Comment by adrian_b
17 hours ago
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.
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
That is the cash purchaser paying the retailer more than they need to. There's no conservation law stating that store revenue is a constant and missed revenue from one customer must be made up for by another, nor that every additional operating cost must be directly pushed onto customers.
Similarly, we do not say that October shoppers transfer wealth to Black Friday shoppers, even though the only tangible difference from your scenario is an irrelevant temporal one.
> 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.
Discounts on volume deals are yet another thing since a higher volume helps the business exceed the break-even threshold faster. Also, volume deals have a favorable management effort to income ratio compared to single transactions.
Huge numbers reduce manufacturing costs, but only because they justify investments that are uneconomical at lower volumes. The business would still go bankrupt if they don't read breakeven.
Economies of scale are a real thing and not just because of monopolies wanting to deny new incumbents.
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.
> lower income people are generally subsidized by taxes
Pretty flimsy argument to begin with. Because the rich then argue to lower their taxes and/or simply not pay them and the whole system falls apart. Not to mention that lower income people paying more to keep afloat debt than taxes (which at worst is a much better interest deal for an installment plan) is a much worse model for society.
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.
Yep, pretty much the credit card tax. One of the most ugly things.
Do you have a link? Highly interested in that thread. Do you know if people discussed how state solutions faired? I'm assuming something like Pix from the Brazilian Central Bank does an even better job at prevention while providing a public service.
https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/how-credit-car... probably this
Pix, UPI, and a few more
That would be this post of 16 days ago, 453 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432201
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.
Your solution sounds significantly more complicated actually.
In what way? There are many sources of inequality. Trying to play whack a mole with each one seems much more laborious than simply deciding how much inequality you want in society, and then setting it with the tax code
1 reply →