Credit and debit card transaction fees at my local store

[GEORGE]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

"IF" that tax deductable FEE is the straw that broke the camels back...DON'T TAKE CREDIT CARDS

 

But don't expect to retain most of the business

[feuerball]

I am for the rights of the small business to try to recoup the costs of the small credit card purchases. I think the people that expect to be able to charge small purchases and have the small merchant take a loss is kind of selfish.

 

 

 

if the small business is profitable these are tax deductive costs of doing business.

 

if the small business is not profitable the market should wipe them out.

Yes the market should swipe them out.

Edited September 7, 2009 by feuerball

[frank22]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

One owner/manager actually did the MICRO-MANAGE CRAP so much he told a customer he would be better off if they shoplifted the candy bar instead of charging it on their credit card

 

 

 

See that proves my point. It would have been better for the merchant if he gave away the candy bar rather than put it on a credit card. Do you think that is fair??? Him being forced to do that? And you think think it should be your right to force him to do it. You are so concerned with that one CC agreement forced on the merchant? You must really like the CC companies- you are working for them for free.

Edited September 7, 2009 by frank22

[hurricanesfans27]

if the merchant cant afford the card agreement he should turn in his processer and just take cash or checks. i know of business that do just fine refusing cards including ARCO.

[EastRidge]

Walmart did the same thing ago (sorta) a few years ago around Christmas time, they were asking for ID with every credit card purchase, regardless if the card was signed, I refused and got the police and security involved, I swiped my card got an approval, and bagged myself, when they asked for ID, I asked why b/c they had an automated approval and sigs matched, they said "local policy", i said I am not showing ID and I am leaving with my merchandise, LP and security tried to stop me and put their hands on me while I was leaving, I called 911, pressed charges for assault against store LP, and luckily I had the letter from VISA/ MC (I reported them a week prior and had it with me knowing this would happen) and the VISA and MC letter said it is prohibited to ask for ID unless it was a "code 10/suspicious transaction" or the auth response requested sig. I showed that to the police and they let me go, arrested the LP staff, and I sued Walmart for harassment, assault, and misc. damages, they gave me $50k and politely asked me not to shop there anymore, I dropped the charges against the individuals,only after they agreed to additional civil restitution of $2500 a piece, and Walmart removed the signs and the manager got fired.

 

So yes, call 1-800-visa-911 and report them, they will send you a letter and I forget the MC phone # but they will send you a letter to as your ammo...merchants CANNOT do this, and you will win ANY dispute you may have.\

 

Yes, I knew they had this policy and deliberatly set them up knowing the police and LP would be involved, but hey, I made 55k for their violations of their contract.

After this post, you should probably change your

CreditBoards ID. Hint, if your story is big news,

don't post specific and identifiable information on

any public board. Very few people exist who have

a history like yours.

 

ER

 

 

unless they have a NDA on their settlement this shouldnt matter.

Disagree.

 

If there was no NDA, this very probably made the news.

Confidential discussion ends when your name is known.

 

People often present private financial information here.

I expect the site owners know my personal info, and the

mods might have access, but nobody else gets my name

without a court order.

 

ER

[GEORGE]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

One owner/manager actually did the MICRO-MANAGE CRAP so much he told a customer he would be better off if they shoplifted the candy bar instead of charging it on their credit card

 

 

 

See that proves my point. It would have been better for the merchant if he gave away the candy bar rather than put it on a credit card. Do you think that is fair??? Him being forced to do that? And you think think it should be your right to force him to do it. You are so concerned with that one CC agreement forced on the merchant? You must really like the CC companies- you are working for them for free.

That customer did not spend $152 last week???

 

That customer will not spend $96 next week???

 

All they wanted today was a candy bar and had no "CASH"

[hurricanesfans27]

Walmart did the same thing ago (sorta) a few years ago around Christmas time, they were asking for ID with every credit card purchase, regardless if the card was signed, I refused and got the police and security involved, I swiped my card got an approval, and bagged myself, when they asked for ID, I asked why b/c they had an automated approval and sigs matched, they said "local policy", i said I am not showing ID and I am leaving with my merchandise, LP and security tried to stop me and put their hands on me while I was leaving, I called 911, pressed charges for assault against store LP, and luckily I had the letter from VISA/ MC (I reported them a week prior and had it with me knowing this would happen) and the VISA and MC letter said it is prohibited to ask for ID unless it was a "code 10/suspicious transaction" or the auth response requested sig. I showed that to the police and they let me go, arrested the LP staff, and I sued Walmart for harassment, assault, and misc. damages, they gave me $50k and politely asked me not to shop there anymore, I dropped the charges against the individuals,only after they agreed to additional civil restitution of $2500 a piece, and Walmart removed the signs and the manager got fired.

