I agree. I think that's the real underlying reason to obfuscate the identities and facts.
Where oh where will lexis-nexis get its subscription $ when all the court systems have one of 'dem 'dere computerizing search thingies. Someone needs to pass a law!
More and more it seems that if you really want to get to the bottom of a topic, just follow the $, (or in this case, the CND) More than likely, this canadian privacy czar is in the pockets of these massive legal research firms...
"Going on vacation again Ms. Stoddard? That's like the 10th time this month!"
"Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?" --- None of the above. If the case is that she's bending to the requests of these agencies, getting a payout, and making it sound like a call for privacy, then she's pretty friggin' smart!
1.) Free access 2.) Paid access 3.) Privacy Issues 4.) Oh the children! Oh the horror! 5.) ??? 6.) Profit!
Get in touch with reality, I am in business to make money, and if I am not going to make money doing business with you, YOU can go do business somewhere else. Wow! Someone has to reference the Soup Naziâ with that sort of mentality. Do you actually yell at them for not trying to protect your profits? This isn't a socialist country. Consumers aren't there to ensure your business stays open.
No consumer cares about your profit when they walk into your store. They just want to buy something. If your price is right, they buy it. If not, they walk.
I don't remember reading in school that we as consumers have an obligation to ensure retailers make a certain Profit Margin.
Nor do I think, as a business owner, that any consumers should be responsible to make me money. Making money is my job. And if I can balance making money with making consumers happy, then I am a happy business man.
If you're a retailer, and you buy goods to sell, you have a fixed cost of those goods.
Example,
Milk: Cost=$2.75 / gallon
Now you have overhead to cover. Utilities, wages, benefits, rent, insurance, etc. etc.
On average, you could factor in what those overhead items will cost you per month. You would then easily factor in what you would have to mark the product up by percentage wise, to cover your costs, as well as the product cost.
So you bought milk for $2.75 gallon, and you sell it for $3.35 gallon. This covers your overhead, and nets you a nice profit per item. The same is done for everything in the store.
Now mind you, this percentage increase to cover overhead is certainly not a blanket increase. I'm not so naive to think that. Most retailers have what they call loss-leaders in their stores to entice shoppers to stop by. The hope is that the shopper picks up more than that item is what drives the practice. Hopefully, the consumer picks up a few other higher-markup items to balance everything out. Sometimes it doesn't work, but on average, the retailer makes up the cost of the loss-leader on other higher-markup items.
My point was simply this; If the retailer knows, (and they do,) that accepting credit cards will increase the amount they pay a merchant for the transaction fees, then they should build that cost into the price of the items.
Example: If the merchant agreement states that there is a 3% fee for all transactions using Credit Cards, (YMMV) and the merchant knows they do appx. $150,000 worth of CC transactions in a month, then they can easily figure out the amount they will owe the merchant in fees. ($4500)
If that cost is treated like any other cost, (i.e. Gas Bill, Electric Bill, etc,) then the merchant simply has to apply that increase across all products to ensure that if someone buys an item with a CC, they already have the cost of the transaction built into the price.
Additionally, they could offer a discount for cash right there at the register. If they don't have to pay for merchant fees, then the consumer benefits from a discount. It doesn't have to be a large discount, but that sort of practice COULD encourage regular customers to use cash. Win-WIN for everyone involved.
The bottom line is that retailers need to make a fair profit to keep the doors open and the lights on. If they treat CC transaction fees differently from any other direct cost, then they are not looking at the business method correctly. No retailer would assume an additional cost to do business and not pass it on to the consumer in some way. That's foolish, and they wouldn't be open very long.
I guess the moral of this is that consumers DO end up paying the merchant's fees when they buy goods and services if the retailer already has that cost built into the price.
But tacking on fees or minimums to compensate for a convenience doesn't make for happy customers. It just shows poor business planning.
I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear in my description of the backcharge. I did not backcharge the entire transaction. Only the fee amount is what was backcharged to the retailer.
You are correct in saying that if someone were to do such a thing, that the merchant would have cause for bring suit toward that individual for recompensation.
I have no beef for paying a fair price for goods or services. But paying the CC fees for a retailer is nonsense. The offer the payment method as a convenience to the customer, and as a way to make sure the customer feels like the retailer is giving them a value for their money.
Meanwhile, a lot of customers do not shop at retailers who do not allow CC transactions. I know I do not. Their prices are in-line with the other retailers. You would think that their prices would be lower, since they do not have to incur that additional cost of doing business, but they don't.
I avoid them as often as possible, as I like the idea of carrying plastic only, and not risking the loss of Physical currency if my wallet were lost/stolen/ etc..
I agree with most of your post, but there were a few things in there that need cleared up, and I'll try my best here.
