comment: >
  
  
  Credit/debit card fees in this day and age should not be paid for by the customer
  
  EVERYTHING is paid for by the customer, why would the company pay for someting for someone out of the kindness of their heart? That's literally the exact opposite of how business works. They provide good or services and pass all the costs on to customers so they make a profit. 
  
  Unless I'm going like a 25 cent transaction where you would lose money on it I don't see a reason this charge makes sense. 
  
  It makes sense because that's how businesses work. The company not passing the cost to consumers included in the price is what would be illogical or not make sense.
context: /u/VeryCleverUsername4 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  If credit card fees were handled by the business, wouldn't businesses just slightly raise the price of every item in order to compensate for the fees? Anything else would just be bad business sense. >
  
  That’s exactly what you see. 
  A business will charge $1.03 for credit cards and offer a “cash discount” moving it down to $1. 
  The customer always pays the fee. The question is just whether or not it is transparent. >
  
  So I have a question then what fees in the us are added onto the labelled price of an item. In Australia what price is on an item is the price customer's need to pay unless stated otherwise. Normally tax and other fees are put on before they tell us the price. >
  
  Opposite here. Price listed is the base price - taxes and fees are added on at the register. 
  This is because each stare/town could have a different tax rate so business advertise the price before that. >
  
  I guess that is pretty helpfull especially for online shopping, so a different site isnt needed for different states. I'm pretty sure we have a standard tax in each state that as around 12% I think and some items like alcohol and cigarettes have additional taxes on them. >
  
  It's not even just each state; each state, county, and town (even some 'sub towns' of towns like particular neighborhoods can have special taxes) can have layers of taxes so a line item might say 'Taxes: $1' and that's $0.43 federal tax, $0.21 state tax, $0.14 county tax, and $0.22 city tax. If any of those change for that kind of item, you'd have to update all the labels. 
  With 4 tiers of taxes, it just makes more sense to handle all of that at the point of sale. Digital pricing labels do exist, but they are not cheap to retrofit and have additional considerations like running power to every aisle and hardening shelves so when someone hits the electric rail with their cart, it doesn't cause problems. >
  
  Just to point out the obvious, the business does pay the fee. Do you ever make a second separate transaction to the payment processing company? No, obviously not.
  So then the question becomes, should the business allot the payments equally between all their customers, or just the ones generating the extra cost?
  There's arguments for both methods. Having everyone pay the fees is more efficient and saves everyone time.
  But the other argument is probably more compelling to most people. Should the customers who create the cost be responsible for it? Or should their purchase be subsidized by everyone else?
  It's generally a negligible cost, so usually people don't think about it. But in the interest of fairness, it probably should be born by the people incurring the cost. >
  
  That's basically how it works at our shop. We always inform new customers of the processing fee and most will write a check on the spot, especially when their bill is a couple thousand dollars. >
  
  For small purchases, maybe where the fees are up to $10, it probably makes sense to spare everyone the hassle of paying their own fees. But at a certain point, clients probably would like the option. If they could save $30 that might be important to a small business. It might not matter to Adidas. And I assume most people know their clientele and are adjusting their model to that. But someone mentioned that fees for their product can be in the hundreds, and at that point it's pretty important to everyone. Even if Adidas can pay that with no sweat, if you're the one paying and can tell your boss you saved Adidas X hundred dollars a year by mailing checks or doing wire transfers, that's money you could ask to take a cut of in the form of a raise. >
  
  On big purchases, I'll often email the business and offer to wire the money to them in exchange for a discount that effectively splits the credit card processing fee. If you're spending $10k, you can usually get them to knock $150-$200 off, and everybody wins. The credit card I would use would typically cost them 3.5-4% or more (depending on their arrangement with their processor), so knocking a couple hundred bucks off the price in exchange for me wiring the funds => I save money and they make more money. >
  
  The business needs to make money, and if they’re losing money paying the credit card company because they don’t pass the service fee on to the customers, they’re just going to raise the prices of their goods in store to stay afloat >
  
