"AJL" <noemail@none.com>

| Yup. And since the prices are the same for all, cash or charge, phone or
| CC (in my area anyway), I again want to thank all cash paying customers
| out there for keeping merchant prices down...
|

That's a creative logic. You drive up the cost by using
CCs and believe cash payers are suckers. I'm very happy to
pay cash. It's easier, more private, and cuts out the
middleman. I use a credit card for work materials, to help
with cash flow and recordkeeping. Fo virtually everything
else I use cash.

It used to be that there were laws backed by CC banks
against giving discounts for cash. I sometimes now see
gas stations that provide a discount, so maybe those laws
have been found invalid. When I looked it up I found
that it's OK as long as it's advertised as a cash discount and
not a credit card surcharge.

There are some cases now where it's difficullt or impossible
to pay cash, even though some places ban not taking cash.
I'm not sure one could realistically hope to buy concert or
sports tickets without a CC, for example. Fortunately for me,
I never go to either type of event. I also rarely eat in
restaurants. The food is not as good as home cooked and
I'm too old now to go to all that trouble just so I can be
out on the town to make eyes at women.

If you're getting $1,000
year back at restaurants then you're spending... what...
$40K? To eat fake chicken made from chicken goo washed
off the bones with high-powered hoses, and shrimp from
farms in Thailand that are probably polluted. Restaurants
don't exist to feed you. They exist to make money. I worked
in a number of restaurants when I was young, from McDonalds
to high end. It's always the same. Efficiency. It's a business.
There was one place where I had to soak yesterday's brown
lettuce in a chemical bath to make it look fresh, so it could
go back into the salad bar. I once worked at the most respected
Mexican restaurant in town. Each evening the boss would
have a meeting to tell the waitresses which dishes to recommend.
"We've got 3 of the steak dish from Tuesday and 4 of the fish
from yesterday, so push those first."

Those same restaurant owners are at CostCo, stocking up on
bulk food, the likes of which I wouldn't touch at any price. But
you're saving a couple of bucks after paying $100 + tip for
$15 worth of food. Clever guy. :)

On 4/17/2022 9:40 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com>
>
> | Yup. And since the prices are the same for all, cash or charge, phone or
> | CC (in my area anyway), I again want to thank all cash paying customers
> | out there for keeping merchant prices down...
> |
>
> That's a creative logic. You drive up the cost by using
> CCs and believe cash payers are suckers.I'm very happy to
> pay cash.

Sucker? Nope. I was thanking you. If you (and other cash payers) used
CCs the merchant prices would have to be be still higher for all of us.

> It's easier,

Disagree. Waving my CC at a machine is easier than the cash/change
hassle IMO.

> more private,

Agree. Amex knows my entire life. But my paranoia is at a minimum these
days...

> There are some cases now where it's difficullt or impossible
> to pay cash, even though some places ban not taking cash.

All the places I frequent still take cash. But I still use the CC to buy
even a dollar item. Much easier to wave it at the machine than to have
the hassle of messing with change.

> If you're getting $1,000
> year back at restaurants then you're spending... what...
> $40K?

Nope. That's for ALL my purchases. I even buy my license plates with
Amex, no extra fee in my state.

> [if] you're saving a couple of bucks after paying $100 + tip for
> $15 worth of food. Clever guy. :)

I enjoy eating out. YMMV...

In article <t3hftl$os1$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> It used to be that there were laws backed by CC banks
> against giving discounts for cash. I sometimes now see
> gas stations that provide a discount, so maybe those laws
> have been found invalid. When I looked it up I found
> that it's OK as long as it's advertised as a cash discount and
> not a credit card surcharge.

the law has long been that surcharges are forbidden while discounts are
legal. blame the lawyers.

there are a few exceptions where surcharges are allowed, assuming
they're fully disclosed prior to the transaction, often listed as a
'convenience fee', such as paying utility bills or taxes.

some credit cards offer rewards that are greater than the convenience
fee, which means there's still a benefit versus paying by other
methods.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> | take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> | them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> | their payment processor.
> |
> | It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> | transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> | cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> | higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.
>
> It makes sense. These things are just middleman gimmicks.
> Apple and Google are not banks. The banks issuing credit cards
> give them a kickback for sending the customer through them.
> The customer never pays overtly.

