Did you know it is illegal...

[aginghippy]

I was curious what businesses have to pay the credit card companies, so I did some googling. It seems the 2 biggies, Mastercard and Visa, charge an average of 20 cents, plus 1.77% of the total transaction amount.
I was also curious about the average profit margin of convenience stores and gas stations. Most of the souces said it was around 10%. What they didn't say, was whether or not the cost of credit card fees was already calculated in the reported profit margins. I'm betting they are, as profit margin usually means net gain after expenses. Credit card fees are just another known and expected business expense.
If MrsM had purchased 4 dollars worth of nourishment for her son, the business would have paid the credit card company 27 cents for the transaction. It might have cut into their profit, but MrsM would be a happy customer rather than one that will probably never patronize that shitty store in the future.
Customers are fed up with bullshit fees and exceptions to good customer service. Look at the bank fees that RC mentioned. Or look at the fees charged by cell phone companies. Most of these added charges are pure profit, and do not reflect a realistic business cost. These fees are motivated by pure greed, and a complete disregard for the customer.
Of course we have libertarians defending them, even when it is evident that the greedy fuck business owners are violating a CONTRACT, the holy grail of libertarianism.

[Ronhuxley]

The busienss is more than free to negotiate the terms of their contract as they see fit. When they put up a minimum charge, they are violating an agreement they made with the CC(credit card) company. This is what is illegal, and this is what is wrong. I have also taken to reporting the companies, and have actually seen change. If they dont like it, they can stop taking CCs.

However, it is important to note that i gain as much from using a credit card as businesses do from aking them. I dont have to carry cash(so im safer and not bothered by ATMs anymore), and they get my business. Its also a fact that i will be paying for this cost. Its my convenience, and i will pay for it, the costs of goods will rise everytime the cost of doing business rises(note this is not sypathysing with businesses ofer individuals, this is stating in a way pertanent to this conversation that the business will only be in business as long as it can be profitable[if you want to haggle over what is an acceptable profit margin, then do it by supporting stores with lower profit margins, if a stores set margin makes you angry, dont get pissy and try to gouge them, just take your business elsewhere]). Since CC companies like visa need to make a profit also, and dont provide a seperate service than the consumer can be charged for, the business has to be charged(which lowers profit margin), so he must edit prices to fix the margin back to where it was.

The point is, that this practice of raising prices is completely fair. Nobody makes stores accept credit cards, or makes anyone use them, or not use them. The only people who have fauled here are those who violate their contracts.

[Looksbothways]

...
Of course we have libertarians defending them, even when it is evident that the greedy fuck business owners are violating a CONTRACT, the holy grail of libertarianism.

For the record, I'm a libertarian, and I'm not defending them precisely because there is a voluntary, legal, contract between the two parties.

[aginghippy]

...
Of course we have libertarians defending them, even when it is evident that the greedy fuck business owners are violating a CONTRACT, the holy grail of libertarianism.

For the record, I'm a libertarian, and I'm not defending them precisely because there is a voluntary, legal, contract between the two parties.

It's good to know some libertarians are consistent.

[mrsmaintenance]

...
Of course we have libertarians defending them, even when it is evident that the greedy fuck business owners are violating a CONTRACT, the holy grail of libertarianism.

For the record, I'm a libertarian, and I'm not defending them precisely because there is a voluntary, legal, contract between the two parties.

It's good to know some libertarians are consistent.

[nonameisgood]

1) the contracts are essentially NOT NEGOTIABLE, but most merchants shop around for deals. Mrs./Dr. NN pays $30/month for the terminal lease (which can be waived if sufficient charges are processed), PLUS the greater of $0.25 or 1 to 3% of the charge amount. It is a cost of doing business. Also, you pay more for cards that don't read properly and cards that are not present (like phone orders.) They also pay a chargeback fee if the charge bounces (like a check) or if the charges don't process within a certain period after they are authorized.