  It's actually worse if they don't charge the customer.
  There's two types of business: ones that do charge and ones that don't.
  Suppose a business bought their item for 50cents, and they sell it for $1.
  For the business that do charge you use using CC, it means they'll charge you $1 flat or $1.03 if you use a credit card.
  For the businesses that don't charge for convenience fees, it means the product is being sold for $1.03 to all customers. So whether you'll be using CC or cash, it'll cost $1.03.
  So you're proposing everyone to pay more for product even tho they've been saving money for paying cash.
  .
  Side note, for those who are financially responsible, paying with CC is almost always worth it because of the points/cash back you get for spending with CC. There's some card that gives you 5% Cashback where the convenience fee is 3%, so that's a 2% Cashback for spending with CC >
  
  Credit cards like visa also double warranty periods on some purchases and can include insurances on things like car rentals >
  
  Every cost a business is charged is ultimately paid for by the customers. If there's insufficient profit the business closes, and if there's a lot of profit then at least in theory competitor emerge to undercut the business, so the profit margin tends to be pretty fixed.
  All this would do is result in prices being raised which means everyone gets charged. >
  
  You say that even though they lose 3 cents, they’re making 97. But that’s not true.
  I run a small business making chainmaille jewellery. I pay a 1.9% fee. Let’s call it 2% for ease of maths. Now let’s look at a $100 necklace. 
  I’ve paid $20 for materials. It took me 2 hours to make. An apprentice jeweller makes roughly $30 an hour. So that’s $80 spent before you buy it. So that $2 fee is 10% of my profit. 
  Now we need to factor the weather on tools, the fees for a stall at the market, the labour cost of running the stall, insurance, transport. The time I spend on advertising and social media. Taxes. All these extra costs that aren’t per item, but still need to be covered by my sales.
  And that’s a one person operation that doesn’t use specialised tools and can be done from my back room. Now imagine a store with a physical premises and multiple staff. 
  Those fees can add up fast >
  
  There is absolutely no difference between charging the customer a 3% fee and charging the business a 3% fee. Either the business charges the customer about $103 for 100 units of stuff or the customer pays $100 for about 97 units of stuff. 1.5% is charged to the customer and 1.5% is charged to the business. You can charge either the buyer or the seller in the short run, but there is no possible way to charge more to the seller or the buyer in the long run because either the supply or demand for the good or service will adjust to the new equilibrium. It's like dissolving salt into water. It's impossible to say that the salt is getting wetter than the water is becoming salty.
  This is an idea that is taught in entry level economics courses. Unfortunately, most people in the US don't take economics in high school or even in college. Personally, I think this is the single biggest knowledge gap in the US. If you've never taken economics and are interested, I suggest the Khan Academy videos. I also suggest NPR's Planet Money Summer School podcast. >
  
  I worked for a company that was in business to business sales. Sales could be $400 all the way to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Industry standard was to pay with a check after invoiced. So prices were based on cash. 
  On occasion customers would want to pay with a card. On a $10,000 order, that is $300 in fees. Why would we eat $300 of profit? When they were often buying OEM parts where is was at best, extremely difficult to source elsewhere. >
  
  
  Why would we eat $300 of profit?
  
  You don't, you account for it in the price. >
  
  So we should raise the price for everyone because a small percentage wants to use a card? >
  
  Shops generally account for their costs in the price of things they sell.
  See when a shop offers free delivery on something, did you know that when you pay the same for it in the shop, you're subsidising the free delivery for the person who doesn't buy it in-person?
  Cash as a percentage of all payments in 2021 in the UK only accounted for 15%. What do you think "small percentage" means? Debit cards accounted for 48%.
  In the US, cash only accounted for 11% of purchases in 2021, with credit and debit amounting to 70%.
  Edit: Amended UK figures to the latest 2022 report covering 2021. >
  
  I’m not talking about society as a whole, but specifically the company I worked for. So those numbers don’t matter. 
  Maybe 1 in 20 of the parts business wanted to use a card. And basically none of the labor or capital purchases used a card because most people don’t want to use (or obviously don’t have the credit limit to purchase) $80,000-$1,000,000 on a card. >
  
  
  And basically none of the labor or capital purchases used a card because most people don’t want to use (or obviously don’t have the credit limit to purchase) $80,000-$1,000,000 on a card.
  