 

So yes, call 1-800-visa-911 and report them, they will send you a letter and I forget the MC phone # but they will send you a letter to as your ammo...merchants CANNOT do this, and you will win ANY dispute you may have.\

 

Yes, I knew they had this policy and deliberatly set them up knowing the police and LP would be involved, but hey, I made 55k for their violations of their contract.

After this post, you should probably change your

CreditBoards ID. Hint, if your story is big news,

don't post specific and identifiable information on

any public board. Very few people exist who have

a history like yours.

 

ER

 

 

unless they have a NDA on their settlement this shouldnt matter.

Disagree.

 

If there was no NDA, this very probably made the news.

Confidential discussion ends when your name is known.

 

People often present private financial information here.

I expect the site owners know my personal info, and the

mods might have access, but nobody else gets my name

without a court order.

 

ER

 

 

 

you expect wrong. We have no access to your name or even where you are posting from unless we really try to find it which we dont. The admin has access to my name and other mods names because of what we do for them. Members informations is strictly held in confidence IF we even have it because from what I remember signing up as a new member they didnt ask for my personal info except for email address.

[frank22]

If a business owner wants to work to change the rules so they can recoup their costs, that's fine. Nothing wrong with people banding together and lobbying for common interests. In the mean time, however, they should either honor the established rules and their contracts or just not accept CCs.

 

 

I think in today environment they feel forced to accept, but are taking real losses that is frustrating them.

Practically the rules are not normally enforced, which is good. It is really the very few militants on boards such as these that press the issue. Yes, as you say they accept the contract when they sign. They just feel they have no choice. This is really the big guy screwing the little guy pure and simple and you are the big guys tool. He cannot work to change the rules because of collusion laws. Kind of ironic, hah?

 

I think without this rule the CC's would cut a better deal because this rule forces the stores to almost hide the fee. It is like giving a blank check to them because the cost is not born by the person making the decision. It is real strange that only in this instance you are supportive of the big banks. If the merchants could add a small fee transaction, many would use cash and they banks would not like this one bit. They would get the same low or no transaction cost the big guys get and everyone would be happy accept the banks.

[GEORGE]

If a business owner wants to work to change the rules so they can recoup their costs, that's fine. Nothing wrong with people banding together and lobbying for common interests. In the mean time, however, they should either honor the established rules and their contracts or just not accept CCs.

 

 

I think in today environment they feel forced to accept, but are taking real losses that is frustrating them.

Practically the rules are not normally enforced, which is good. It is really the very few militants on boards such as these that press the issue. Yes, as you say they accept the contract when they sign. They just feel they have no choice. This is really the big guy screwing the little guy pure and simple and you are the big guys tool. He cannot work to change the rules because of collusion laws. Kind of ironic, hah?

 

I think without this rule the CC's would cut a better deal because this rule forces the stores to almost hide the fee. It is like giving a blank check to them because the cost is not born by the person making the decision. It is real strange that only in this instance you are supportive of the big banks. If the merchants could add a small fee transaction, many would use cash and they banks would not like this one bit. They would get the same low or no transaction cost the big guys get and everyone would be happy accept the banks.

POINT--->I USE MY CREDIT CARD or I DON'T BUY IT

 

TACO BELL HERE WAS CASH ONLY...they doubled or tripled their business as soon as they started taking credit cards

Edited September 7, 2009 by GEORGE

[TrevorHere]

I would rather be a Weirdo in walmart dressed in slippers and PJ's than to pay that fee.

 

 

so it was you in the dirty sweats featured in hege's former siggy?

[frank22]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

One owner/manager actually did the MICRO-MANAGE CRAP so much he told a customer he would be better off if they shoplifted the candy bar instead of charging it on their credit card

 

 

 

See that proves my point. It would have been better for the merchant if he gave away the candy bar rather than put it on a credit card. Do you think that is fair??? Him being forced to do that? And you think think it should be your right to force him to do it. You are so concerned with that one CC agreement forced on the merchant? You must really like the CC companies- you are working for them for free.

That customer did not spend $152 last week???

 

That customer will not spend $96 next week???