2) there is no difference between "cash discount" and "credit card fee"; very few people take checks in retail around here. You agree to cash discounts because they sound like a better deal for you.

3) IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BREAK A CONTRACT, IT IS ONLY A BREACH OF CONTRACT. Please don't discuss the law unless you intend to try to understand it. Contracts are not valid if it required illegal conduct by either party, so you have to know FTC rules, too. I honestly have not read the 13 pages of 6 point type which was sent with the terminal... and we have never signed an agreement to abide by that text, so, technically no valid contract exists - statements like "if you don't agree with this contract, you must return the ..." do not create a contract.

Why would any one be arguing that people should be allowed to shop where they choose, but businesses should NOT be allowed to do business as they choose?
Mohammed at the Stop-n-Rob is trying to make a living, and it's not like you have to shop at that one store. Who cares if you or I have a few minutes of inconvenience, to go to the next store? You don't have the right to shop how you want, anywhere you want, anytime you want. We have the right to go to a business, decide if we like the place, its policies, and the products available for the prices they charge, then buy or move along.

[LittleRunningGag]

Technically, we also have the right to 'NARC' on the business owner for not following a contract we know that they have signed.

Question: Couldn't this be viewed as stealing from the credit companies? Since the business has signed a contract stating that they will accept credit for any amount, they could be held responsible for the potential earnings that the credit companies are losing because the business has violated the contract.

[nonameisgood]

Yes, you do. And when you do so, you are HELPING the coercive credit card companies (read: big businesses who benefit from government protection and consumer regulation, whilst loaning huge sums of money at high interest rates). So do whatever you like, help the little guy struggling to make it by buying $5 worth of stuff for $5, or tattle to the ultra-rich corporations.

And no, it is not stealing. The credit card companies don't have a right to all possible sales.

[zakabog]

Better the store (who has more money than me) pay the fee

You assume too much.

P.S. The store loses money on your small purchases (I think it's something like $3 they pay for each charge.) The only place I'll charge something small is a big business (any chain restaurant, home depot, supermarkets.) If I'm in a mom and pop place there's no way I'm using my debit card on a small purchase, I at least try to find something else I need or might need in the future.

[LittleRunningGag]

Yes, you do. And when you do so, you are HELPING the coercive credit card companies (read: big businesses who benefit from government protection and consumer regulation, whilst loaning huge sums of money at high interest rates).

Doing a quick Google, I was unable to find any support for your claim that credit card companies are supported by government.

As for coercive: I'm not sure how offering a service for a certain price is coercive. Nor do I understand how enforcing a freely signed contract is coercive.

And no, it is not stealing. The credit card companies don't have a right to all possible sales.

I didn't say all possible sales. I said potential sales that are eliminated because of policies that are contrary to the signed contract.

[nonameisgood]

Two years ago, the bankruptcy laws, which were originally written to keep the banks from making debtors destitute and taking homes and tools of ones trade, were revised to favor the credit card industry. Among other things - the Bush administration does much to favor large business and promote the status quo, and work against market competition in some industries.

The credit card industry is not operating in the interest of consumers, they operate in the interest of shareholders. Any very large corporation has far less interest in serving people than keeping control of their money-making enterprise. By doing things like ratting out the little shop owner, you are a shill for the industry.

And, as I said two posts ago, we do not have a contract with anyone which says that we cannot charge a fee or set a minimum charge amount (we take cards in the wife's business.) Very few people have signed such contracts - the credit processing companies sign you up, saying whatever they like to get the business, and there is frequently no real contract between the merchant and Mastercard, Visa or Amex (although, I think Amex may have had us actually sign and return an agreement.)

[LittleRunningGag]

Two years ago, the bankruptcy laws, which were originally written to keep the banks from making debtors destitute and taking homes and tools of ones trade, were revised to favor the credit card industry. Among other things - the Bush administration does much to favor large business and promote the status quo, and work against market competition in some industries.

