← Back to context

Comment by avianlyric

16 hours ago

The EU caps all card interchange fees at 0.3% for credit cards and 0.2% for debit, which is an order of magnitude lower than some of the fees in the US.

That’s why you don’t see the same kinds of credit card deals in the EU compared to the US.

Note that the caps were introduced because the EU already had widespread use of bank cards, but local schemes were being replaced with Mastercard/Visa debit - the caps were brought in to prevent the duopoly from profiteering. (Apple/Google pay also use Mastercard/Visa virtual cards in the EU.) Before the cap, credit cards had way higher fees and there were some reward cards, which led to merchants simply not accepting Mastercard/Visa. Local schemes included Mastercard-owned Maestro (used in Germany, The Netherlands and for some reason Brazil) but also local schemes like Belgium's Bancontact/MrCash. It's unfortunate some of those schemes didn't just merge and started competing in foreign countries as well.

  • At least in Germany as far as I'm aware all banking cards are in fact "simple" visa cards who uses "V-pay", since 2012/2014?

    Personally I "like" or prefer V-pay because it made payment in the EU more easily for me without the need of a credit card even 8 years ago. Since the pandemic, I only pay for a (real) credit card (with daily billing) because some goods or services can only be paid with a "real" card, like more expensive cars at a car renting company or sometimes hotel rooms and the like.

    In general I try to pay with cash so nobody needs to pay extra fees. But more and more smaller businesses prefer electronic payments. Then I use the banking card with V-pay and to state it again, the real visa card is only used when no other options are available.

    • I'm quite opposite. I avoid any places that don't accept card payments, because it usually means they are avoiding taxes. And I don't have cash on me, or wallet. Only phone or sometimes only my garmin watch (with garmin pay).

    • > o nobody needs to pay extra fees

      Processing cash is by far >not free<! In fact, it costs a lot of money due to all the things involved (counting/collection/recycling etc). Anf it inwolves additional risks for the handling party.

      7 replies →

I think that there was a recent HN thread that linked to an article which argued that the credit card system of USA has the purpose of taking money from the poor and giving them to the rich, and the estimated amount of the money transferred in this way was huge.

The EU limits for card fees prevent this in Europe, which is very good.

  • Assuming they pay their credit card bill themselves, it's effectively a volume discount for big spenders (though that "volume" goes to multiple vendors). The argument that the money "comes from" other customers is sort of like claiming that when you "save money" by buying things on sale, the money comes from other customers who paid full price. Actually you aren't "saving money" at all; you're spending money.

    Similarly, the "whales" in a casino get lots of "free" benefits, but only because they're losing a lot of money gambling. They paid for them.

    Contrast with frequent-flier miles where businesses pay for plane tickets but the points go to individuals. That's pretty clearly siphoning off business expenses.

    • > Actually you aren't "saving money" at all; you're spending money.

      You are spending money, but you are spending far less money than the poor spend when paying for exactly the same products or services.

      If I want to buy a few server CPUs or a few server computers or a few "datacenter" GPUs, I have to pay at least 2 or 3 times more than billionaires pay for them.

      The same if I want to buy any other kinds of components that can be used to build things, e.g. power MOSFET transistors.

      There is no "economy of scale" here, because those products are already fabricated in the high volumes that reduce their production costs.

      For shipping, the costs are typically the same, regardless if the recipient is a big company or a small company or an individual, so they do not justify the price differences.

      Even when the handling and shipping costs were bigger for small quantities, a small business or an individual could just pay the difference in handling and shipping prices, but that does not happen in reality, when the discounts given to the rich are many times higher than the shipping costs.

      This policy of huge discounts is one of the main causes why all the markets end up in being dominated by monopolies or quasi-monopolies, because it is impossible for new entrants to compete with the incumbents, who pay much less than them for everything. Thus the biggest companies end up selling mostly between themselves, excluding any others.

    • ok, but what about for equivalent spenders?

      one cash, one credit?

      the credit payer is clearly paying less, with the difference paid by increased prices overall. That is the cash purchaser paying the credit one

      1 reply →

    • The model is inverted here, though. The whales essentially get the big discounts at the expense of those who go into debt for one reason or another. That's why there's an argument of wealth transfer up. The "biggest spenders" will end up paying little or no interest

  • A refutation of that view: https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/credit-card-r...

    • I reached the midpoint of the podcast without seeing a proper argument against this then I gave up.

      It tries to argue that higher reward rates are necessary to attrach customers that pay a lot (for credit card companies) and that lower income people are generally subsidized by taxes (obvious but unrelated), but at no point (until where I read) it seems to address the issue of merchants having to generally increase prices due to these cards.

      1 reply →

    • Looking now at that, it does a poor job of making a true refutation.

      What that article explains, is that the system of credit card fees and rewards that is used in USA is extraordinarily complicated, variable and obfuscated in comparison with other countries, so it is extremely difficult to discover who gains most and who loses most.

      So the conclusion is more like "there is insufficient evidence because we cannot access all the required financial information" for the claims of the other article and the refutation itself presents no evidence that the claims of wealth redistribution are incorrect.

  • > has the purpose of taking money from the poor and giving them to the rich

    Are you saying it is intentional? Is it not more simply explained as simple greed by two companies colluding to keep competitors out of their market?

    • But simple corporate greed is the same thing as taking money fro the poor and giving it to the rich?

    • It may be a partial factor. Similar to how CC companies have a logical reason to reject high charge chargeback items , but may also be ideologically driven to push certain agendas as well.

  • Wouldn’t it be simpler for European countries to simply raise the VAT and redistribute the proceeds to poor people, rather than regulate the interchange fees if the concern is inequality

    • So.. you’d have both higher taxes and higher interchange fees? What’s the appeal of that?

    • VAT is a regressive consumption tax. Raising VAT, hurting poor people the most, skimming a bit off the top and then "redistributing" it back to them would make no sense.

      Do you mean a higher corporate tax paid by companies like VISA and Mastercard?

      Either way, the solution is already on the horizon: Digital Euro.

Note that these are interchange fees charged by the networks. Unless you're operating at massive scale, merchant account suppliers still charge the shop whatever they want. The shop is paying far more than 0.2 / 0.3%.

2.5% for credit and 25c fixed for debit is the usual ballpark.