sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Last time I was in Europe physical credit card use was not very common,
> most people were paying with their phones, usually Google Pay,
> occasionally Apple Pay.

Are you sure about that?

That people pay with their phones does not mean they use Google Pay or
Apple Pay. We have pay-by-phone since long before Google Pay and Apple
Pay existed. Some merchants might *accept* Google Pay or Apple Pay if
the - probably foreign - customer wants to pay that way, but it's not
*required* to pay-by-phone.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <t3k936$60n$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> And managing and paying and keeping track of your Apple Card is a whole
> >>> lot easier than any other card.
> >>
> >> Which is not available outside of the US.
> >
> > yet.
>
> Maybe never. Particularly in the EU/UK.

Exactly! Absolutely no need for yet another unnecessary, redundant
payment mechanism.

OTOH, that probably won't stop Apple nor people who crave for 'new'
things.

On 4/18/2022 8:13 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | It's not just the consumers that don't want to use cash, the stores
> | don't want you to use it either. They have determined that the cost of
> | accepting cash exceeds the cost of electronic payments.
>
> I understand that you very much want to believe that.
> I'm not sure why. But you clearly have yourself convinced.
> I expect it varies quite a bit, depending on the business.

I have no dog in this fight. If businesses believed that not accepting
electronic payments was in their best financial interest then they would
be cash only, or would charge customers for electronic payments.

There's this myth, that's believed by some apparently, that accepting
electronic payments costs businesses money but that handling cash has no
cost at all, when in fact cash often has higher handling costs than the
fees charged by banks for electronic payments.

There's also a myth that cash customers are paying higher prices because
stores are building in the bank fees for credit and debit cars into
their prices. In fact, the businesses should be charging _less_ to
customers using electronic payments because they are subsidizing the
cash customers.

There's another issue as well. Some businesses that are cash-only are
doing so because they prefer no record of their transactions to enable
income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax avoidance. We all are negatively
impacted when this occurs. There's a good research study on this, see
<https://web.archive.org/web/20210823154222/https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/publication/259083/doc/slspublic/Morse%20Bankman%20Karlinsky%2020StanLPolyRev37.pdf>

Personally, I'd like a law like in the EU that caps fees on electronic
transactions. Right now, the U.S. banking system is charging higher fees
than their costs justify by setting the fees at levels based on a
businesses cost of accepting cash as well as the fact that businesses
realize that cash customers often spend less freely than customers
paying electronically. There's no chance of such a fee cap in the U.S.
given the amount of money that financial institutions contribute to the
campaigns of legislators.

The best that consumers can do is to play along and use credit cards
that give back some or all of the fees. There are credit cards that give
3% back on all mobile wallet transactions. There is one no-annual-fee
credit card that gives 3% back on all transactions whether EMV,
contactless, or mobile wallet (it's complicated to get this card, but
some people have gone through the process).

lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-04-18, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2022 11:32 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > All true, but I wasn't talking about cash, just about one kind of
> >> > electronic transaction versus another, credit(card) versus (in this case
> >> > direct) debit.
> >>
> >> Debit cards are about the worst way to pay for stuff but some people
> >> can't qualify for a credit card.
>
> Debit cards are great for those who want/need "cash back" & that is
> usually available at supermarkets checkout. I stopped the need when
> the hair cut place I go to accepted credit/debit cards.
>
> >
> > Sigh! This was about US creditcard versus EU/NL direct debit. EU/NL
> > direct debit and debit cards are quite different from that/those in the
> > US.
> >
> > Back to *your* point, in EU/NL, most card transactions are via debit
> > cards, not credit cards, as credit cards offer little advantage for
> > either party and carry more risks.
>
> Credit cards do offer a huge advantage when buying a big ticket item
> & you don't want to carry a few thousands of dollars.

In EU/NL, you don't need a credit card for such purchases and often
cannot use a credit card (because the merchant doesn't want to pay the
extra fees). I think I've never used a credit card for purchases in NL,
and only the odd one in other EU countries. As to "a big ticket item",
is a house good enough? :-)

> Or when one
> doesn't have the cash available. Considering the national credit
> card debt in the USA, many people have gone the credit card payment
> way.

As others have mentioned, having a debt on a credit card is not a
particularly smart thing to do. OTOH, in NL/EU we also have a lot of
people who do similar non-smart things. :-)

> Another advantage of credit card payments is that some/many cc isuers
> have an implied(?) warranty extension & can stop payment if you felt
> that you got ripped off.