  What method of payment are they using for $80k+ that isn't incurring fees then? I doubt they're paying hundreds of thousands in cash. >
  
  A check. 
  You have to remember we are talking about major corporations. Manufacturing plants, hospitals, very large office buildings. >
  
  
  A check.
  
  So you have a significantly higher risk of failed payments, you have delays on processing times too.
  You might as well take payment in locked briefcases that unlock after an arbitrary timer expires. Maybe you'll have the money, maybe you won't.
  Your scenario isn't really representative of what OP is talking about though, so it's weird to focus primarily on large-scale transactions like that where OP is discussing standard consumer shopping. Nobody is expecting card or cash payments approaching millions, it'll be more likely to be direct bank transfers at that amount. >
  
  We do credit checks. These are often repeat customers. Rarely do we get burned. 
  If we ever had problems with payments, which has happened with like three customers, we make them pay in advance before we ever do work for them again. >
  
  
  Rarely do we get burned
  
  Rarely is more than never. If you don't want to risk a $300 card processing fee, why would you potentially risk a $100,000 transaction by cheque? >
  
  Small opposition is wondering how this will be enforced? All this will do is raise prices. 
  A great example is free shipping and free returns. The cost of the item is increased to cover these without the consumer knowledge. Convenience fees would likely be the same. 
  I understand where you’re coming from, but in practicality the consumer always pays >
  
  Yeah things like free shipping and returns aren't free. But people think they are. The buyer would rather pay $20 with free shipping than $10 plus $6 shipping. Ive found that I'm making a lot more money by raising prices more than the shipping cost, and then saying it's free shipping. Margins went up, and so did the number of sales. It's insane. >
  
  Believe it or not, there are a good many businesses that run on a very low margin.  For instance I sell televisions to hotels.  The orders are $50,000 or more.  TVs in this industry are a commodity.  If my cost is $100,000 and I make a 4% markup, I make $4000 on the sale.  If I accept a credit card on that order I pay close to $3000 in processing fees.  Multiply that by 10 sales of that size a year (typical), and assuming I took credit card on all, that is $30,000 in credit card fees and $10,000 in profit.  No credit card, my profit is $40,000.
  Not all sales are this big, but multiply 500 small transactions a day and it still adds up.  The options a retail business has is to charge enough to cover potential fees, or mitigate that fee by charging a convenience fee.  Raising prices makes you less competitive which results in loss of sales.  Anyways that is my take. >
  
  But that's why you include all your costs in the final price of your product. 
  When you sell these TVs, you buy the TV for what, let's say $1,000, then you turn around and sell it to a hotel for what $1,040. What does that $40 cover? Your salary, your employees salaries, insurance, lease on your buildings, etc. Well, why not, and let me come up with a novel idea, why not just then sell your product for $1,060 and now you can cover an additional cost which is a credit card fee?
  I like how people are coming up with excuses. If you can't figure out to run your business, then you shouldn't be running a business. ANd if you're calling card processors middlemen who just charge fees, then what the fuck are you but a middleman when the hotel could just go straight to Samsung and buy the TV. But no, you've decided to put yourself right in the middle to help out. What makes you think you deserve to make a little money being a middleman but some other card processor shouldn't? >
  
  So if I advertise a TV for $500 including my 3% and the next guy advertises theirs at $485 not including the credit card fee, the guy at the $485 price point wins the deal.  You are making the assumption that every person selling something works under the same set of rules.  That is wishful thinking, not reality.  No the customer can’t go to Samsung directly.  They have to go through a distributor unless they are very large (40 hotels or more).  You don’t have even a small clue how business works. >
  
  Those are just excuses for why you should be in business.
  Can they really not go straight to Samsung? If push came to shove, that hotel could go straight to Samsung and pretty quickly both Samsung and the hotel would figure out that you're eating a little bit of their lunch.
  Look, we're all middlemen in a way. >
  
  The answer is an absolute no, they cannot buy directly for Samsung.  Let me put it in more simple  terms. Can you call Coca Cola and say you are coming to the factory to pick up a 12 pack? >
  