 

All they wanted today was a candy bar and had no "CASH"

 

 

Note: you didn't answer any of the real questions, tax destructibility and cost of business.

 

As for a customer charging something small and then later charging bigger items. I don't think it would often be the case in a small shop. Often many transactions would be small and probably the same guy is charging the same small stuff. Your take on things may be ONE way to go, but I don't think it works practically. Each transaction should be profitable in a business. Your way may work, but if a merchant doesn't think it will it is not for you to tell him differently. It doesn't make sense in the real world. If you think it will, then that is fine, trying to impose that on him is wrong. Even if it works in your case, there are many cases and many types of stores. It doesn't happen that way in most.

[hurricanesfans27]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

One owner/manager actually did the MICRO-MANAGE CRAP so much he told a customer he would be better off if they shoplifted the candy bar instead of charging it on their credit card

 

 

 

See that proves my point. It would have been better for the merchant if he gave away the candy bar rather than put it on a credit card. Do you think that is fair??? Him being forced to do that? And you think think it should be your right to force him to do it. You are so concerned with that one CC agreement forced on the merchant? You must really like the CC companies- you are working for them for free.

That customer did not spend $152 last week???

 

That customer will not spend $96 next week???

 

All they wanted today was a candy bar and had no "CASH"

 

 

Note: you didn't answer any of the real questions, tax destructibility and cost of business.

 

As for a customer charging something small and then later charging bigger items. I don't think it would often be the case in a small shop. Often many transactions would be small and probably the same guy is charging the same small stuff. Your take on things may be ONE way to go, but I don't think it works practically. Each transaction should be profitable in a business. Your way may work, but if a merchant doesn't think it will it is not for you to tell him differently. It doesn't make sense in the real world. If you think it will, then that is fine, trying to impose that on him is wrong. Even if it works in your case, there are many cases and many types of stores. It doesn't happen that way in most.

 

 

I agree with you here but the simple fact of the matter is its against the agreement and in some states against the law to charge a fee for using a credit card. if the merchant doesnt like this or its unprofitable for him then he should give up the ability to accept cards.

[GEORGE]

That credit card fee is TAX DEDUCTABLE

(don't MICRO-MANAGE the fee at the expense of paying business)

 

 

Again, answer this: What does tax deductible have to do with it at all? Every expense is tax deductible!!! Does that mean the merchant shouldn't try to manage ANY of his expenses? Pay you a clerk $50 an hour because it is tax deductible? Taxation is not part of the discussion. You can't keep using this as an issue and be creditable.

One owner/manager actually did the MICRO-MANAGE CRAP so much he told a customer he would be better off if they shoplifted the candy bar instead of charging it on their credit card

 

 

 

See that proves my point. It would have been better for the merchant if he gave away the candy bar rather than put it on a credit card. Do you think that is fair??? Him being forced to do that? And you think think it should be your right to force him to do it. You are so concerned with that one CC agreement forced on the merchant? You must really like the CC companies- you are working for them for free.

That customer did not spend $152 last week???

 

That customer will not spend $96 next week???

 

All they wanted today was a candy bar and had no "CASH"

 

 

Note: you didn't answer any of the real questions, tax destructibility and cost of business.

 

As for a customer charging something small and then later charging bigger items. I don't think it would often be the case in a small shop. Often many transactions would be small and probably the same guy is charging the same small stuff. Your take on things may be ONE way to go, but I don't think it works practically. Each transaction should be profitable in a business. Your way may work, but if a merchant doesn't think it will it is not for you to tell him differently. It doesn't make sense in the real world. If you think it will, then that is fine, trying to impose that on him is wrong. Even if it works in your case, there are many cases and many types of stores. It doesn't happen that way in most.

I can use my CREDIT CARD at McDONALDS and spend $3 + tax

 

They don't tell me to THEFT the food

 

The $3 was spent BECAUSE I could use my credit card

 

Had I not been able to use my credit card...THE $3 SALE WOULD NEVER HAPPEN

Edited September 7, 2009 by GEORGE

[EastRidge]

you expect wrong. We have no access to your name or even where you are posting from unless we really try to find it which we dont. The admin has access to my name and other mods names because of what we do for them. Members informations is strictly held in confidence IF we even have it because from what I remember signing up as a new member they didnt ask for my personal info except for email address.

Good.

