141–150 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What work do they generate for Square? It's not really "Devil's" advocate to advicate for the current standard practice across the industry.
Dealing with disputes usually requires a lot of human manual intervention and had a high rate of bad publicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The convenience of credit cards — and customers' willingness to spend more when they are accepted — is worth more to retailers and customers than the processing fees. I for one never carry cash, and I will happily pay any extra transaction fees from local businesses for the opportunity to reduce the size of my wallet, the cost/risk of casual theft, and the need to queue at an ATM for cash as part of my daily life.
Debit offers most of these benefits though, at much lower expense. I use credit because with the rebates it’s rational for me. If retailers offered a sufficient cash discount to wipe out the 1% rebate, I would move most of my volume to debit or even to direct debit. An example is my cell phone bill. Verizon offers such a huge discount for direct debit that I do it. Otherwise I would certainly use credit.
Rinse, repeat with most vendors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another big one is clothing. Order two sizes and send the one back that doesn't fit.
When clothing manufacturers remove an inch or three to make people feel better about themselves, what else can you do?
Is that actually a thing for clothes sized in inches? Or are you referring to the unitless sizing of women's clothes?
I do get that unitless sizing is annoying to deal with. But it's apparently popular enough to exist as a thing.
For Men's clothes that aren't measured in inches and are instead s/m/l/..., I find those measurement to be shockingly stable across the industry. Although, to be fair, men's clothes are generally meant to fit more loosely than many articles of women's clothes.
Sounds like the real villains are the credit card companies who have the market power to enforce fees on cancelled payments. They are so entrenched no one is even questioning their position anymore. Visa and Mastercard are massive drains on our economy - it's ridiculous how unquestioningly their 3% tax on commerce is accepted.
Square is saying they'll keep the whole 3%. That's obviously different and not Visa/Mastercard's fault - Visa is refunding it to Square, Square is keeping it. Stripe is now doing the same thing too.
The fixed cost is the processing fee and that cost includes processing refunds. The percentage is the "interchange fee" and is supposed to represent the agreed take of the processing network for that settled transaction.
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/16583-credit-card-processi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CC companies are genius. They charge companies 3% -> companies embed that 3% in their prices -> customers get a 1% refund from CC companies. - If you do NOT use a CC, you effectively pay _more for CC users_ (3%!). - CC companies make the customer feel like they have a benefit, while in fact, they are net payers too (2%). - They have access to all (private) data of the customer, which is extremely powerful in this age…
I honestly have no idea how the hell the US public is still deluding itself to not make this illegal. Are the only ones that get it so content with their 1-2% pieces of silver that they're fine in trading the wellbeing of the less fortunate?
Pretty much all of finance, Landlords, IP trolling - the rich will unashamedly collect undeserved rent on anything they can up to and slightly over the line of the law.
Sounds like the real villains are the credit card companies who have the market power to enforce fees on cancelled payments. They are so entrenched no one is even questioning their position anymore. Visa and Mastercard are massive drains on our economy - it's ridiculous how unquestioningly their 3% tax on commerce is accepted.
Cash still works and if you can get enough people to go back to using it then credit cards will have to change or be more ripe for disruption.
Sounds like the real villains are the credit card companies who have the market power to enforce fees on cancelled payments. They are so entrenched no one is even questioning their position anymore. Visa and Mastercard are massive drains on our economy - it's ridiculous how unquestioningly their 3% tax on commerce is accepted.
In Australia, this is regulated and they can charge no more than 1.5%. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/pricing/card-surcharges This could be changed overnight with 1 piece of legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly have no idea how the hell the US public is still deluding itself to not make this illegal. Are the only ones that get it so content with their 1-2% pieces of silver that they're fine in trading the wellbeing of the less fortunate?
On the one hand, 3% cc fees are much higher than what would be set by a competitive market and are only possible with an oligopoly. On the other hand, the convenience that they allow for not carrying cash is often worth more than the 3% to consumers/merchants like me. E.g. any online payment. So while it's massively overpriced, it's still a win win usually, and I think that's probably why people aren't madder about i…