Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Visa, Mastercard Debit Fees Are Hurting Retailers, Sen. Richard Durbin Says (wsj.com) 125

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin is asking the Federal Reserve to probe allegedly anticompetitive practices that are forcing merchants to pay excessive debit-card fees levied during the coronavirus crisis by large networks like Visa and Mastercard. From a report: In a letter to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, Mr. Durbin said practices by the large card networks and debit-card issuers are diminishing competition in the online payments marketplace and costing merchants potentially billions of dollars. The letter, which Mr. Durbin's office sent late Friday, asks the Fed to determine whether the major card networks and debit-card issuers have a shared incentive to limit the transactions processed by lesser-known debit-card networks. The Wall Street Journal reviewed a copy of the letter. The Illinois senator is the namesake of the Durbin amendment, a part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that is best known for capping the swipe fees that merchants pay large banks when customers shop with debit cards. But it also requires that merchants have the ability to choose from at least two unaffiliated debit-card networks to route transactions. Some debit-card issuers appear to be violating that part, Mr. Durbin wrote. He didn't name any specific banks or other card issuers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Visa, Mastercard Debit Fees Are Hurting Retailers, Sen. Richard Durbin Says More

Visa, Mastercard Debit Fees Are Hurting Retailers, Sen. Richard Durbin Says

Comments Filter:

  • Taking advantage of pandemic (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since cash is dangerous and can transmit virus particles, many people have gone cashless and use credit/debit exclusively. If these people are taking advantage of that and are jacking up fees, they should be prosecuted and penalized under the full force and power of the CARE act.

    • Since cash is dangerous and can transmit virus particles

      Unlike, say, the keypad on the card reader?

    • Byproduct of the pandemic (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @12:19PM (#60344119)
      This situation has been a problem for years. At my previous company a few years ago, I encountered this exact problem, and it burned a half million dollar hole in our credit card fee budget before I could get it resolved (and yes, we did sue the credit processor, because they did engage in fraud). The issue is, that while certain interchange fees have been capped, other fees that are assessed as part of the credit transaction can be added on well above the cap, particularly around card not present and security based fees, and more specifically for debit brands.

      Essentially boils down to, online transactions DO historically have a higher percentage of fraud, so processors charge higher rates based on how many security protocols are followed to discourage that fraud, and encourage retailers to follow more secure practices. Shifting a ton of transactions to online because of the pandemic will absolutely result in billions of extra dollars getting collected through these unregulated fees, but the amount of fraud isn't going to follow suit at the same rate. According to credit card company logic, my choice to buy groceries online is the primary cause and motivation for other people to commit a crime. So, the end result is those extra billions of dollars in "fraud protection" are pure gravy for the richest bankers in the world, paid for by struggling retailers.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Since cash is dangerous and can transmit virus particles, many people have gone cashless and use credit/debit exclusively. If these people are taking advantage of that and are jacking up fees, they should be prosecuted and penalized under the full force and power of the CARE act.

      No the fees aren't being jacked, just it seems more people are using credit/debit instead of cash.

      And for businesses where I pay in cash that went cashless, well, too f'in bad if you're paying more in fees now because you're doing m

  • Brilliant scam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:17AM (#60343801)
    Credit cards have always been a brilliant scam. The people getting the benefit from the cards get to use them "free", and the fees are all paid behind the scenes by the retailers. If Americans were asked to pay a 3% fee for every purchase that they use a credit/debit card for, there would be widespread outrage, and people would slowly stop using the cards. As is, people don't care. Out of sight, out of mind. That's about the depth of the collective American consciousness.

    • Re:Brilliant scam (Score:5, Insightful)

      by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:20AM (#60343825)
      I always pay with my cashback card, and pay the balance off every month in full. That way the people that are using cash (and paying the exact same, slightly inflated price as I am to cover the card company fees) fund my cashback rebates and I pay no interest since I do not ever carry a balance. Yes it's a fucked up system.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      Wait... retailers don't roll their predicted annual expense into the cost of their products?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        Of course they do. That's my point. Everything in the US costs at least 3% more than it would if so many people didn't pay for everything with cards. And Americans are oblivious to this fact.