You mentioned that not even using a card, the bank will increase your credit limit. That's not always a good thing. Considering your credit score, one of the things creditors do is look at your total debt to income ratio, as well as total available unsecured credit.
That's where it can hurt your score. You can have 5 cards, each with a 20k limit, and your score will go down. Why? Because at any time, you could choose to go 100k in the hole with those cards. It's a small part of the calculation, but nonetheless, meaningful.
I personally only keep 2 credit cards, and ensure their upper limit never exceeds 10k. I have no use for a higher limit, and if I did, I would simply call them and have it raised temporarily for that particular purpose.
I think the only benefit that debit-cards have are the fact that they tie directly into a bank account. Now now, most people use them in place of checks. Faster, and easier to reconcile, IMO.
But you're correct in saying, that debit cards DO NOT have the protections of Credit Cards, and anyone who uses them really should know the risks of using them instead of a real Credit Card before making a major purchase.
Hardly an issue with ethics on the part of the consumer, when the business chooses to employ the same wayward ethical standard toward the consumer when they charge these fees.
When owning a business, and you need to sell your goods, you include in your cost of goods whatever expenses you need to cover as well the cost of the goods in the price that you sell it for.
It's no different than any other charges a retailer faces. If their electrical costs go up, or their heating costs go up, business licensing for local municipalities, etc, they pass those costs on to the consumer in the form of higher prices overall on all products.
The fact that they accept credit cards as payment for goods is just another cost of doing business. They must accept this fact if they want to offer consumers the option of using this method of payment.
Your argument could also mean that if they use a new shiny Point of Sale software package to track inventory, sales, shipping, etc, that they should be allowed to charge the customer more to do so. But if the customer preferred the old ledger method, and hand-written receipts, then that cost could be avoided.
Nonsense. Every decent retailer knows ahead of time that accepting CC transactions will cost them more. They should do the same thing that they would do if they incurred any other costs associated with doing business. Raise the cost of the goods.
Meanwhile, decent businesses survive well by including these costs already in the price of goods, and allow cash discounts to buyers who don't need the service.
I think a lot of people need a bit of a reversal of thinking. The retailer is not doing the consumer a FAVOR by accepting CC payments.
The whole transaction between the retailer and consumer is easily describer as a symbiotic relationship.
The Consumer needs something, and is willing to pay $x for it. The retailer wants to make money by selling the product to the consumer.
Somewhere in the middle of that, there exists the happy medium in which both parties agree and business rolls on.
Calling it unethical on only the part of one party of that transaction is the same as condoning the behavior on the part of the other.
If the retailer wants to play dirty, then why not extend the same right to the consumer.?
Report them to your credit card company if they forced a minimum. Do it now, not after a nap!
Usually a phone-call to the number on the back of the card to the issuing bank is enough to get the Hand 'o' Doom moving.
And just for everyone else, if you see those signs, ($x.xx minimum for CC purchases.) That's illegal, and against the merchant agreement. Report them!
I had a merchant charge me 5% for a purchase I made, (>$1000) and I accepted it, called Discover when I got home, and they did a chargeback immediately.
Works everytime. Just report them, and you get your money back, and they get a nasty-gram letting them know that their shoddy business practices aren't winning them too many friends...
Offering a Cash discount (Discount for Cash) is not against ANY CC company or processor agreement.
What is NOT allowed is charging a fee for a CC transaction, and / or a minimum / maximum limit of the transaction.
Any retailer has the right to offer a discount for cash. What they can't do is list their prices in any advertisement, publication, etc without stipulating that the price shown is for cash. If it's not on the advert, then they can't charge more for a CC transaction.
Furthermore, a lot of retailers DO offer a discount for cash. Usually a pittance, 1-3%, but nonetheless a discount.
Also, people need to know how to use their check-card at retailers as well, so that they don't get hit with transaction fees from their bank or the retailers processing agent.
If anyone has a check-card / cash-card, etc. that is labeled as MC or VISA, and is tied to a checking account, etc., make sure you choose CREDIT, and not debit as the payment method. If you choose debit, and type in your PIN, you get charges, not the retailer. YMMV.
I've done POS work and have dealt with several of these terms and conditions. You'd be surprised how quickly a merchant gets rid of those minimums or fees when you complain to the CC company about their deceptive practices.
When they do this sort of backhanded crap, and get reported enough times, the merchant and/or CC company will pull their merchant account, and/or fine them for violating the terms of the agreement they have in place.
Works for MC, VISA, DISC. Not sure about AMEX, et al.
Just an FYI.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I think that's the real underlying reason to obfuscate the identities and facts.
