stores to start charging for using credit cards

[Engineer]

What I'm saying is current prices don't factor in CC fee's, many low dollar items we sold were sold at a loss. Stores shouldn't have to mark up prices because some people don't carry cash. I know we had daily customers who came that we lost money on every day because they'd buy $2 worth of shit on a visa.

Bullshit. Maybe a business will take a loss on a small item but overall, they expect certain margins on sales and those are set after paying the bills, including credit card fees. I can guarantee that this will do nothing except line the pockets of the stores, at least until they lose enough sales to keep it from happening.

I have no problem with stores placing a "minimum purchase price" for those using credit cards but to charge a flat % fee won't work and they WILL LOSE SALES.

Like the poster above me, why not stop accepting credit cards? Oh, lose too much sales if you quit taking them!

 

[fstime]

Good.

The fee has always been included into the price, screwing cash buyers over.

This is how it should have been from the start, cash buyers pay no fee and CC buyers pay a fee to the business which then pays the CC company.

What do you think, a business owner is going to take a 1-3% hit because you want to make your purchase using another corporations profit based pay system rather than federal dollars?

Now it's probably too late, prices will stay the same plus you will get hit with the fee.

 

[xanis]

Oh well. Looks like I'll be getting cash out of the ATM a little more frequently.

 

[Newbian]

Oh well. Looks like I'll be getting cash out of the ATM a little more frequently.

Make it even slower and write a check in protest.

 

[xanis]

Make it even slower and write a check in protest.

Not a bad idea...

 

[Engineer]

Make it even slower and write a check in protest.

Or pay for large orders with one dollar bills.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Makes me wonder, my school just started to state as of Jan 1st that they will apply a 2.45% increase in payment if you choose to pay tuition costs with a CC (previously they just sucked up the cost to conduct transaction, main campus is in missouri). Really makes me think If I can fight this since my schools is located in San Diego.... as you state its illegal in California. Or would there be something else going on here I am unaware of..

There are probably exceptions built into the laws.

State and local governments are able to be exempt.

I fought that battle in Colorado 3 years ago with the DMV and lost.
the government will get their $$ amount first. If you want the convienence of plastic; you have to cover the cost.

 

[spidey07]

Good. It's about time.

 

[SandEagle]

Make it even slower and write a check in protest.

and what's wrong with checks? i still do it. hell, i am on my 2000th check now. i write about 200 checks a year

 

[Mark R]

Bummer.

Oh well. Cash has inherent costs as well,...I just wonder how much it actually works out to be.

When I wanted to open a business bank account, they were charging 0.5% on all cash deposits; and that was for deposit in person during banking hours.

If I wanted out-of-hours drop-box access for cash deposits, that would be extra.

I'm told that armored car transport is around $150 per pick-up, but never looked into this.

Many of the big grocery stores round me all offer "cash back" where they simply bill some extra on your debit card and give you cash with your groceries. They do this because the processing fees on debit cards are significantly lower than the processing fees on cash - plus it reduces the cash held on premises so reduces security risks.

 

[Engineer]

and what's wrong with checks? i still do it. hell, i am on my 2000th check now. i write about 200 checks a year

Nothing other than they are generally very slow, especially in the hands of old people. Many old people pull the checkbook out once the order is complete, fumble around for a pen and finally fill out the check. Not sure if this is still allowed but many merchants then take down identification information on the check (does that still happen?). That's why many places like Walmart just scan the check, print the data and go on. It's still slower than a credit card though as you still have to sign the screen and the check has to be printed.

Finally, many places outside your home area will not take checks (out of state, etc). Will those places of business risk losing sales because of credit card fees and the fact of not accepting checks?

NBC news report just now suggested that nobody is going to charge this fee right now. I can see it being implemented very slowly at some point though. If they lower the prices, fine. If they keep the prices the same and raise them normally, then no, the fee isn't fine.

 

[actuarial]

Good. It's about time.

Just to be clear: you're happy the government has stepped in to override contracts agreed to between two private parties?

 

[Engineer]

Just to be clear: you're happy the government has stepped in to override contracts agreed to between two private parties?