        • Some Americans are oblivious. Others, like me, get credit cards with 2% cash back, use them for almost everything, and pay off the balance every month.

          That leaves only a 1% fee, which seems reasonable to me for the convenience and some semblance of consumer protections (ability to dispute charges, fraud limit, etc, not to mention losing my wallet wouldn't be that big of a deal vs having boatloads of cash in it).

          Lately, the trend seems to be running limited time promos with 5% cash back on certain categories

          • For being ignorant .... or for being poor. Even if there was a fee, the consumer protection built into credit cards really is worth it to the end-user. I understand why the merchants are frustrated especially when the payment processor makes more off of the transaction than they do. But the cards are widely accepted/demanded by the market due to their benefit to consumers.

          • So the government is not providing you with any consumer protections, so you are running off to corporate Mafia ? Extremely "American" thought process.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 )
          I've noticed more and more business around here, primarily bars and restaurants, charging a 3% credit card fee. Prices listed in the menu are cash prices. Unfortunately though, it's not like they lowered their menu prices to reflect the cash price that originally had the overhead built into it. I expect more and more retailers to be doing the same, it only makes sense.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            I hope that's the case. I work for a small retailer, and while we can't do it by ourselves, if some of our neighbors would do it, we'd jump right in, as well. 3% off of gross, plus all of the other expenses that go along with taking cards, is really significant in a business with such small margins.

          • Not so in Europe: the EU made the printed price the price you pay. No extra fees tacked on at the end of the transaction. The downside is there's no longer a cheaper option to pay by cash. I wish they'd made it that the fees are charged to the card holder without involving the merchant and opened up the market to competition.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hjf ( 703092 )

              Not only in the EU. From what I understand, the only country where YOU are required to figure out the final price is the USA. In most, if not all, other countries, the price you pay is the price in the tag.

        • Except for the extra sales that stores get because people might not have pulled as much cash to carry with them. And not having to worry about employee cash theft, or security taking money to the bank, or lost sales because you didn't pull enough cash to handle making change... Credit card fees are obvious to merchants, but other methods of payment still have associated expenses.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hjf ( 703092 )

            And, remember, most banks now charge a "cash handling fee". You have to pay the bank to count your money. What the fuck?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by eepok ( 545733 )

        So, we (customers) are already paying for it. It's not retailers. So why are the fees "hurting retailers"? The cost is hidden, almost everyone pays them so there's no competitive advantage from one retailer to the next.

        I'm missing something.

    • Quote from the parent comment: "If Americans were asked to pay a 3% fee for every purchase that they use a credit/debit card for, there would be widespread outrage, and people would slowly stop using the cards."

      The 1st step: Every receipt must show the credit/debit card fee.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I think that would be a great first step. Absolutely.

      • Why do I, as a consumer, care what my retailer pays to process my credit/debit payment?

        How will knowing my $100 purchase cost BestBuy a $3 fee for processing my credit card change anything?

        What you seem to assume is that the consumer could then argue for a cash discount from the retailer, but I find that unlikely. Many people are out of the habit of carrying cash for larger purchases.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          Because ideally, people would either consider paying with cash, or considering asking their Congresscritters to address this issue. Right now, it's completely invisible to most Americans.

          People are required to be told about sales tax as well, and there's no way of avoiding that.

        • Also, paying cash costs the retailer money for the security company to take the money to the bank, and the bank fees for paying in cash, and for theft insurance.

      • Do the same for gas stations, to show how much tax you're paying for each gallon.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by clodney ( 778910 )

          Do the same for gas stations, to show how much tax you're paying for each gallon.

          And as evidence that it won't make any difference, I offer the observation that every gas pump (at least in my state but I think all across the US) does have a sticker showing how much federal and state taxes are per gallon

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hjf ( 703092 )

          In Argentina, we made it illegal to do this. A "final consumer" can't be legally shown the breakdown of the price. He does not have the right to know he's paying 21% VAT.

          Guess why.