  If the merchant pays the credit card fee, then they have to increase their prices by 2-3%. This punishes the people who pay with cash who aren't costing the merchant any more money. >
  
  Cash handling costs money as well. >
  
  Exactly! Unfortunately people don't look at it that way. People coming up with these excuses don't think "well, shoot, now I have to make sure my cashiers are doing it correctly and not shorting me or shorting my customers, and then I have to count and reconcile all the cash, and then I also have to pay someone to go to the bank and deposit it all while trusting all these people not to steal from me."
  People on this thread seem to think "credit cards have fees, cash doesn't. cash wins." >
  
  Can you point out any businesses that do this to show it can viably generate a meaningful boost to sales to cover the loss? >
  
  The wedding industry is a good example (especially event spaces and venues). A lot of places take primarily cash or check and pass on cc fees to customers.
  Now when booking an event space is $10k, a 3% fee is a lot. Should a business have to eat that cost? Maybe not. But as a consumer, i don't want to not have purchase protection at such a high price point. And i don't think I should have to pay $300 for purchase protection in this instance
  And this is an industry operating on extremely high margins. >
  
  But they passed all the other costs down to you as a consumer? Do you think $10k is just for the space? 
  Just like the $10,000 includes cleaning the space after the wedding. You wouldn't just say "well, it's $10k but if you want to have four of your friends come back the next day and clean the place, it will be $9k."  Or what if they came up to you and said "it's $10k, but if you agree not to use our AC, then you can save yourself $400, I know it's july and it will be hot, but you shouldn't have to pay $400." 
  You're a business. Figure out a way to cover all your costs and pass them onto the consumer. YOu sure as shit passed your costs of cleaning the place onto the consumer, you've also passed down the cost of cooling the place during the ceremony, same with everything else about it. Why not the processing fee? >
  
  I didn't find a mention of this, so here it is. EU made this separation of card fees illegal. Businesses can't add another fee to the purchase price based on the payment method.
  Business has several options to handle this. One would be hiking item prices to cover the average card fee (visa/ms/amex..). Which most do as it's just another part of the price making process (wages, energy...).
  Either way, that fee is invisible and I would say 99% people don't even know there are any card fees being charged outside of payment in foreign currency or foreign ATMs. Is it better for the customer or not? I don't know, but as a customer you are at least spared any surprises at the till. >
  
  All costs of doing business are paid for by the customer.  Having them separate is merely itemizing in a way that means the cost isn't equally split between credit card customers and cash customers.
  This is little different than a contractor that itemized labor separate from materials due to the differences between customer preferences. But plenty of people that provide a service include the cost of materials in their rate.
  Depends on the business and it is a choice. I agree it is an annoyance to have an excessive a lost of charges rather than just a total, but again some people may appreciate a breakdown.
  It is up to the business owner to bet their business that the choice they make overall makes more of the right customers happy than upset.
  Related, friend has a business and had let customers pick their shipping rate and charged them separately. But somewhat unexpectedly the most picky customers wanting the cheapest shipping were causing the most problems between lack of tracking and other issues.
  Now they simply include a flat cost of the most expensive shipping in the lost price and advertises free shipping. Apparently people love "free shipping" and having tracking on all orders has greatly reduced the headache of untraceable lost orders. Business is doing better than ever and making more money.
  That may sound like an argument in your favor, but really, why should we assume this would be the case for all businesses?
  I've also heard that there are quite a few industries where the profit margin is smaller than the credit card fee. In particular,  jewlers are an outlier in terms of a retail business with very small margins.
  There's also a few restaurants I love that are cash only because they don't want to deal with any of that.
  We should normalize letting customers and businesses choose. Though of course it is fair to share you won't go to a place that doesn't take credit cards or itemizes fees. That's your choice too. >
  
  Yeah, this was my first thought also. 
  I’m too tired to explain in depth right now, but it’s kind of like the difference between VAT and Sales Tax. Either way, it’s passed on to the customer. It’s just how it’s packaged >
  
  Its a cultural split in the end.
  In most countries the price you see is the price you pay and anything els is taken as utterly dishonest.
  The USA via sales tax already rejects this concept so eh makes little difference.
  Still Americans should make it legally binding for businesses that take card to display these charges in a clear and standardised way before the point of sale. >
  