Where oh where will lexis-nexis get its subscription $ when all the court systems have one of 'dem 'dere computerizing search thingies. Someone needs to pass a law!
More and more it seems that if you really want to get to the bottom of a topic, just follow the $, (or in this case, the CND) More than likely, this canadian privacy czar is in the pockets of these massive legal research firms...
"Going on vacation again Ms. Stoddard? That's like the 10th time this month!"
"Is Stoddart a danger or a menace? Or just clueless?" --- None of the above.
If the case is that she's bending to the requests of these agencies, getting a payout, and making it sound like a call for privacy, then she's pretty friggin' smart!
1.) Free access
2.) Paid access
3.) Privacy Issues
4.) Oh the children! Oh the horror!
5.) ???
6.) Profit!
beefcake:
Only if you plan on baking them in the same Easy-bake oven she's using to make the PV cells.
Easybake Ovens FTW!
(rummages around for another 60Watt bulb)
slashdotters still live in the basement, long after graduating. I think the appropriate age of emergence is now 42.
No consumer cares about your profit when they walk into your store. They just want to buy something. If your price is right, they buy it. If not, they walk.
I don't remember reading in school that we as consumers have an obligation to ensure retailers make a certain Profit Margin.
Nor do I think, as a business owner, that any consumers should be responsible to make me money. Making money is my job. And if I can balance making money with making consumers happy, then I am a happy business man.
Allow me to make more sense of it then.
If you're a retailer, and you buy goods to sell, you have a fixed cost of those goods.
Example,
Milk: Cost=$2.75 / gallon
Now you have overhead to cover. Utilities, wages, benefits, rent, insurance, etc. etc.
On average, you could factor in what those overhead items will cost you per month. You would then easily factor in what you would have to mark the product up by percentage wise, to cover your costs, as well as the product cost.
So you bought milk for $2.75 gallon, and you sell it for $3.35 gallon. This covers your overhead, and nets you a nice profit per item. The same is done for everything in the store.
Now mind you, this percentage increase to cover overhead is certainly not a blanket increase. I'm not so naive to think that. Most retailers have what they call loss-leaders in their stores to entice shoppers to stop by. The hope is that the shopper picks up more than that item is what drives the practice. Hopefully, the consumer picks up a few other higher-markup items to balance everything out. Sometimes it doesn't work, but on average, the retailer makes up the cost of the loss-leader on other higher-markup items.
My point was simply this; If the retailer knows, (and they do,) that accepting credit cards will increase the amount they pay a merchant for the transaction fees, then they should build that cost into the price of the items.
Example: If the merchant agreement states that there is a 3% fee for all transactions using Credit Cards, (YMMV) and the merchant knows they do appx. $150,000 worth of CC transactions in a month, then they can easily figure out the amount they will owe the merchant in fees. ($4500)
If that cost is treated like any other cost, (i.e. Gas Bill, Electric Bill, etc,) then the merchant simply has to apply that increase across all products to ensure that if someone buys an item with a CC, they already have the cost of the transaction built into the price.
Additionally, they could offer a discount for cash right there at the register. If they don't have to pay for merchant fees, then the consumer benefits from a discount. It doesn't have to be a large discount, but that sort of practice COULD encourage regular customers to use cash. Win-WIN for everyone involved.
The bottom line is that retailers need to make a fair profit to keep the doors open and the lights on. If they treat CC transaction fees differently from any other direct cost, then they are not looking at the business method correctly. No retailer would assume an additional cost to do business and not pass it on to the consumer in some way. That's foolish, and they wouldn't be open very long.
I guess the moral of this is that consumers DO end up paying the merchant's fees when they buy goods and services if the retailer already has that cost built into the price.
But tacking on fees or minimums to compensate for a convenience doesn't make for happy customers. It just shows poor business planning.
I hope that clears it up for everyone.
I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear in my description of the backcharge. I did not backcharge the entire transaction. Only the fee amount is what was backcharged to the retailer.
You are correct in saying that if someone were to do such a thing, that the merchant would have cause for bring suit toward that individual for recompensation.
I have no beef for paying a fair price for goods or services. But paying the CC fees for a retailer is nonsense. The offer the payment method as a convenience to the customer, and as a way to make sure the customer feels like the retailer is giving them a value for their money.
Meanwhile, a lot of customers do not shop at retailers who do not allow CC transactions. I know I do not. Their prices are in-line with the other retailers. You would think that their prices would be lower, since they do not have to incur that additional cost of doing business, but they don't.
I avoid them as often as possible, as I like the idea of carrying plastic only, and not risking the loss of Physical currency if my wallet were lost/stolen/ etc..
Sorry for the confusion.
I agree with most of your post, but there were a few things in there that need cleared up, and I'll try my best here.