      • Don't forget to include the amount of your purchase that goes towards storefront rent instead of being online only... businesses have many expenses that aren't enumerated to the customer. Why make this one special?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          Because it's impossible to do business without taking cards, and they're a completely unregulated industry. I can sell stuff with out without a storefront. There are laws about how badly my landlord can screw me. Heck, I can (and have) sued my landlord. I have zero control over accepting credit cards, though.

    • It wasn't that long ago that many gas stations charged two different prices, one for cash, one for credit - the difference was typically about 3 cents/gallon.

      I don't remember protests in the street.

      I know several retailers that will consider 'cash discounts' on major purchases - it's not common, but not unheard of either. (When I see it, it typically involves $1,000+ purchases.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Cash discounts can't really be advertised, because CC companies won't let you retain merchant status if you make it obvious that you're passing on the CC fees to the buyer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
          It's not a cash discount it's a credit card surcharge :) You should see what it's like in latin america. Everyone insists on and gets "cash discount". Card companies can't do shit, because they'd have to change the mindset of the entire population.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hjf ( 703092 )

            In Argentina they made it illegal to make "surcharges". And Visa wanted to take it to court to prove that a "cash discount" is the same as a "card surcharge".

            In Latin america, though, the problem isn't the CC fees. It's taxes. In Argentina, a CC transaction needs a receipt, and the receipt is your business tax declaration. Cash, no receipt, no tax paid. When VAT is 21% the incentive to get a "cash discount" is very high. Most companies, though, split this 21% and just give you a 10% discount. That's not to

        • That's not true anywhere in America - Gas stations regularly advertise pricing based on payment method. They just do. And card processors cannot actually penalize merchants for that so much as people think.

          The real fights between credit card companies and merchants are around interchange fees, which they often price as if merchants are captive to a particular interchange, which they ARE, and different discount fees based on card type, ie: rewards cards that charge higher discounts to fund the reward program

      • Re: Brilliant scam (Score:4, Interesting)

        by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:54AM (#60343993) Journal

        It wasn't that long ago that many gas stations charged two different prices, one for cash, one for credit - the difference was typically about 3 cents/gallon.

        The ones around me still do. That said, some friends of mine will not go to gas stations that have two prices. I laugh because what that means is that everybody is paying the higher price.

        Heck, ARCO stations around me don't accept credit cards at all. Cash or debit--and they charge you 35 cents for using your debit card. They have lower prices than most other stations around and they seem to have plenty of customers...

        • Re: Brilliant scam (Score:5, Informative)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @01:26PM (#60344411) Homepage Journal

          It wasn't that long ago that many gas stations charged two different prices, one for cash, one for credit - the difference was typically about 3 cents/gallon.

          The ones around me still do. That said, some friends of mine will not go to gas stations that have two prices. I laugh because what that means is that everybody is paying the higher price.

          Heck, ARCO stations around me don't accept credit cards at all. Cash or debit--and they charge you 35 cents for using your debit card. They have lower prices than most other stations around and they seem to have plenty of customers...

          Except that they don't have lower prices, and everybody would be paying the higher price anyway. Even before you factor in the 35 cent fee, there are plenty of stations around here that charge the same price as ARCO. A 10 cent per gallon markup (or, in one particularly heinous gas station's case, the more-than-one-dollar-per-gallon markup) for using a credit card is clearly not justified. Why? Because cash has a cost, too.

          • Cash costs money in lost sales, because nobody carries around enough cash to buy $60 in gasoline.
          • Cash costs money in staffing, because you can't pay with cash at the pump.
          • Cash costs money in theft, because you have more staff.
          • Cash costs money in theft prevention, because you need a safe (and the more cash, the bigger the safe required).
          • Cash costs money in processing, because someone has to physically drive the money to a bank and deposit it, costing time, fuel, and money to pay the driver. (And this is also proportional to the amount of cash used.)

          All of those things add up, and when you add them up, even a 3% credit card fee starts looking pretty good. A typical gas station sells 40-150K gallons of fuel per month (average 100K) and at least in California would spend about $7,500 on a second employee during the 16 busiest hours of the day. That comes to 5–18.75 cents per gallon just for the cost of the extra employee alone. And if a store only takes cash, its sales would likely be towards the bottom end of that sales range, so even if you ignore the increased theft risk from keeping more cash around and the increased deposit costs from depositing it more often, you're still probably much better off taking cards.