Spidey is always against the government until it helps big business then he flops like a fish to the other side.

 

[Newbian]

and what's wrong with checks? i still do it. hell, i am on my 2000th check now. i write about 200 checks a year

More proof you don't understand why people hate you.

 

[spidey07]

Just to be clear: you're happy the government has stepped in to override contracts agreed to between two private parties?

When those contracts and services formed a defacto monopoly, yes. I view this as freedom for the seller/retailer.

Credit cards offer many nice services for using them. It used to be that you paid for those services in an annual fee. It's time we return to annual fees for credit cards to cover those services.

Cash is king, always will be. It was very wrong the merchant agreements were allowed to stand.

 

[Engineer]

When I wanted to open a business bank account, they were charging 0.5% on all cash deposits; and that was for deposit in person during banking hours.

If I wanted out-of-hours drop-box access for cash deposits, that would be extra.

I'm told that armored car transport is around $150 per pick-up, but never looked into this.

Many of the big grocery stores round me all offer "cash back" where they simply bill some extra on your debit card and give you cash with your groceries. They do this because the processing fees on debit cards are significantly lower than the processing fees on cash - plus it reduces the cash held on premises so reduces security risks.

Based on that, you should be able to charge a sur-charge on cash based payments then. You should be able to directly pass on any fee to you to the customer directly, no? :hmm:

But wait, that generates even more cash a bigger fee resulting in more cash and a bigger fee......

 

[Engineer]

By the way, anyone know how this effect the "prepaid VISA and MasterCard" stuff? I'll refuse to do rebates (i.e. won't buy stuff with rebates) if they are in the form of pre-paid cards and there is a fee on them.

I have noticed that many have started using American Express so it may take care of itself.

 

[Triumph]

people who are ok with this, hell those who even applaud this, are funny. they don't realize that everyone has already been paying these fees, cash or credit, because it's already built into the price. now because they can add the fees, some people think that the retailers will actually lower their prices and then only add these fees when the customer uses a card? hahahaha, yeah....

 

[Wyndru]

I am. Unless stores are suddenly going to lower their prices the 1 to 3% for those paying cash, then fuck them. They have the credit card fees built into the price of the items to keep their profit margin. Adding 1 to 3% at this point without lower prices would be just padding the profits.

This. And they pad the prices with the highest possible % they can get charged from any card company, which I think is Discover or American Express.

 

[Engineer]

Also, from what I have heard this weekend, American Express is still exempt from this. Not sure about Discover though.

Edit: From the article in the OP....

The National Retail Federation points out that under terms of the settlement, a merchant who adds a surcharge to purchases on a Visa or MasterCard would have to do the same with American Express cards. But AMEX prohibits surcharge fees. So a merchant who accepts American Express as well as Visa/MasterCard would not be able to surcharge any of those cards.

 

[stlc8tr]

I think that list is incorrect. There are a lot of businesses, many small but plenty of gas stations (many big players) and educational systems (state run) that charge surcharges for CC use. This is in California by the way, where this practice is supposedly banned.

But I must confess, when I see comments like yours, I hope what the poster stands against happens.

State entities are exempt from the prohibition and are able to impose a surcharge.

See these civic code sections for details:

"Retailer" shall not mean the state, a county, city, city and county, or any other public agency.

http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1748.1.html
http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1747.02.html

And gas stations offer a cash discount, not a credit card surcharge, which is also allowed in CA.

 

[actuarial]

When those contracts and services formed a defacto monopoly, yes. I view this as freedom for the seller/retailer.

Credit cards offer many nice services for using them. It used to be that you paid for those services in an annual fee. It's time we return to annual fees for credit cards to cover those services.

Cash is king, always will be. It was very wrong the merchant agreements were allowed to stand.

There is no monopoly. Visa/Mastercard do not have a monopoly on ways for a business to process transactions. Cash, cheques and debit cards are used to process transactions every day.

It is not wrong that the merchant agreements were allowed to stand, as no merchant was forced into them. Why were the merchants accepting the agreements if accepting the cards was hurting their business?

There is no way you can argue that the government banning a practice is an increase in freedom.