I see. Well I'm not sure why debtors shouldn't be forced to meet their commitments. As for government corruption, the people should probably do something about that.

The credit card industry is not operating in the interest of consumers, they operate in the interest of shareholders. Any very large corporation has far less interest in serving people than keeping control of their money-making enterprise.

I'm sorry, what business practice is it that encourages "serving the people?"

By doing things like ratting out the little shop owner, you are a shill for the industry.

And, as I said two posts ago, we do not have a contract with anyone which says that we cannot charge a fee or set a minimum charge amount (we take cards in the wife's business.) Very few people have signed such contracts - the credit processing companies sign you up, saying whatever they like to get the business, and there is frequently no real contract between the merchant and Mastercard, Visa or Amex (although, I think Amex may have had us actually sign and return an agreement.)

If there is no contract, there is no problem. The business can do what it wants.

[mrsmaintenance]

I don't care if it's some mom and pop company or the fucking umbrella corporation. It's a violation and says so on their website. The consumer has a right not to have to spend more than the amount of a purchase. Especially if that consumer is just a working schmuck who needs to save every dime he can. To add a surcharge or force you to buy a bunch of crap you don't need to meet their arbitrary minimum is just wrong.

I take what noname says with a grain of salt anyway. He's the one that bitches about people who use coupons and whines that he's paying more than the people that use coupons but refuses to use them himself. Idiotic.

[DaveBuck]

I don't care if it's some mom and pop company or the fucking umbrella corporation. It's a violation and says so on their website.

That's all the argument you need in my book. If they committed to a contract and broke the contract, then you have the right to bust them on it. If they are loosing money with the credit cards, they should stop taking them (or limit them to gas purchases only).

The consumer has a right not to have to spend more than the amount of a purchase.

I don't use the word 'right' in this case. I think it is a smart business practice and common courtesy to not make people spend more than they wish. But, it's the sellers' or service providers' right to set their own prices and rules. It's their crap or skills they're peddling, not society's. Consumers don't have a right to set the rules. They've got the right to not buy. But they don't have the right to set store rules.

Think about it. Sellers have the right to have double coupon day or no double coupon day. They can require a certain amount of money spent before providing a discount. They can give price breaks to preferred customers. They can have a rule that they double their prices on every other Wednesday.

Consumers will choose to buy or not buy, that's their right.

[nonameisgood]

Consumers will choose to buy or not buy, that's their right.

That is the real crux of this whole thing.

Use your feet to tell them what you think.



And, Mrs M, if name calling is your bag, go ahead, but I suggest that you should do it elsewhere. We are here to discuss/debate issues and contemplate how to be better parents and better people.

[mrsmaintenance]

I didn't call you a name. I said your statements were idiotic. Go back and read the post.

[nonameisgood]

Since you insist on dredging it up again, what I said is that your use of coupons costs me money. If you can't fathom that, I'm not going to continue trying to explain.

Done.

[mrsmaintenance]

No prob. I'll think of you every time I report a business.


~Narc

[zakabog]

That's all the argument you need in my book. If they committed to a contract and broke the contract, then you have the right to bust them on it. If they are loosing money with the credit cards, they should stop taking them (or limit them to gas purchases only).

What if the contract said they have to keep a cross and a picture of the virgin mary above the register at all times? Would you report anyone for not doing that?

Especially if that consumer is just a working schmuck who needs to save every dime he can.

What if the business owner is just a working schmuck who needs to save every dime he can?

You come in, buy a $0.25 pack of gum on your credit card, and now the business owner has to pay $3 for you to buy a $0.25 item. Plus you're not the only one to do that, and it adds up. Lets say 20 people do that a month, that's $60 for them to keep a credit card machine which they need for people who are making larger purchases. Although the profit margin is so low generally that the large purchases rarely ever cover the costs of the credit card machine due to people like you. They can't get rid of the machine cause then the people with larger purchases are less likely to come in, and you won't come in cause you need to use your credit card on tiny purchases (what the hell are you buying that you can't live without that's so cheap?)