      • and, well, there is one. Gas Stations were almost giving gas away for a while, but now with it over $2/gallon again there's enough room there to tack on an extra 10-20 cents. Do that at $1/gallon and everybody notices.
    • Handling cash is not free and there is an expense associated with it, to include theft. Depending on the business you are it can be higher than the swipe fees. Once you add in the extra scrutiny by tax and banking officials, cash can be quite expensive.

      • Re: Brilliant scam (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:54AM (#60343989)
        I've been in retail for several decades. Handling cash is nowhere near 3% of gross sales. I'd say closer to 0.25% of gross sales.

        With credit cards, you also have to spend a fortune on equipment, chargebacks, and PCI compliance, and none of that is included in that roughly 3% fee that all retailers pay.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          The added cost depends on whether you end up having to have more employees because of the cash. For gas stations, for example, the difference between everyone paying at a register in cash and paying with a card swipe at the pump is at least one extra person, at minimum, all day. And that wipes out the 3% savings even before you take into account any of the other costs from dealing with cash.

          And if you think, "I can get away with not adding employees", there's a decent chance that you'll see lower custome

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            I don't work at a gas station. I work at store where humans check out customers. There is no time difference between cards and cash.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Yeah, but you're probably in the minority by now. At this point, a large percentage of stores also have automated self-check registers. And if you've ever watched somebody feeding one dollar and five dollar bills into a machine to pay for an $80 grocery bill, you'll understand why all-cash businesses can be a problem (not to mention how often one or more registers is marked as as "cards only" because of malfunctions in the bill or change handling hardware).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Processing cash also has overhead, per physical counting, storage, armored cash transport service, etc. There's no free lunch either way, but electronic payment processing is usually cheaper, until the point processing co's use monopoly or oligopoly status to bilk merchants.

    • they're only bad for retailers who don't know how to upsell.

      My kid in college had a copy of my card. I let her use it more than I should have because I wanted her focused on school and not finances. It paid off, she's the 1st in our family to graduate and did so with a _lot_ of problems during that 4 years I won't go into.

      That said, you can bet she bought things she otherwise wouldn't have because when you've got cash in hand you count every penny, but when it's on the card an extra couple bucks goe

    • I disagree. I'm always willing to pay cash if I get a better deal than I would in using a credit card. Most retailers charge the same if you use credit as if you were to pay cash. In many cases, if they offered a 2% discount for a cash payment, I'd just pay cash.

      credit does make a bit of a difference in convenience though. I had 1 time when I lost my patience with a car dealer and willingly paid 3% more to just put the car on my credit card.

      • The reality is it costs most retailers more to handle cash. There's reconciliation, which is time consuming and error prone with cash, so more labor intensive. There's risk with holding cash. There are trips to the bank to deposit. I remember in Michigan, it would be common to find a few Canadian coins periodically.

        Handling cash costs money.

        Proper handling of credit cards is easier and cheaper.

    • Also keep in mind that handling checks and cash is not free. From security to processes to potential mistakes, they also have costs - they're just not always as obviously marked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tflf ( 4410717 )

      Credit cards have always been a brilliant scam.

      No fan of Visa or Mastercard, but, a brief history lesson needs to be part of this conversation.
      Visa and Mastercard became part of the retail landscape for a lot of reasons: accepted everywhere, significantly cheaper than American Express (the only non-business specific credit card for many years) for both the shopper and the retailer. Visa and MC were (and likely still are) a lot cheaper than taking cheques, which was the ONLY alternative to taking cash. For most retailers, refusing to take cheques was

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        You're right. Definitely cheaper than dealing with paper checks (and not being able to verify funds) because check bouncing is a big deal.

        I'm not opposed to all cards, but I'm opposed to how they're set up in the US. Since they're so ubiquitous, and so necessary in modern life, they really, really need to be regulated. Right now, there are almost no regulations on them, and MC/Visa and the banks get to walk away with a huge % of GNP with no oversight.

