Comment by StopDisinfo910
2 days ago
Yes, fees are capped in the EU for exemple.
Considering the impact on prices, cashback is basically reverse redistribution. It makes the situation worse for the poorest customers to give money to the banks and their richest customers.
Yep if you use a card in the US the company just takes 2c from your left pocket and puts it in your right pocket in a form that's more difficult to use.
And if you don't use a card, the business takes 2c from your left pocket and keeps it.
It's a great trick though, people really buy into the whole points/cashback thing and don't realise they're being paid with their own money
It's usually more than 3 cents out of your left pocket and 1.5-2 into your right one, even if you do everything right and never incur interest charges or fees.
> It's a great trick though, people really buy into the whole points/cashback thing and don't realise they're being paid with their own money
Even better, they become poorly-paid lobbyists for the entire scheme, since it successfully makes them feel like they're getting "luxury" items/services for free by "gaming the banks", when they're really just participating in a loyalty scheme exactly as designed.
Sure, it's possible to eke out a net cash profit here and there, but all in all, it's just a great counterexample to homo economicus.
It’s not being paid with my own money. If I can get 2% cash back, then the situation is I either pay 98% of $x, or $x.
Nowadays though, many sellers are offering at least 3% or higher discounts for not using credit card. My mobile network provider, home ISP, daycare and kids activities, insurance, taxes, healthcare, tradespeople, and even Target offers a 5% discount if you do not use a credit card.
It’s basically only travel, restaurants, and non Target retail that earns credit card rewards. Although sign up bonuses make it worth paying the additional credit card fees sometimes.
> It’s not being paid with my own money. If I can get 2% cash back, then the situation is I either pay 98% of $x, or $x.
The counterfactual isn't getting or not getting 2% cash back, it's the merchant paying or not paying ~3% in fees, a part of which you get back from your issuing bank as a kickback to keep participating in and advocating for this scheme.
Of course this would require regulatory action. Absent that, the status quo represents the stable equilibrium.
Well if you can get $100 worth of X on credit card for $98, but you can buy the same thing with cash for $97, aren't you actually paying 150% of the "cash back" with your own money? ¯\\_(ಠ_ಠ)_/¯
3 replies →
My point is if credit cards didn't exist, the $1 thing would cost 98c, so in that sense it's your money.
Admittedly that is overstating it a bit because not everyone uses a rewards card. In reality the 2% cashback is 1% your own money being given back to you and 1% money from people paying in cash being transferred to you (normally regressively as someone else pointed out).
If you get a discount for paying cash, then it really is just your own money
9 replies →