Apart from all the interest charges.

> So it's the merchant who
> gets nailed. That's also why many restaurants try to avoid
> taking Amex. There fees are (or at least were) higher.
>
> Young people living through their phones don't realize all
> this. They think tech has just magically simplified money.

It has. Traditional banking is woefully archaic.

In article <t3hl26$uni$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > The customer never pays overtly.
>
> Apart from all the interest charges.

pay in full and there are no interest charges.

On 4/17/2022 10:03 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 9:40 AM, Mayayana wrote:

>> You drive up the cost by using CCs and believe cash payers are
>> suckers.I'm very happy to pay cash.
>
> Sucker? Nope. I was thanking you. If you (and other cash payers) used
> CCs the merchant prices would have to be be still higher for all of
> us.
>
>> It's easier,
>
> Disagree. Waving my CC at a machine is easier than the cash/change
> hassle IMO.

And (speak of the devil) I just now got an email bill from my car
insurer. It took 5 taps on my phone to pay it (CC already on file).
That's not just easy, it's easy peasy... ;)

On 4/17/2022 11:29 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <t3hl26$uni$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The customer never pays overtly.
>>
>> Apart from all the interest charges.
>
> pay in full and there are no interest charges.

Yup. And the cashback advantage is reduced by carrying a balance. Full
disclosure: Part of my retirement income comes from an Amex investment
so if the rest of you would keep a hefty balance it would be much
appreciated...

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| Yup. And the cashback advantage is reduced by carrying a balance. Full
| disclosure: Part of my retirement income comes from an Amex investment
| so if the rest of you would keep a hefty balance it would be much
| appreciated...
|

Sorry. I've never had an Amex card, precisely because
of the excessive fees. Many years ago I was out to dinner
with a friend. She insisted on paying and gave them her
Amex card. She explained that they'd be back to say it didn't
go through. Sure enough. A bit of theater ensued. Finally they
took it. They lied about it not going through to try to avoid
the extra fee. Yet they didn't refuse Amex outright. Strange.

It's good that you own their stock. Maybe I should buy
some of that. Then I could profit from all those credit
card users.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 10:03 AM, AJL wrote:
> > On 4/17/2022 9:40 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>
> >> You drive up the cost by using CCs and believe cash payers are
> >> suckers.I'm very happy to pay cash.
> >
> > Sucker? Nope. I was thanking you. If you (and other cash payers) used
> > CCs the merchant prices would have to be be still higher for all of
> > us.
> >
> >> It's easier,
> >
> > Disagree. Waving my CC at a machine is easier than the cash/change
> > hassle IMO.
>
> And (speak of the devil) I just now got an email bill from my car
> insurer. It took 5 taps on my phone to pay it (CC already on file).
> That's not just easy, it's easy peasy... ;)

No less than 5 taps! How quaint! We just use - yes, very, very safe,
thank you very much - direct debit, so I don't have to do *anything*! :-)

For Europeans - well at least for us Dutchies - it's always quite
funny to see Americans 'brag' about how sophisticated their financial
systems are.

On 4/17/2022 11:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

> I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
> fees.

If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one person
(you) will make much difference. If you mean card fees, there's no cost
to me for using my particular Amex card. There are annual fees for the
fancier cards though.

> Many years ago I was out to dinner with a friend. She insisted on
> paying and gave them her Amex card. She explained that they'd be back
> to say it didn't go through. Sure enough. A bit of theater ensued.
> Finally they took it. They lied about it not going through to try to
> avoid the extra fee. Yet they didn't refuse Amex outright. Strange.

Yup. Seems odd that they would piss off a customer to get out of a few
percent CC fee.

I had a similar thing happen at a restaurant that had the pay boxes on
the table. The box refused my Amex card. I ate there often and that was
the first problem. So I paid with my Visa card. On my next visit the
Amex card worked again. So sometimes stuff just happens...