      • It's generally cheaper today, from what I can tell. You can generally expect $0.35 transaction fees at the high end, and 1-3% cut. It varies pretty wildly based on business and agreement though. I'm guessing the cut is much higher for porn sellers, for example, because adult things get tons of charge backs when wife or mom finds out.

    • Most of the contractors in my area charge a 3% fee if you choose to pay for their services via credit. As such, contractors are just about the only people I pay with checks. It would be nice to be able to charge directly for the processing costs and put them on the receipt. Unfortunately, some of the ways that things are currently processed results in charges that are impossible to calculate on the individual transaction level (there can be discounts for high monthly volumes).

      This is a pretty nice write-

    • Agreed re: hidden fees. Really, these things should be charged to the card holder. Let them make an informed decision whether they want a tax on every transaction they make. Provide a chance for competition by making transaction fees transparent. Some people are prepared to pay for the convenience, others prefer to save their money and use cash.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I agree 100%.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hjf ( 703092 )

        In Argentina credit cards offer (force) a NO-INTEREST MONTLY PAYMENTS plan. The plan is simple: You buy a $1200 thing in 12 payments of $100. Period. You just see $100 every month in your CC statement.

        The merchant, on the other hand, pays the interests. Here: https://prismamediosdepago.blo... [windows.net] is the list of "coefficients" to apply. Say, for 12 payments, it's 1.4067. $1200/1.4067 = $853.06. That's what the merchant will get.

        And it used to be illegal to pass this charge on to the client. Visa lobbied successf

    • It is so brilliant that due to anti competitive legal mumbo jumbo retailers are not allowed to charge additional fees to cover the increased transaction cost of customers using credit and debit cards. So instead the cost is added to the price for everyone, and we cash payers get to help pay the hidden costs of credit cards - fuck big banking.

      Credit cards are for morons and debit cards are for the lazy. Cash should be cheaper but instead we get the shaft just like a lazy moron.

  • This is true. The last time Congress got an itchy trigger finger, to hurt credit cards, the stock market tanked and Congress backed off by noon.

    So...good luck with that.

    Also, good luck wrecking section 230 because social media companies aren't censoring the way you want, crushing the retirement funds of millions.

  • Guess who represents Mastercard? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:22AM (#60343837) Journal

    Guess who represents Mastercard? I mean, in Congress... said person is currently in the lead running for President. Same guy that created the entire Federal student loan fiasco, the Patriot Act, and a few other goodies I'm sure.

    After all, corporations are people too.

    • Re: Guess who represents Mastercard? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:54AM (#60343987) Homepage Journal

      Shhh. That's old Joe Biden, not Joe Biden 2.00220

      At one time Joe Biden was called the congressman from MBNA. (What a strange coincidence that one of his children worked at MBNA for a while:

      (Hunter) Biden graduated from law school in 1996 and took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns. By 1998, Biden had risen to the rank of executive vice president.

      Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

      Talk about an amazing coincidence!

      Then when his dad was Vice President and the administration's "point man" on all matters relating to China and the Ukraine, Hunter was involved in managing a $1.5BN investment portfolio for Chinese company, and held a $1M/year board position on a Ukrainian Energy company.

      The coincidences are simply amazing!

      Joe Biden argues there's nothing wrong with any of this, but he also promised that his son would not do anything like that if Joe is elected President.

      • I'm still gonna write-in a 3rd party, being as I'm Independent and all. I don't want either one of those two asshole parties trying to say that I would have voted for them.

    • MasterCard puts a lot of money up. They also represent big retailers like Walmart. If you think they're not involved in this you haven't been paying attention.

      From a consumer standpoint Credit Cards have been good, but also from a business standpoint. If I had to give my bank details out every time I bought something online I would stop buying stuff online. This would also mean I'd buy less stuff, because I'm not going to travel all over town looking for stuff.

  • Oh yay, Congress will fix it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:43AM (#60343949) Homepage Journal

    I remember when Chris Dodd had a congressional hearing about overdraft fees. He asked, with all the seriousness he could muster, why poor people paid the bulk of the overdraft fees banks collected?!