Yes, we have those too, but because the transaction fees are low -
compared to the US -, so are the benefits/protections.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Debit cards in the US have fees.
> |
> | I rest my case! :-)
> |
>
> No fees at all for anyone?

Only - very small - transaction fees for the merchant, not for the
customer. (There are 'of course' fees to have a bank account and a
fee for having the debit card (which is normally included in the basic
fee).)

> That makes sense, since it
> saves work for both businesses and banks. In the US it
> started out as 65 cents charged to the customer. No one
> used the cards. So they switched to a charge against
> the merchant. Everyone now uses the cards, even to buy
> coffee or soda. The banks are making a fortune for doing
> almost nothing. They like it so much that they made ATMs
> more expensive and checks very expensive. (I don't pay
> to write a check, but I'm now paying a signfiant fee to
> have checks printed.)

ATM withdrawals are free with a debit card.

And - as has been mentioned many times - here checks are a thing of a
distant past.

> Merchants don't dare refuse debit cards. Customers
> can't be bothered to understand how idiotic it all is, so long
> as they're not explicitly paying.
>
> This is what AJL proudly refers to as "capitalism". But it's
> not that. It's simply barbaric king-of-the-hill applied to
> business. The American way.

On 4/19/2022 4:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
> | I do carry a couple of hundred bucks (gasp) cash for emergencies so I
> | suppose I could shop at your establishment but I really have no need for
> | buggy whips... ;)
>
> :) As I've been saying, much of this is motivated by an
> irrational belief that cash is outdated and that new is better
> by definition. I once had a friend who was an MD. He liked
> to scorn others by saying, "Ah, that's analog!" He understood
> nothing of computers, and this was in the 80s, but he did
> understand that the popular fad was to be wowed by new
> gizmos. And he understood that old gizmos were referred to
> as analog -- and that was bad.
>
> I'm repeatedly reminded of an ancient Sears catalog reprint
> I once saw. They carried "electric vests", full of wires. As
> everyone knew, electricity was new and magical. So naturally
> an electric vest could cure all ills. They probably don't sell them
> anymore, but you might be able to get an NFT cartoon GIF of
> such a vest... And I'm sure you can charge it, or even buy it
> with crypto. Tres modern.

You can still buy electric vests,
<https://www.sportsmansguide.com/product/index/rocky-heat-vest?a=370579>.

In article <t3mg6a$r16$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> > | It's not just the consumers that don't want to use cash, the stores
> > | don't want you to use it either. They have determined that the cost of
> > | accepting cash exceeds the cost of electronic payments.
> >
> > I understand that you very much want to believe that.
> > I'm not sure why. But you clearly have yourself convinced.
> > I expect it varies quite a bit, depending on the business.
>
> I have no dog in this fight.

based on your posts, yes you do.

> If businesses believed that not accepting
> electronic payments was in their best financial interest then they would
> be cash only, or would charge customers for electronic payments.

some merchants do exactly that, either cash only or add fees for using
credit cards.

> There's this myth, that's believed by some apparently, that accepting
> electronic payments costs businesses money but that handling cash has no
> cost at all, when in fact cash often has higher handling costs than the
> fees charged by banks for electronic payments.

yet merchants offer discounts for using cash.

a bit of a disconnect there.

unlike credit cards, cash handling costs are not a percentage of the
total. the more cash sales that occur, the less the impact it has.

> There's also a myth that cash customers are paying higher prices because
> stores are building in the bank fees for credit and debit cars into
> their prices.

that is not a myth.

> In fact, the businesses should be charging _less_ to
> customers using electronic payments because they are subsidizing the
> cash customers.

they can't do that because the transaction fees take a cut out of the
revenue.

that's why some merchants, such as utilities, apartment rentals and tax
payments, *add* a 'convenience fee' in addition to the amount owed, so
that the transaction fees are covered and they receive the amount owed
in full.

> There's another issue as well. Some businesses that are cash-only are
> doing so because they prefer no record of their transactions to enable
> income tax, sales tax, and payroll tax avoidance.

very few.

> Personally, I'd like a law like in the EU that caps fees on electronic
> transactions.

that would end credit card rewards programs, as it did with debit cards.

>
> The best that consumers can do is to play along and use credit cards
> that give back some or all of the fees. There are credit cards that give
> 3% back on all mobile wallet transactions.

the card you are referring to has an annual fee of $400 per year.

there are also cards that offer more than 3% for mobile wallet
transactions, some without a fee.

