honoring Harriet Tubman with her face on the $20 bill worth the $911,600,000 that it will cost the American tax payer?
6.52K
79
46
2
2
0
Money
Economy
Taxes
Responses: 16
0
0
0
Five myths about Harriet Tubman
Her work with the Underground Railroad wasn’t actually the most important thing she did.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Treasury Announces Harriet Tubman on $20 Bill, Breitbart Commenters Erupt in Racism
The Treasury Department announced today that a portrait of former slave Harriet Tubman will replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the first African American ever to be featured on US money. Normal people in the United States ...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Why not. Just put the amount on the tab with the rest of the national debt, its like almost free money. Again, timing is suspect. The last time Obama visited Auburn, he passedup a chance to highlight what she accomplished, despite being invited by two NY elected officials.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If those numbers are correct, I'd have to say it's ludicrous to waste such a significant amount of taxpayer funds on such an insignificant cause. BTW, I still despise Jackson for the lying murderer he was!!!
(0)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
Those numbers are the cost to have any kind of 20$ bill at all, The cost has nothing to do with whose on it,
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Since so many people think the Numbers ridiculous I will just give you the numbers and you can verify if you would like. As of 2015 according to the U.S. mint there were 8.6 billion 20 dollar bills in circulation, also according to the U.S. mint it costs the Govt 10.3 cents to print a 20 dollar bill. In other words it will cost 911,600,000 to print 8.6 billion 20 dollar bills and it will probably take 5-7 years for the U.S. mint to fully phase out the old bills as their circulation life is calculated at 7 years maximum.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
According to the US treasury website the total estimated expense for printing ALL currency in 2016 is $737 million. We spend a crapload on our money. The largest expense and upward change in the amount we spend annually was due to the implementation of anti-counterfitting measures. (the main reason it costs 2-3x more to print a $20 vs a $1).
The printing plates are constantly being replaced as they wear. The plan will likely be to start replacing the worn Jacksons with Tubmans as soon as the final design is approved. Other then the cost of the design change, the replacement of the plates is already built into the BEG's budget.
I don't see how changing the face of any denomination, without adding technology to the design, will really add to the annual printing expense.
The printing plates are constantly being replaced as they wear. The plan will likely be to start replacing the worn Jacksons with Tubmans as soon as the final design is approved. Other then the cost of the design change, the replacement of the plates is already built into the BEG's budget.
I don't see how changing the face of any denomination, without adding technology to the design, will really add to the annual printing expense.
(2)
(0)
SPC Michael Mullins
1SG (Join to see) - That is not the total cost and does not include the cost of printing new bills it was updated 5 moths ago, that is the Federal reserves total budget for the year 2016
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
You are applying the cost of replacing bills that go out of circulation as a cost of changing the picture, and that's incorrect. The number of bills the US prints each year is based on the number of bills estimated to have gone out of circulation. This number of bills, and the cost associated with printing them, will occur whether the designed is changed or not. In 2016, they have ordered almost 2 billion $20 bills to be printed. Those will have Jackson's face on them, as will next years, etc, etc. At some point in time, the new design will replace the old one, but the costs for printing the bills will not change. If the new bills weren't printed, then the old bills would have been, incurring the same printing costs either way.
So the entire premise of your argument is wrong. The same number of bills will be printed based upon the need to replace old bills removed from circulation. There are not new printing costs associated with the new bill.
So the entire premise of your argument is wrong. The same number of bills will be printed based upon the need to replace old bills removed from circulation. There are not new printing costs associated with the new bill.
(5)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google