Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

squareup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#151

Post by latchkey »

foobar1962 wrote: post #140
latchkey wrote: post #26

This will affect businesses that do 3rd party merchant services, like events. If the event is cancelled, refunds are issued. Who pays that fee? It would be up to the business to try to claw back funds from the promoter of the event... who is now bankrupt from not being able to do their event. It gets ugly fast.

> If the event is cancelled, refunds are issued. Who pays that fee? Insurance. The promotor would have insurance to cover this. If the event was cancelled due to a performer cancelling, the performer's insurance will pay. All this puts up the price of insurance, which puts up the price of event tickets.

Not all events have performers. My site was for people who participate in local bike races. They can’t afford insurance like this.

Again, events was just an example. This applies to all services like this.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#152

Post by olliej »

cwkoss wrote: post #147
themaninthedark wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know this is a contentious topic for some on HN, but one thing I like about blockchains is the way fees are used feels more fair and just.

I especially like the lower transaction speed, worse environmental impact, and the inability to reverse a fraudulent transaction.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#153

Post by lmm »

falcolas wrote: post #120
jsonne wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You negotiate by not using square and using an alternative system in that scenario. There are price competitive options even for small businesses. The UI might be clunkier and the equipment more dated but that is the tradeoff.

I believe a sibling comment said it best: > In practice, [switching vendors] is an extremely weak signal, is swamped out by market changes, assumes zero cost of switching, ignores network effects, etc. One of many reasons why I distrust economist’s assertion of fairness. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34999021 I'd also pedantically point out that this isn't really a negotiation tactic - negotiation generally in…

If you send a message and that message is understood, that's communication. There are many ways to communicate "your price was too high".

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#154

Post by cwkoss »

olliej wrote: post #152
cwkoss wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a contentious topic for some on HN, but one thing I like about blockchains is the way fees are used feels more fair and just.

I especially like the lower transaction speed, worse environmental impact, and the inability to reverse a fraudulent transaction.

lol they just cant help themselves

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#155

Post by patmcc »

cwkoss wrote: post #139
patmcc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a user perspective, I get a lot of benefit from credit cards. I get cash back, an interest-free advance, the ability to do chargebacks, very low liability for lost/stolen cards, etc. If I got 1% or 2% lower prices, would I give all that up? I doubt it.

Cashback on credit cards is really just a rebate on the CC fees that are baked in to all prices. It's still a net economic loss for consumers, just not as bad as if you weren't taking advantage of that. Credit cards only seem like a good deal to consumers because it is hard to reason about n-th order economic effects. The profits these companies make are ultimately coming from all of our wallets.

It's a net economic loss for consumers as a class, sure. That doesn't mean it's a loss for each individual consumer.

I'm not against lowering CC fees. But the idea that they're just rent seeking is very silly.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#156

Post by amethyst »

massysett wrote: post #118
amethyst wrote: post #108

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.

Except with debit the risk is now back on me to make sure my PIN doesn't get stolen/skimmed/whatever. Transactions are less convenient than a single tap, and (at least in the US) requires paying attention to see if places even support debit.

Ironically, many smaller shops don't support it, even though it would theoretically be cheaper per-transaction, because the up-front costs and hurders are higher than a Square account.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#157

Post by computing »

Uh, if only there existed a neutral, owned-by-no-one, decentralized monetary network with instant low-cost transfers and finality.

Too bad this sort of stuff is out of science fiction.

EDIT: aaaand I'm being downvoted :) At least leave a comment.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#158

Post by thayne »

unglaublich wrote: post #110
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American system is too deeply tied to capital to have a policy that actually helps citizens and small businesses get passed. The second a government official proposed something like this, the espionage arms of the credit card corporations would come down so hard on them and arrange for them to fail their next appointment (through "lobbying")

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…

Evil genius

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#159

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

crote wrote: post #84
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our businesses should be doing more to prevent refunds. The sheer amount of trash every large company makes is sickening.

Even if you do everything you can to prevent it, you still incur refunds. It is simply impossible to get everything right 100% of the time - not in the least because people keep buying the wrong items . Things like cancelled or modified orders happen all the time, and you can't really do anything to prevent those.

And that sounds like the cost of doing business to me. For especially egregious cases the companies should reserve the right to charge customers for being stupid and wasteful.

Re: Square to no longer return processing fees when buyers are issued a refund

#160

Post by mixdup »

unglaublich wrote: post #132
fallingknife wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, the convenience of having drinkable tap water is also worth >3% of your net income. But luckily, because of competitive markets, it's often <0.1% of your income.

what city in the US has a competitive water distribution system?
Post reply on HN