You mentioned that not even using a card, the bank will increase your credit limit. That's not always a good thing. Considering your credit score, one of the things creditors do is look at your total debt to income ratio, as well as total available unsecured credit.
That's where it can hurt your score. You can have 5 cards, each with a 20k limit, and your score will go down. Why? Because at any time, you could choose to go 100k in the hole with those cards. It's a small part of the calculation, but nonetheless, meaningful.
I personally only keep 2 credit cards, and ensure their upper limit never exceeds 10k. I have no use for a higher limit, and if I did, I would simply call them and have it raised temporarily for that particular purpose.
I think the only benefit that debit-cards have are the fact that they tie directly into a bank account. Now now, most people use them in place of checks. Faster, and easier to reconcile, IMO.
But you're correct in saying, that debit cards DO NOT have the protections of Credit Cards, and anyone who uses them really should know the risks of using them instead of a real Credit Card before making a major purchase.
Hardly an issue with ethics on the part of the consumer, when the business chooses to employ the same wayward ethical standard toward the consumer when they charge these fees.
When owning a business, and you need to sell your goods, you include in your cost of goods whatever expenses you need to cover as well the cost of the goods in the price that you sell it for.
It's no different than any other charges a retailer faces. If their electrical costs go up, or their heating costs go up, business licensing for local municipalities, etc, they pass those costs on to the consumer in the form of higher prices overall on all products.
The fact that they accept credit cards as payment for goods is just another cost of doing business. They must accept this fact if they want to offer consumers the option of using this method of payment.
Your argument could also mean that if they use a new shiny Point of Sale software package to track inventory, sales, shipping, etc, that they should be allowed to charge the customer more to do so. But if the customer preferred the old ledger method, and hand-written receipts, then that cost could be avoided.
Nonsense.
Every decent retailer knows ahead of time that accepting CC transactions will cost them more. They should do the same thing that they would do if they incurred any other costs associated with doing business. Raise the cost of the goods.
Meanwhile, decent businesses survive well by including these costs already in the price of goods, and allow cash discounts to buyers who don't need the service.
I think a lot of people need a bit of a reversal of thinking. The retailer is not doing the consumer a FAVOR by accepting CC payments.
The whole transaction between the retailer and consumer is easily describer as a symbiotic relationship.
The Consumer needs something, and is willing to pay $x for it.
The retailer wants to make money by selling the product to the consumer.
Somewhere in the middle of that, there exists the happy medium in which both parties agree and business rolls on.
Calling it unethical on only the part of one party of that transaction is the same as condoning the behavior on the part of the other.
If the retailer wants to play dirty, then why not extend the same right to the consumer.?
Report them to your credit card company if they forced a minimum. Do it now, not after a nap!
Usually a phone-call to the number on the back of the card to the issuing bank is enough to get the Hand 'o' Doom moving.
And just for everyone else, if you see those signs, ($x.xx minimum for CC purchases.) That's illegal, and against the merchant agreement. Report them!
I had a merchant charge me 5% for a purchase I made, (>$1000) and I accepted it, called Discover when I got home, and they did a chargeback immediately.
Works everytime. Just report them, and you get your money back, and they get a nasty-gram letting them know that their shoddy business practices aren't winning them too many friends...
Sorry for the poor formatting. My first time posting to /.
Still need to figure out how to add spaces and make paragraphs.
bleh.
Offering a Cash discount (Discount for Cash) is not against ANY CC company or processor agreement. What is NOT allowed is charging a fee for a CC transaction, and / or a minimum / maximum limit of the transaction. Any retailer has the right to offer a discount for cash. What they can't do is list their prices in any advertisement, publication, etc without stipulating that the price shown is for cash. If it's not on the advert, then they can't charge more for a CC transaction. Furthermore, a lot of retailers DO offer a discount for cash. Usually a pittance, 1-3%, but nonetheless a discount. Also, people need to know how to use their check-card at retailers as well, so that they don't get hit with transaction fees from their bank or the retailers processing agent. If anyone has a check-card / cash-card, etc. that is labeled as MC or VISA, and is tied to a checking account, etc., make sure you choose CREDIT, and not debit as the payment method. If you choose debit, and type in your PIN, you get charges, not the retailer. YMMV. I've done POS work and have dealt with several of these terms and conditions. You'd be surprised how quickly a merchant gets rid of those minimums or fees when you complain to the CC company about their deceptive practices. When they do this sort of backhanded crap, and get reported enough times, the merchant and/or CC company will pull their merchant account, and/or fine them for violating the terms of the agreement they have in place. Works for MC, VISA, DISC. Not sure about AMEX, et al. Just an FYI.