> There is one no-annual-fee
> credit card that gives 3% back on all transactions whether EMV,
> contactless, or mobile wallet (it's complicated to get this card, but
> some people have gone through the process).

actually, there are a few 3% no-fee cards.

however, it's either a promotional rate that will end, or the card has
various other limitations, such as being issued by a credit union that
has a restricted membership and not available to everyone, which is
probably the one you're thinking of. calling it 'complicated' is
misleading when most people cannot qualify.

In article <t3mmhb.934.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >>> And managing and paying and keeping track of your Apple Card is a whole
> > >>> lot easier than any other card.
> > >>
> > >> Which is not available outside of the US.
> > >
> > > yet.
> >
> > Maybe never. Particularly in the EU/UK.
>
> Exactly! Absolutely no need for yet another unnecessary, redundant
> payment mechanism.

apple card is not a new mechanism. it's just a credit card with a
partner bank.

> OTOH, that probably won't stop Apple nor people who crave for 'new'
> things.

or more accurately, people who find that it offers something useful or
beneficial versus other options.

In article <t3mobg.7f0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> ATM withdrawals are free with a debit card.

not always. it depends on which card and which atm.

most atms assess a fee, although many banks will refund it. some banks
have monthly limits on how many times they'll credit the fee, and
beyond that, the customer pays. others only credit it if it's on one of
the supported networks. use an out of network atm and the customer
pays.

> And - as has been mentioned many times - here checks are a thing of a
> distant past.

checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
much alive.

On 4/19/2022 7:52 AM, nospam wrote:

> checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
> much alive.

And also now very easy to cash with a phone...

On 4/19/2022 4:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

>> I do carry a couple of hundred bucks (gasp) cash for emergencies so
>> I suppose I could shop at your establishment but I really have no
>> need for buggy whips... ;)

> :) As I've been saying, much of this is motivated by an irrational
> belief that cash is outdated and that new is better by definition.

That's why I mentioned buggy whips. It's (almost?) as outdated as paper
money.

> I'm repeatedly reminded of an ancient Sears catalog reprint I once
> saw.

Loved those catalogs. Made good use of them in my grandfather's outhouse.

> They carried "electric vests", full of wires. As everyone knew,
> electricity was new and magical. So naturally an electric vest could
> cure all ills. They probably don't sell them anymore,

I have something similar. An electric belt that fits around my waist and
presses against my lower back. It both heats and vibrates in various
degrees. Does wonders for my bad back...

> but you might be able to get an NFT cartoon GIF of such a vest... And
> I'm sure you can charge it, or even buy it with crypto. Tres modern.

I got my vest at (where else?) Amazon. Delivered to my front door. Of
course it was paid for with my Amex. Does Amazon even take cash??

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3mobg.7f0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > ATM withdrawals are free with a debit card.
>
> not always. it depends on which card and which atm.

Sigh! Try to keep up will, you!? I was talking about EU/NL.

Even if you can't be bothered to follow (or rewind) the thread, at
least try to read - and comprehend - the post you're responding to.

Clue-by-four: Read what you snip.

> most atms assess a fee, although many banks will refund it. some banks
> have monthly limits on how many times they'll credit the fee, and
> beyond that, the customer pays. others only credit it if it's on one of
> the supported networks. use an out of network atm and the customer
> pays.
>
> > And - as has been mentioned many times - here checks are a thing of a
> > distant past.
>
> checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
> much alive.

Clue-by-four: *"here"*

On 4/19/2022 6:34 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Last time I was in Europe physical credit card use was not very common,
>> most people were paying with their phones, usually Google Pay,
>> occasionally Apple Pay.
>
> Are you sure about that?

Yes about most people paying with their phones, no about whether it was
usually Google Pay or Apple Pay.

This was in Italy, in Milan and the Puglia region, in 2019.

> That people pay with their phones does not mean they use Google Pay or
> Apple Pay. We have pay-by-phone since long before Google Pay and Apple
> Pay existed. Some merchants might *accept* Google Pay or Apple Pay if
> the - probably foreign - customer wants to pay that way, but it's not
> *required* to pay-by-phone.

Yes, that's true. For foreign tourists it was probably all Apple Pay,
Google Pay, or Samsung Pay, but for locals it could be debiting from
their bank account.