 

What I am saying is, detailed personal info is the

same as signing your real name to a post. Like,

"I won't use my real name, but I filed a lawsuit

in Far Marinda, Del on August 3, 2007 and won

$23,456 from Citibank ."

 

The poster mentioned a specific incident with

plenty of specific detail. Assuming this is real,

his/her name is now public record.

 

ER

[hurricanesfans27]

you expect wrong. We have no access to your name or even where you are posting from unless we really try to find it which we dont. The admin has access to my name and other mods names because of what we do for them. Members informations is strictly held in confidence IF we even have it because from what I remember signing up as a new member they didnt ask for my personal info except for email address.

Good.

 

What I am saying is, detailed personal info is the

same as signing your real name to a post. Like,

"I won't use my real name, but I filed a lawsuit

in Far Marinda, Del on August 3, 2007 and won

$23,456 from Citibank ."

 

The poster mentioned a specific incident with

plenty of specific detail. Assuming this is real,

his/her name is now public record.

 

ER

 

 

this is true.

[frank22]

POINT--->I USE MY CREDIT CARD or I DON'T BUY IT

 

TACO BELL HERE WAS CASH ONLY...they doubled or tripled their business as soon as they started taking credit cards

 

 

You have brought up Taco Bell before. I think you just click on a template of canned responses kind of like Customer Service departments do?

 

It is well known that the big corporations have the power to negotiate the per transaction cost that the small merchant can't. So Taco Bell just pays the percentage. It make the small transaction costs the same as the large transaction as a percentage. So it works for them. So you are arguing apples and oranges here. If the merchant didn't have to pay that fee either we wouldn't have an issue. I am arguing about the fee that the large places don't pay or is very small. So that kind of proves my point too.

 

Let me also agree that there is real benefit that the merchants receive from accepting CC's. But it has a costs and this cost needs to be managed just like any other costs. Just normal cost management is all they want to be able to do. Exactly how they do it will depend on their own experience and the specific industry. You are not privy to their costs structure and it is best if you don't try to impose yourself on them without being asked.

 

Edited to add: Your McDonald point is the same as Taco Bell. You have not addressed the cost of doing business issue and the tax deductible issue. It is normal business 101 and your take on a loss now for profit later mantra is not normal business practice in any industry, so while it may work, getting upset when a merchant doesn't follow it is wrong.

Edited September 7, 2009 by frank22

[GEORGE]

POINT--->I USE MY CREDIT CARD or I DON'T BUY IT

 

TACO BELL HERE WAS CASH ONLY...they doubled or tripled their business as soon as they started taking credit cards

 

 

You have brought up Taco Bell before. I think you just click on a template of canned responses kind of like Customer Service departments do?

 

It is well known that the big corporations have the power to negotiate the per transaction cost that the small merchant can't. So Taco Bell just pays the percentage. It make the small transaction costs the same as the large transaction as a percentage. So it works for them. So you are arguing apples and oranges here. If the merchant didn't have to pay that fee either we wouldn't have an issue. I am arguing about the fee that the large places don't pay or is very small. So that kind of proves my point too.

 

Let me also agree that there is real benefit that the merchants receive from accepting CC's. But it has a costs and this cost needs to be managed just like any other costs. Just normal cost management is all they want to be able to do. Exactly how they do it will depend on their own experience and the specific industry. You are not privy to their costs structure and it is best if you don't try to impose yourself on them without being asked.

 

Edited to add: Your McDonald point is the same as Taco Bell. You have not addressed the cost of doing business issue and the tax deductible issue. It is normal business 101 and your take a loss now for profit later mantra is not normal business practice in any industry, so while it may work, getting upset when a merchant doesn't follow it is wrong.

BS..........................

Edited September 7, 2009 by GEORGE

[GEORGE]

For the few who don't grap the LOGIC...I buy something because I can use my credit card

 

No credit card...no sale

 

500 NON SALES A DAY/WEEK/MONTH YOU GET FOR NOT TAKING CREDIT CARDS GETS YOU WHAT...IN THE MONEY DEPARTMENT???

 

(if you didn't take credit cards...and the customers walk out)

[greywolf]

Big companies also get better rates for advertising, and marketing.

 

Accepting credit cards has PROVEN that you get more customers, and they spend more. Think of accepting credit cards like marketing, big companies get it cheap and the little guy get's squeezed (myself included).

 

Saying that you accept credit cards is very similar to saying you have a drive through window at your restaurant (if your in the fast food business). You get more customers, and the cost of the drive through is a discreet cost of the product, NOT a direct cost.