On 4/17/2022 12:17 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> And (speak of the devil) I just now got an email bill from my car
>> insurer. It took 5 taps on my phone to pay it (CC already on file).
>> That's not just easy, it's easy peasy... ;)
>
> No less than 5 taps! How quaint! We just use - yes, very, very safe,
> thank you very much - direct debit, so I don't have to do *anything*! :-)

I could do that but there's no cashback with direct debit.

> For Europeans - well at least for us Dutchies - it's always quite
> funny to see Americans 'brag' about how sophisticated their financial
> systems are.

Yup. Getting back a free $1000 bucks CC cashback a year is pretty
unsophisticated alright...

In article <t3hp5q$t1m$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> > I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
> > fees.
>
> If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one person
> (you) will make much difference. If you mean card fees, there's no cost
> to me for using my particular Amex card. There are annual fees for the
> fancier cards though.

those fancier cards offer numerous benefits that for many people are
more valuable than the annual fee.

On 4/17/2022 12:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <t3hp5q$t1m$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
>>> fees.
>>
>> If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one
>> person (you) will make much difference. If you mean card fees,
>> there's no cost to me for using my particular Amex card. There are
>> annual fees for the fancier cards though.
>
> those fancier cards offer numerous benefits that for many people are
> more valuable than the annual fee.

Agreed. One should always choose the card best for one's personal uses.
Although I think some may choose an expensive Amex card just to show off
when shopping...

In article <t3hq47$4f7$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >>> I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
> >>> fees.
> >>
> >> If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one
> >> person (you) will make much difference. If you mean card fees,
> >> there's no cost to me for using my particular Amex card. There are
> >> annual fees for the fancier cards though.
> >
> > those fancier cards offer numerous benefits that for many people are
> > more valuable than the annual fee.
>
> Agreed. One should always choose the card best for one's personal uses.

absolutely. sometimes an annual fee is worth it and sometimes it's not.

> Although I think some may choose an expensive Amex card just to show off
> when shopping...

that used to be the case before apple/google pay.

now it's wave the phone or watch and nobody knows what card it is.

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
| > fees.
| | If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one person
| (you) will make much difference.

That's not the point. It's the principle. Why use a card
with limited support that charges more than the other
cards? It's the approach of a citizen vs consumer. The
citizen tries to act responsibly for all. The consumer only
cares about personal gratification.

On 4/17/2022 1:33 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
> | > I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
> |
>> fees. | | If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott
> of one person | (you) will make much difference.

> That's not the point. It's the principle. Why use a card with limited
> support

Amex has full support in my area. If not in your area then that's a
valid reason to not use it.

> that charges more than the other cards?

Doesn't charge ME any more than other cards.

> It's the approach of a citizen vs consumer.

Aren't they one and the same?

> The consumer only cares about personal gratification.

That's what capitalism is. The consumer tries to get the goods as
cheaply as possible including CC cashbacks. If the stores could ditch
Amex because it is too expensive they would, but most make more money
keeping it since many Amex customers would leave. If many stores DID
ditch Amex, Amex would have to reduce the percentage. And thus we have
the current balanced Amex percentage price. Capitalism at its best. And
better yet, those who disagree with the system can use cash, though they
are still helping pay for us CC users. Sorry... ;)

On 4/17/2022 11:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
> | Yup. And the cashback advantage is reduced by carrying a balance. Full
> | disclosure: Part of my retirement income comes from an Amex investment
> | so if the rest of you would keep a hefty balance it would be much
> | appreciated...
> |
>
> Sorry. I've never had an Amex card, precisely because
> of the excessive fees. Many years ago I was out to dinner
> with a friend. She insisted on paying and gave them her
> Amex card. She explained that they'd be back to say it didn't
> go through. Sure enough. A bit of theater ensued. Finally they
> took it. They lied about it not going through to try to avoid
> the extra fee. Yet they didn't refuse Amex outright. Strange.

The restaurant hoped that she'd pay with a Visa or Mastercard. Back when
I had an Amex card (Costco Amex), some places would politely ask if I
would mind using a Visa or Mastercard. But once they also asked me not
to use the Citibank Costco Visa.

It's also a mistake to believe that accepting cash has no overhead
costs. You have employee theft, counterfeit bills, armored car fees,
higher personnel costs, and bank fees.