In restaurants, they would bring the handheld terminal to the table and
expected you to pay with your phone or credit card. I don't know what
they did if you wanted to pay cash, I never saw that happen (and we were
not in tourist type restaurants); I suppose that they would take the
cash and bring you change. There was one classic old hotel in Copertino
that we stayed at where I had to use a physical credit card because
their payment terminal didn't have NFC
<http://www.hotelnuovagrottella.it/>,

Of course we weren't doing shopping in stores, other than the occasional
supermarket, we were going to hotels, restaurants, and tourist
attractions, so maybe cash is more widely used elsewhere. I recall going
to the Duomo in Milan and wanting to use the restrooms. They were not
free. We had to get change to pay, but after going through that trouble
when we got through the line, I saw that you could pay with NFC.

On 4/19/2022 7:04 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Exactly! Absolutely no need for yet another unnecessary, redundant
> payment mechanism.
>
> OTOH, that probably won't stop Apple nor people who crave for 'new'
> things.

One issue with the Apple Card in Europe is that, based on my limited
experience, contactless credit cards are widely used but the Apple Card
issued by Goldman Sachs doesn't support contactless payment. The thought
is that you should be paying with your iPhone, not with the physical
card, but there could be places where Apple Pay is not accepted but NFC
contactless credit cards are accepted. Of course nothing would stop some
other bank from issuing an Apple Card with contactless capability.

Of course with the EU's 0.5% limit on fees, there's no way that they'd
give much of a cut, if any, to Apple.

On 4/19/2022 7:35 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>>
>> | > Debit cards in the US have fees.
>> |
>> | I rest my case! :-)
>> |
>>
>> No fees at all for anyone?
>
> Only - very small - transaction fees for the merchant, not for the
> customer. (There are 'of course' fees to have a bank account and a
> fee for having the debit card (which is normally included in the basic
> fee).)

At least in the U.S., most banks have accounts without any fees, with
restrictions.

Some no-fee accounts don't allow you to do transactions involving a bank
teller, you can only make cash and check deposits and withdrawals at
ATMs. Some require recurring automatic deposits in order to waive fees.

Where you end up paying fees is if you use an ATM that isn't your own
bank's ATM. Credit unions are usually a better option when it comes to
ATMs since they have reciprocal agreements with other credit unions for
free ATM use, plus many credit unions will reimburse a limited number of
out-of-network ATM fees per month. Many large stores, like supermarkets,
will let you get a limited amount cash back when you pay with a debit
card and there's no fee to do that.

In the U.S., the best debit card is from Charles Schwab Bank, the Schwab
Bank High Yield Investor Checking® Account.
• No foreign transaction fees (not even the 1% charged by Visa or
Mastercard)
• Rebate of both domestic and foreign ATM fees
• No monthly fees and no minimum account balance on the associated
checking account.

There are some other banks with similar debit cards except that they
require a high minimum balance to avoid monthly fees.

In article <t3mjis$jdg$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>
> > checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
> > much alive.
>
> And also now very easy to cash with a phone...

that too, although it's only to deposit it.

i haven't seen a phone with a cash dispenser yet.

In article <t3mqjk.64c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > ATM withdrawals are free with a debit card.
> >
> > not always. it depends on which card and which atm.
>
> Sigh! Try to keep up will, you!? I was talking about EU/NL.

you might have been, however, the above comment was from mayayana, who
was *not* referring to eu/nl and likely has never even been there.

> Even if you can't be bothered to follow (or rewind) the thread, at
> least try to read - and comprehend - the post you're responding to.

i always do.

as usual, you are resorting to insults rather than discuss the facts.

> Clue-by-four: Read what you snip.

take your own advice.

> > most atms assess a fee, although many banks will refund it. some banks
> > have monthly limits on how many times they'll credit the fee, and
> > beyond that, the customer pays. others only credit it if it's on one of
> > the supported networks. use an out of network atm and the customer
> > pays.

at least you agree that is correct.

> > > And - as has been mentioned many times - here checks are a thing of a
> > > distant past.
> >
> > checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
> > much alive.
>
> Clue-by-four: *"here"*

'here' for mayayana is not the same as for you.

In article <t3mlsp$9ab$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> One issue with the Apple Card in Europe is that, based on my limited
> experience, contactless credit cards are widely used but the Apple Card
> issued by Goldman Sachs doesn't support contactless payment.

yes it does, and is the normal way the card is used.

> The thought
> is that you should be paying with your iPhone, not with the physical
> card,

exactly. which means that it's contactless.

the physical card is optional, and only needed for merchants that do
not accept contactless, which is rare, especially in europe, where
contactless has been an option for quite some time.

> but there could be places where Apple Pay is not accepted but NFC
> contactless credit cards are accepted.

there 'could' be, but the reality is that there are not.

apple pay uses industry standard emv. there is nothing unique or
apple-proprietary about it.