[mrsmaintenance]

I use a credit/debit card so the money comes directly out of my bank account. It's not like I'm "charging" packs of gum. And I rarely make a purchase for $0.50 or whatever. The dude at the gas station was giving me shit because I wanted to use my debit card to pay for about $2.75 worth of stuff. I was more put off by the attitude that smirking Habib gave me than the fact that he wouldn't accept my card.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to cut into Walmart's profits by doing just that. Or any other big box retailer for that matter.

[DaveBuck]

That's all the argument you need in my book. If they committed to a contract and broke the contract, then you have the right to bust them on it. If they are loosing money with the credit cards, they should stop taking them (or limit them to gas purchases only).

What if the contract said they have to keep a cross and a picture of the virgin mary above the register at all times? Would you report anyone for not doing that?

I'd only report someone if I thought they were breaking an important rule in a contract. w/r/t the cross, I'd not report. But, if someone else wants to, its their right.

Especially if that consumer is just a working schmuck who needs to save every dime he can.

What if the business owner is just a working schmuck who needs to save every dime he can?

You come in, buy a $0.25 pack of gum on your credit card, and now the business owner has to pay $3 for you to buy a $0.25 item. Plus you're not the only one to do that, and it adds up. Lets say 20 people do that a month, that's $60 for them to keep a credit card machine which they need for people who are making larger purchases. Although the profit margin is so low generally that the large purchases rarely ever cover the costs of the credit card machine due to people like you. They can't get rid of the machine cause then the people with larger purchases are less likely to come in, and you won't come in cause you need to use your credit card on tiny purchases (what the hell are you buying that you can't live without that's so cheap?)

fwiw, the owner shouldn't have agreed to the contract with the credit card company if it's bad for business. I'd support a place that could give me lower prices if it meant they only took cash. But, some places would lose money if they didn't take credit. The credit card companies are the only winners with this kind of contract I think.

[wet blanket]

the other night i was in a bar and a rabbi, a donkey, a one-armed dwarf walk in...wait, wrong night. anyway, i was settling the tab and i handed the bartender my bankcard, she asked "you want this as a debit?", so i asked her what's the difference "for the customer, nothing. for us, we have to pay a fee if it's a charge." So they don't pay for the fee for debit purchases.

Then i was thinking, she didn't ask "credit or debit" she just asked "debit", so i asked her if she did this on purpose and i was told "yeah, my manager said to just ask if it's a debit, that way if it is people will just say 'yes' and we won't have to pay the fee." sneaky whore, so i stiffed her the tip, trying to pull a fast one on me. plus, she wouldn't play any buck owens. too bad, she was the cutest one arm, jewish dwarf i ever done seen.

[mrsmaintenance]

Sometimes if you run your card as debit, you'll get charged an ATM fee. It can make a difference for the customer. Whether I run it as credit or debit depends upon how much I like the business. Megacorp (walgreens, CVS, etc)= credit, always. Places like Peking Chinese Restaurant (I just adore them there) I will run it as a debit to be nice.

[mrsmaintenance]

And noname - yes, it is ILLEGAL. Minnesota is the only state that it's technically legal, but it's still in violation of the merchant agreement and therefore wrong. Proof is here - this is California civil code just as an example:

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

[Office_Shredder]

What if the contract said they have to keep a cross and a picture of the virgin mary above the register at all times? Would you report anyone for not doing that?

Of course not. The purpose of a contract isn't for it to be followed, though a lot of people think it is. The purpose of a contract is to settle disputes in the case of disagreement. If nobody cares that a contract is being broken, then it really doesn't matter that a contract is being broken. In the case of the guy not hanging up a cross and picture of a virgin mary, I don't care, the owner doesn't care, so nobody really cares. If the c.c. company cared enough about it to check up on whether they're doing it, that's a different story