On 4/17/2022 12:34 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 12:26 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <t3hp5q$t1m$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I've never had an Amex card, precisely because of the excessive
>>>> fees.
>>>
>>> If you mean the fees to the store then I doubt a boycott of one
>>> person (you) will make much difference. If you mean card fees,
>>> there's no cost to me for using my particular Amex card. There are
>>> annual fees for the fancier cards though.
>>
>> those fancier cards offer numerous benefits that for many people are
>> more valuable than the annual fee.
>
> Agreed. One should always choose the card best for one's personal uses.
> Although I think some may choose an expensive Amex card just to show off
> when shopping...

Which impresses no one!

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| It's also a mistake to believe that accepting cash has no overhead
| costs. You have employee theft, counterfeit bills, armored car fees,
| higher personnel costs, and bank fees.

I suspect that rarely matters. There are some businesses that
want to go cashless. Some NYC sandwich shops, for example.
But those are probably mostly businesses with low-paid help
that want to operate close to automated. The average cash
business maybe sends a clerk to the bank once a day. Not a
big deal. Counterfeit bills are rare and usually easy to spot. And
most businesses have to accept cash payments, anyway. So
the cash option is not an extra expense. The CCs are.

I have a gas station nearby that takes only cash. They're
always mobbed because they're the cheapest around. Though
I don't think anyone goes there to avoid CCs. There are just a lot
of people who will drive 5 miles for gas, spending $2, in order
to save 50 cents. I don't go there only because they won't let me
pump it myself. I always pay cash for gas. For the sake of privacy,
simplicity, and the security of not risking credit card skimmers.

It looks to me like the cellphone services pose a much bigger
threat than CCs. Recently I was in a new local cafe. They have
a Square "system". I think they take cash and Square. The whole
thing, including the cash register, is provided by Square. Their website
is also provided by Square. It's very creepy. Square runs the place.
If they wanted to end the deal they'd have to start from scratch.

Other 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.

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...

On 4/17/2022 4:46 PM, sms wrote:
> On 4/17/2022 12:34 PM, AJL wrote:

>> Some may choose an expensive Amex card just to show off when
>> shopping...

> Which impresses no one!

Apparently it doesn't impress you but you can't know what may impress
others. Cadillac dealerships, expensive jewelry stores, $200 gym shoe
stores, high class clothing stores, etc etc etc, likely wouldn't exist
very long if some folks didn't want to impress others with their 'status'...

In message <t3h0va$eq1$1@dont-email.me> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>| I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
>| take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
>| them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
>| their payment processor.
>|
>| It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
>| transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
>| cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
>| higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.

> It makes sense.

No it doesn't because it is not at all true.

--
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring
a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot
possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is
one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3hl26$uni$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The customer never pays overtly.
>>
>> Apart from all the interest charges.
>
> pay in full and there are no interest charges.

Obviously. Many don't, however.

In article <t3j12b$bcq$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>> The customer never pays overtly.
> >>
> >> Apart from all the interest charges.
> >
> > pay in full and there are no interest charges.
>
> Obviously. Many don't, however.

true, but that's their own personal choice.

it's not something imposed upon them by the credit card industry.

On 17/04/2022 at 03:31, sms wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 10:09 AM, sms wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The large chain stores that have decided to not accept mobile wallet
>> don't like the fact that you get more privacy with mobile wallet
>> obfuscating the card details from them so they can't extract data to
>> sell to marketing firms.
>
> I finally got an explanation from a merchant as to why they no longer
> take Apple Pay or Google Pay. Accepting NFC payments ended up costing
> them several hundred dollars a month in higher credit card fees from
> their payment processor.
>
> It's not so obvious why this is the case, but it has to do with the
> transaction fees on cards with high rewards (1.5-3%) rewards versus
> cards with low rewards (<1.5% rewards) and especially cards that give
> higher rewards for mobile wallet payments.

In the UK I think Apple Pay and Google Pay are reasonably popular.
Here, of course, credit card cashback rewards are pretty minimal with
0.5% among the best.

--
Wilf