> Of course nothing would stop some
> other bank from issuing an Apple Card with contactless capability.

other than that being illegal and resulting in lawsuits, you mean?

> Of course with the EU's 0.5% limit on fees, there's no way that they'd
> give much of a cut, if any, to Apple.

irrelevant.

In article <t3mnb8$lkm$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> At least in the U.S., most banks have accounts without any fees, with
> restrictions.

and many without any restrictions.

> Some no-fee accounts don't allow you to do transactions involving a bank
> teller, you can only make cash and check deposits and withdrawals at
> ATMs. Some require recurring automatic deposits in order to waive fees.

relatively few do that.

> Where you end up paying fees is if you use an ATM that isn't your own
> bank's ATM. Credit unions are usually a better option when it comes to
> ATMs since they have reciprocal agreements with other credit unions for
> free ATM use, plus many credit unions will reimburse a limited number of
> out-of-network ATM fees per month.

many banks will refund atm fees, including the one you name below.

also, credit unions often require using atms on their network,
otherwise they won't refund anything, and are usually limited in how
many per month.

> In the U.S., the best debit card is from Charles Schwab Bank, the Schwab
> Bank High Yield Investor Checking® Account.

maybe it's best for you, but it's not best for everyone.

> There are some other banks with similar debit cards except that they
> require a high minimum balance to avoid monthly fees.

there are some other banks that don't have such requirements.

as usual, you're being highly misleading.

Am 18.04.22 um 03:49 schrieb AJL:
> On 4/17/2022 5:19 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>
>> restaurants that provide take-out are forced to deal with delivery
>> apps that take as much as 30% of their income. But they feel they
>> have no choice. These are all unnecessary middleman operations.
>
> That's the beauty of our (US) capitalistic system. Either compete or go
> out of business. Dunno if you remember phone prices before they broke up
> Ma Bell. Or the old airline prices. Or the taxi prices when they were
> protected. Competition is GOOD for the consumer...

Not in this darwinistic simplicity. The Western Societies - even the
Americans - are long beyond such primitive and undifferentiated views.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| As others have mentioned, having a debt on a credit card is not a
| particularly smart thing to do. OTOH, in NL/EU we also have a lot of
| people who do similar non-smart things. :-)
|

Not if you can help it. Some people are not so lucky.
In the US we have a whole class of cards, pushed by
Home Depot, dentists, and others. They give you 6 months
with no interest, then it jumps to about 30%. It's basically
loansharking, specially designed to exploit poor people who
have no choice but to spend money on things like dental
work. No one stops the corporate loansharks. We're pretty
much a plutocracy these days.

I use a credit card to buy materials for my contracting
business. It evens out the cash flow. I can pay after I've
been paid. When I was young I didn't have a card and
didn't have money to spare. I'd have to get a check on the
first day of a jub and run to their bank, so I could buy the
materials to work.

Poverty is also a major argument for not banning cash.
In many cases poor people have nothing else. They pay
a scammer to cash their paycheck, because they don't
have a bank account. They pay utilities in person, by cash,
usually just in time. The discussion we're having only applies
to people who are fortunate enough that they never worry
about running out of money.

The state of Massachusetts has had a law since the 70s for
just that reason: Cashless hurts the poor. More recently,
several other states and cities have passed or are passing
similar bills. And similar bills are pending in the US Congress.

In article <t3msqa$1pd$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> The state of Massachusetts has had a law since the 70s for
> just that reason: Cashless hurts the poor. More recently,
> several other states and cities have passed or are passing
> similar bills. And similar bills are pending in the US Congress.

don't tell the boston red sox.

<https://www.pymnts.com/news/payment-methods/2022/boston-red-sox-go-cash
less/>
Your cash is no good at Fenway Park.

Baseball fans who attend the home opener at the iconic ballpark as
the Boston Red Sox take on the Minnesota Twins Friday (April 15)
better have a credit or debit card  or a smartphone in their pocket.

For the first time in its 110-year history, the team will not accept
cash for food, drink and souvenirs, the team announced.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3mqjk.64c.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > ATM withdrawals are free with a debit card.
> > >
> > > not always. it depends on which card and which atm.
> >
> > Sigh! Try to keep up will, you!? I was talking about EU/NL.
>
> you might have been, however, the above comment was from mayayana, who
> was *not* referring to eu/nl

Yes, he *was* referring to our (EU/NL) situation, which is blatantly
clear from his "No fees at all for anyone?", but apparently you didn't
read/get that before you snipped it. (Note the strange symbol at the end
of "No fees at all for anyone". Apparently it signifies that the
preceding bit is a question, i.e. in this case a question directed at
me.)