    Apparently he felt wealthy Americans weren't paying their fair share of bank overdraft fees...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      If Congress doesn't fix it, who should, exactly? Unregulated credit card transactions are costing the US probably a percentage of GDP, it's costing most people several percentage points of their overall income, and most people have no idea.
      • His point seems to be that congress won't fix the problem but will try to use this as an opportunity to virtue signal and score points like Dodd did by asking why poor people, people who have less money and often are bad at managing money and thus often bounce checks, pay the bulk of overdraft fees.

        • Re:Oh yay, Congress will fix it! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @12:14PM (#60344081)
          ... so then, the solution is to do nothing out of fear of "virtue signalling"?
        • Maybe it's not that they are bad at managing money. Do you have data for this? My guess is that it is because they write more checks per capita. Why? If ATM fees are $3 and you want to buy something for $20 and are short on cash, you write a check. You don't want to pay a $3 fee to get $20 in cash. I pay child care providers in cash. I don't pay any ATM fees. But going is a PITA so I end up getting the ATM maximum every time. But that is probably more than the average account balance of somebody wh

          • Maybe it's not that they are bad at managing money. Do you have data for this?

            A) People who bounce checks are, by definition, bad at managing money. People who are good at managing money don't bounce checks.You may as well be saying "Maybe people who get speeding tickets aren't exceeding the speed limit. Do you have data for this?"

            B) They get most of the financial advice from the internet and it is usually bad for them
            https://www.breakingtheoneperc... [breakingth...ercent.com]
            https://www.quora.com/Why-are-... [quora.com]
            https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]'
            https://www.vice.com/en_us/art... [vice.com]
            https://money.com/why-you-a [money.com]

            • I am struggling with your comment. You seem determined that the only reason poor people could bounce checks is that they are "bad with money" and yet you used an analogy that pretty much proves my point. Do black drivers get ticketed more than white drivers because they are "bad at driving?!" It turns out that there is an underlying (ugly) reason. Even if poor people are necessarily "bad with money" (and, sure, some of them are), nobody wants to pay a $35 bounced check fee. That is especially true if yo

              • I am struggling with your comment.

                You seem to be a bit of a fuckwit.

                You seem determined that the only reason poor people could bounce checks is that they are "bad with money" and yet you used an analogy that pretty much proves my point.

                No, I am determined that the reason people bounce checks is that they are bad with money. You are too stupid to actually read what I wrote or you are dishonest.

                Do black drivers get ticketed more than white drivers because they are "bad at driving?!" It turns out that there is an underlying (ugly) reason.

                Bullshit. I see you are a follower of wokeness which means you don't care about actual facts.

                Even if poor people are necessarily "bad with money" (and, sure, some of them are), nobody wants to pay a $35 bounced check fee.

                The fee exists because banks don't want people to bounce

                • > There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason. No but based on your post, there should be a -1 Ad Hominem because you know you are wrong. Unfortunately there won't be much moderation in this thread and you'll probably get a karma boost for such an inappropriate post. But just in case somebody is bored and moderating...

                  If Bill Gates made a mistake writing a check (say he wrote a check for 215 but accidentally wrote 125 in his checkbook register), would you say h

                  • More cherry picking your hypotheticals like a dumbshit. You need to dig your head out of your woke ass and actually stop making a fool of yourself.

                    You aren't providing ANY data or any anecdotes. You are simply making up hypotheticals and acting like they prove something.

                    No, I think I am correct. Everything you have said points to you being a snot-nosed punk who spent his entire life in a suburban upper middle class neighborhood who never grew up and still thinks he knows everything like a 13 year old.
                    • Your statement was that Dodd's only motivation when he asked why poor people "pay the bulk of overdraft fees" was to "virtue signal and score points" and that this is the only explanation for his question because the reason is settled fact. (Poor people are bad at managing money). This is a fairly strong statement that should be backed by strong evidence. You're the one who made the assertion that you are demanding be accepted as fact. There is clearly correlation between being poor and bouncing checks.
                  • By the way, I literally have karma to burn. Every single post I have made in this thread could be modded down into oblivion and it wouldn't make a dent in my karma.

