> If it were possible to charge the actual cost of transaction to the customer right at the moment of sale as I line item, just like government tax, we'd all be making smarter choices.
> We don't even have to cap the cost, if people could see this, they'd overwhelmingly make a smarter choice possibly even driving the cost down less than the debit card fee cap.
The two problems I have with this are:
1) I'm not a partner in the business. I have zero interest in seeing fees and other costs "deaggregated," especially if I have virtually no control over them. And I am cynical enough to think that, since meaningful control is not really a thing, the marketplace will rapidly descend into "everybody does this and they all charge roughly the same fee so there's really no competition at all," like the random fees on telco stuff. Besides, under the current system, if the cost of taking cards is too onerous, stop taking cards. One of the most annoying trends in business in the last decade or so is the idea that the base price of an item or service almost seems to come out to be the amount of profit the merchant expects to receive and 14 items of below-the-line fees make up the actual cost of doing business. I don't care what a merchant's cost of doing business is. Put a price on the item, preferably the out-the-door price but that's just wishing for a pony, and if I'm willing to pay it, I will.
2) Unless and until the day arrives that the entire value of my transaction account can't be wiped out just because I dared use my plastic payment card at a merchant with less-than-realistic security measures, I flatly refuse to use a debit card. Yes, I know that I am technically not liable for fraudulent purchases on a debit card but the several-day delay between "oh shit this bad thing happened" and "ahh my money is back where it should be" is unacceptable. As is the stunning lack of any other consumer protections on a debit card ("had a problem with a merchant? Sort it out yourself, puny customer," is the reaction on a debit card).
The merchant clearly receives a benefit for taking cards as do I. But our interests are not aligned to the point that I should be the only one picking up the cost of that benefit.
(Oh, and it irritates me out of all proportion to the provocation how a lot of merchants handle the fees. "Your total will be $5.19." presents card "Oh, now your total will be $5.47 because card surcharge that's buried on a label sitting under the till." Grrrrrrrr.)
You obviously feel that using a credit card has value - why are you not willing to pay the full amount for that value? In other words, why do you insist that everyone else share the burden of paying your CC fees even if we choose to pay in cash?
> I'm not a partner in the business. I have zero interest in seeing fees and other costs "deaggregated,"
100% agreed. As far as I'm concerned, one of the things I'm buying when I deal with a business is minimized cognitive load. Any time I see somebody tacking on a bunch of extra fees that I can't control, I resent it. E.g., the "fuel surcharge" thing, or SF restaurants adding health care costs as a bill line item. Put 'em in the price and stop screwing with me.
OK you've mistaken my meaning. I'm saying a line item that says "your credit card fee" with a price that is the actual cost of the transaction fee. Not more, not less. You use a debit card, this would be $0.26, for a typical credit card $3.10. You would have control over this fee.
Right now the federal law actually says businesses can't pass on the cost of the debit card fee, but can pass on the credit card fee (not in certain states). But in either case you learn what your card costs you, rather than passing on that cost to everyone who uses debit cards, cash, or credit cards that incure lower fees to the merchant.
> We don't even have to cap the cost, if people could see this, they'd overwhelmingly make a smarter choice possibly even driving the cost down less than the debit card fee cap.
The two problems I have with this are:
1) I'm not a partner in the business. I have zero interest in seeing fees and other costs "deaggregated," especially if I have virtually no control over them. And I am cynical enough to think that, since meaningful control is not really a thing, the marketplace will rapidly descend into "everybody does this and they all charge roughly the same fee so there's really no competition at all," like the random fees on telco stuff. Besides, under the current system, if the cost of taking cards is too onerous, stop taking cards. One of the most annoying trends in business in the last decade or so is the idea that the base price of an item or service almost seems to come out to be the amount of profit the merchant expects to receive and 14 items of below-the-line fees make up the actual cost of doing business. I don't care what a merchant's cost of doing business is. Put a price on the item, preferably the out-the-door price but that's just wishing for a pony, and if I'm willing to pay it, I will.
2) Unless and until the day arrives that the entire value of my transaction account can't be wiped out just because I dared use my plastic payment card at a merchant with less-than-realistic security measures, I flatly refuse to use a debit card. Yes, I know that I am technically not liable for fraudulent purchases on a debit card but the several-day delay between "oh shit this bad thing happened" and "ahh my money is back where it should be" is unacceptable. As is the stunning lack of any other consumer protections on a debit card ("had a problem with a merchant? Sort it out yourself, puny customer," is the reaction on a debit card).
The merchant clearly receives a benefit for taking cards as do I. But our interests are not aligned to the point that I should be the only one picking up the cost of that benefit.
(Oh, and it irritates me out of all proportion to the provocation how a lot of merchants handle the fees. "Your total will be $5.19." presents card "Oh, now your total will be $5.47 because card surcharge that's buried on a label sitting under the till." Grrrrrrrr.)