> and likely has never even been there.
>
> > Even if you can't be bothered to follow (or rewind) the thread, at
> > least try to read - and comprehend - the post you're responding to.
>
> i always do.

You hardly ever do and in this case you clearly did not.

> as usual, you are resorting to insults rather than discuss the facts.

There were no insults, just facts and factual observations. If you
can't do the time ...

> > Clue-by-four: Read what you snip.
>
> take your own advice.

Try to make some sense, will you!? I did read, did comprehend and did
not snip. No advice needed.

> > > most atms assess a fee, although many banks will refund it. some banks
> > > have monthly limits on how many times they'll credit the fee, and
> > > beyond that, the customer pays. others only credit it if it's on one of
> > > the supported networks. use an out of network atm and the customer
> > > pays.
>
> at least you agree that is correct.

I do no such thing. I 'agree' that's it's irrelevant to the discussion
at hand, which was about EU/NL ATMs. not US ones.

> > > > And - as has been mentioned many times - here checks are a thing of a
> > > > distant past.
> > >
> > > checks are less common than they once were, but they are still very
> > > much alive.
> >
> > Clue-by-four: *"here"*
>
> 'here' for mayayana is not the same as for you.

Are you *really* *that* dense!? *I* - not Mayayana - said "here", so I
was talking about EU/NL and anything - read ANYTHING - US-related was/is
hence IRRELEVANT.

Got the "IRRELEVANT" bit!? Might want to look up what that concept
means.

HTH. HAND. EOD. NI.

On 4/19/2022 7:33 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> As others have mentioned, having a debt on a credit card is not a
> particularly smart thing to do. OTOH, in NL/EU we also have a lot of
> people who do similar non-smart things. :-)

The credit cards with the best cash rebates are marketed to those with
the best credit ratings who are much less likely to carry a balance.
Those high cash-back rewards are only possible because of the people
paying usurious interest rates.

What's needed is congressional action to regulate the banking industry
to limit interest rates. But that's unlikely to happen.

On 4/18/2022 12:17 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2022 11:32 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> All true, but I wasn't talking about cash, just about one kind of
>>> electronic transaction versus another, credit(card) versus (in this case
>>> direct) debit.
>>
>> Debit cards are about the worst way to pay for stuff but some people
>> can't qualify for a credit card.
>
> Sigh! This was about US creditcard versus EU/NL direct debit. EU/NL
> direct debit and debit cards are quite different from that/those in the
> US.
>
> Back to *your* point, in EU/NL, most card transactions are via debit
> cards, not credit cards, as credit cards offer little advantage for
> either party and carry more risks.

The Google Pay and Apple Pay web pages list the banks and cards that are
supported by each payment method.

Netherlands, Google Pay support:
<https://support.google.com/pay/answer/10173695>
• ABN AMRO Bank N.V.: Mastercard Debit cards
• Adyen: Visa All cards
• Bitpanda: Visa Debit
• Bunq: Mastercard All cards
• Curve OS Ltd: Mastercard Debit
• iCard: Visa Debit, Credit and Prepaid
• Monese: Mastercard All cards
• N26: Mastercard All cards
• OpenBank: Mastercard All cards
• PayrNet: Mastercard Prepaid
• Paysafe Financial Services Limited: Mastercard Prepaid
• Revolut: Mastercard and Visa All cards
• Swan: Mastercard Debit
• Viva Wallet: Mastercard Consumer Debit and Small Business Debit
• Wise: All cards
• ZEN.COM: Mastercard cards

Netherlands, Apple Pay Support
<https://www.apple.com/nl/apple-pay/banks/nl/en-nl.html>

Maestro, Mastercard, Visa and American Express cards issued by:
• ABN AMRO (Maestro cards)
• American Express
• Bunq
• ING
• Knab Bank
• Monese
• N26
• Openbank
• Rabobank (Maestro cards)
• Revolut

But just because you can add those Netherlands-based cards into Google
Pay or Apple Pay doesn't mean you can use Google Pay or Apple Pay at any
merchant that takes Google Pay or Apple Pay. The underlying payment
method matters and you can't use Apple Pay or Google Pay if the merchant
doesn't support the underlying payment method. The biggest example in
the U.S. is the Costco chain of warehouse stores which takes Visa but
not Mastercard, credit cards, but takes all U.S. debit cards. I suspect
that it's the same in the Netherlands.