      • The industry is NOT unregulated, gross fees are unlikely to be 4%, and it's a service with a value to be realized or perceived by all parties.

        Really, I got to your first misstatement too late.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          You can say they're "unlikely" to be 4%, but I said 3%, and I have bills to prove it. Last year, our credit card fees were 2.44% of our gross sales. And that's just because we had a brand new provider. Like other unregulated industries in the US, like internet access, the fees creep up steadily until you sign a new "contract".

          And that doesn't take into account the thousands we spend on equipment, and the hundreds of hours we spent on chargebacks and PCI compliance.

          • 2.44% isn't unusual. Depending on card mix and processor you can see 3.5%

            It pays to both check your contract, which you should have (if not, go get a new relationship, please), compare to statement, be diligent. It's an expense, and you should be checking your utilities bills, so check this. Pay real attention to changes of course!

            If you're submitting directly, you've got PCI issues unless they are covered by a software vendor. In fact, if you're using common POS software they should certify your PCI compli

    • Re:Oh yay, Congress will fix it! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the_B0fh ( 208483 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:59AM (#60344011) Homepage
      If you cannot understand that banks used underhanded methods to encourage people to overspend, and get overdrafts, and then continue to use that to get more and more fees, you should try to learn more about it. Yes, you can always say it's a personal responsibility thing. Just like choosing to smoke is a personal responsibility thing. Just like not wearing a motorcycle helmet is a personal responsibility thing. But we've found that laws restricting sales of tobacco to minors is a good thing, and we've found that enforcing helmet laws is a good thing.

    • Banks were doing some shady shit during that time period. My bank had a policy of charging a fee if the balance was negative for say 3 days. Adding funds to the account took 4 days to clear. That sure is convenient for the bank. Later on I received a settlement check from them.

    • I realize that much of what happens is political theater but I don't see anything wrong with this question being asked sincerely. I mean yes, they bounce more checks (which has been mentioned in a sibling post). But the real question is why do they bounce more checks? Is it really that they are just bad with money (which was also alluded to in the sibling post?) Or maybe its they don't have internet access and can't check their balances as frequently. My hypothesis is that it is because those of us wh

  • Cash is not a perfect solution. There is theft, loss, incorrect counting, scrambling to find exact change, taking that change to bank for deposit, etc. You also need to have a cashier most of the time (I know there are automated kiosks, but they are a bit clunky to use, and they themselves have operating costs).

    I remember reading something like 2% overhead for cash. That sounded reasonable. And, if true, it would be very similar to credit and debit cards.

    • Re:Cash has costs too (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @11:58AM (#60344005)
      I have about two decades experience in retail. Cash handling costs about 0.25%.

      Credit card retailers have to deal with extremely expensive equipment, chargebacks, and PCI compliance. Cards are much, much more expensive than cash.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stikves ( 127823 )

        I do not dispute your experience. You organization was probably very efficient.But it might not be the case for everyone.

        On the other extreme of the scale, one study finds much larger range of cost for handling cash:
        https://www.businesswire.com/n... [businesswire.com]

        "New Research from IHL Group Shows Retailers’ Cash-handling Costs Range from 4.7% to 15.3%, Depending on Retail Segment"

        I am mostly sure they would have some ties with CC processors, so the real average is probably somewhere in between. Still, people assumi

  • If the Senator is complaining about credit card fees hurting retailers, he should be trying to cut business income taxes. After all, the government takes a bigger chunk of retailer's revenue than credit card companies do.

    In any case, those credit card fees are tax-deductible...but taxes aren't.

    • Nope. Taxes do not take a bigger portion of revenue than card fees. Taxes take a percentage of PROFITS, if any. They are not based on revenue.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      You are conflating two different issues. Whether merchants are being bilked by monopoly card processors and whether they are taxed too high or low are independent debates. Two wrongs don't make a right.

  • Never miss an opportunity to exploit a crisis... go capitalists go!

    The Known Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

    Number Rule
    1 Once you have their money... you never give it back.
    2 The best deal is the one that brings the most profit.
    2 Money is everything.

  • Typical.

    Does he know he's spouting nonsense?

    Does he even care what good policy is?

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close