Edited September 7, 2009 by greywolf

[hegemony]

I think you just click on a template of canned responses kind of like Customer Service departments do?

bingo

[frank22]

POINT--->I USE MY CREDIT CARD or I DON'T BUY IT

 

Ha Ha on the BS......

 

I missed the I use credit or I don't buy it point. The thing is that is OK. Very few people feel like that and any business cannot cater to everyone. The merchant should have a choice also in whether in the long run he would like to cater to someone like you and whether he would not. Peaple always only charging $3 might not be worth it and he might be better off without you. That you MAY charge more at some point COULD happen. But let him decide. It should be his choice and a small place that has many small transactions might find his losses on these transaction are such that he doesn't want to. Let him make that business decision on his own.

 

Most people I know accept the issue of the small transaction not being profitable and don't mind paying cash.

 

ll I am asking a little understanding of the small guy. I just don't see it a big issue for me, but I can see where it would be for a business.

[GEORGE]

Other than a few $$$$$ for vending machines...I'M 100% CREDIT CARDS or I DON'T BUY IT

 

Don't tell me I can't only spend $1.57 on my credit card

 

Then you won't get my $57.12 sale or my $96.18 sale after that

 

Since your small place doesn't sell HIGH END STUFF...you won't miss the $1,000+ TV SALE (ON A CREDIT CARD)

[MarvBear]

POINT

 

Moving to the correct forum.

[Uncle Leo]

If a business owner wants to work to change the rules so they can recoup their costs, that's fine. Nothing wrong with people banding together and lobbying for common interests. In the mean time, however, they should either honor the established rules and their contracts or just not accept CCs.

I think in today environment they feel forced to accept, but are taking real losses that is frustrating them. Practically the rules are not normally enforced, which is good. It is really the very few militants on boards such as these that press the issue. Yes, as you say they accept the contract when they sign. They just feel they have no choice. This is really the big guy screwing the little guy pure and simple and you are the big guys tool. He cannot work to change the rules because of collusion laws. Kind of ironic, hah?

You lost me on the part in red. Why can't they work to change the rules?

 

I agree, btw, that many businesses *feel* forced to accept CCs, but I would disagree with the idea that they really are. I also operate under the idea that ALL costs should be lumped together when a business determines it's pricing strategy and that CC fees by themselves should not be a "make-or-break" item. If it is, then the business has other deeper more serious issues than just CC fees. They're on the edge anyway.

 

The fact that most businesses now accept CCs also places them on more of a level playing field to begin with, which reduces even more any disparities when businesses are competing against each other. If you really want to get into serious disparities, we'd be better to address volume wholesale discounts that larger retailers get that smaller mom-and-pop places don't get. That does more to tilt the playing field than any CC fees do.

 

FWIW, I know many restaurants that don't take CCs, and they're always packed. Why? Because they're damned good.

 

 

I think without this rule the CC's would cut a better deal because this rule forces the stores to almost hide the fee. It is like giving a blank check to them because the cost is not born by the person making the decision. It is real strange that only in this instance you are supportive of the big banks. If the merchants could add a small fee transaction, many would use cash and they banks would not like this one bit. They would get the same low or no transaction cost the big guys get and everyone would be happy accept the banks.

I'm presuming you mean me specifically.

 

I'm not necessarily supportive of big banks, per se, but rather consistency. To be honest, I would not be all that bothered or offended if transaction fees were allowed... as long as I knew well enough before I made the purchase so I could make my decision accordingly. I mean, I'd prefer they not, but it wouldn't be a big hairy deal to me worthy of railing against like I'm sure it would be for some.

 

I do favor following established and agreed-upon rules, however, while they are legal and in place. Even for the so-called little guy.

 

In the end the customers pays the fee anyway, even if they don't realize it. As it stands right now, cash buyers subsidize credit buyers, and (theoretically, at least) neither would subsidize anybody if fees were allowed and both sides would pay their own way. Ultimate choice, for people who like to spout that kind of stuff.

 

FTR: I do support even big business, including banks, to make a fair profit. "Fair" being subjective, of course... and no, I'm not going to try and define what "fair" is just so someone else can come along and be argumentative when it is clearly subjective opinion to begin with.

[Uncle Leo]

Accepting credit cards has PROVEN that you get more customers, and they spend more.

Unless the thread is about *why* people in debt are in debt... then magically there is zero correlation.