  Meh. I dunno. I get what you’re saying. I have a master’s in tax and work in tax (not sales /state & local though). And maybe i am biased because it was never a problem for me growing up - I lived in a state with no sales tax. 
  But, I feel like most people do their shopping in a jurisdiction where they’d know their sales tax rate. if you are in the position where you need to add up all the products for whatever reason, it’s only one more number to adjust it with. I’ll always advocate for people to do mental math in their day to day life, but if it’s too cumbersome/you’re that close to not having enough money that you need a more exact number, every adult I know has a calculator in their pocket.
  That is in comparison to relabeling nearly every object on the shelves of America with a new price tag, and updating them again every time the rate changes. And not being able to label the products until they get into whatever state they’re going since most stuff is trucked in from out of state. 
  Honestly, it seems like it would be a pretty big pain in the neck. 
  Don’t get me wrong, VAT is absolutely superior for accomplishing its goal - remittance. Will it get passed in America? No. Without VAT, and with the way states and retail logistics is set up, I’m pretty sure Walmart et al would rather just pay big fees to the gvnment then try to implement that change and hire all the additional labor >
  
  
  Meh. I dunno. I get what you’re saying. I have a master’s in tax and work in tax (not sales /state & local though). And maybe i am biased because it was never a problem for me growing up - I lived in a state with no sales tax.
  
  IMO if a regulation doesnt impact you either way, it's not about people like you.
  For those for whom this matters it realy matters.
  
  Honestly, it seems like it would be a pretty big pain in the neck.
  
  Not realy.no. prices update anually anyway. Such measures are always announced a year or two in advance.
  I agree VAT is a precondition. >
  
  Regarding your first point, are you not from the UK? It is presumptuous to lecture someone about their countries’s policies, especially when I explained I’ve taken graduate level coursework on the subject, work in the industry, and live it day to day.
  I already explained in depth my thoughts on who it does effect and how it can be dealt with. I was talking about the most disadvantaged (Americans) - people who may have to calculate the cost as they navigate a store. But maybe you meant tourists, as non-Americans are the only people who seem to have a problem (and lecture about) this policy of how pricing works in the stores. 
  sorry, that’s life. It is a tourist’s responsibility to do research on cultural differences before traversing a country. 
  I care deeply about economic egalitarianism and education, but even those in the most economic dire straits in the US are more than capable of calculating sales tax (and do every day). I do not equate being hard up with being stupid.
  
  such changes are announced a year or two in advance
  
  Often not the case. >
  
  
  Regarding your first point, are you not from the UK? It is presumptuous to lecture someone about their countries’s policies, especially when I explained I’ve taken graduate level coursework on the subject, work in the industry,
  
  My understanding will be closer to the typical working class American than yours.
  Your entire livelihood rests in knowing the system. If your wage remotely matches your education you have sufichent income that these charges cant significantly harm you.
  Regulation is not for you, it is for the greater good of your entire society.
  I wouldn't dream of dictating the answer to that quesiton but i will staunchly impress the framing. 
  Your stance as communicated here amounts to "it doesnt hurt me and would be inconvenient to change".
  
  I care deeply about economic egalitarianism 
  
  Given everything els you say here this is unbelievable.
  
  but even those in the most economic dire straits in the US are more than capable of calculating sales tax (and do every day). I do not equate being hard up with being stupid.
  
  No is in good faith calling them stupid. Its not stupid to he caught out by a bullshit lack of transparency.
  I'd be satisfied if every buisness was obliged to list their charges on the front door/ front page. Listed before the subtotal. >
  
  Sales tax rates do not lack transparency. They are a stated rate based on jurisdiction - either at the state level or county/city. >
  
  
  It's a tool that allows you to attract more customers and make more money.
  
  Is it though? Have you ever actually decided not to buy from a vendor because of a small fee? The places that charge these fees are either 1) a product for which there is no reasonable alternative (e.g. Ticketmaster) or 2) a small business who is counting pennies and is probably selling something very local or niche for which there is no real alternative. In either case, do they actually lose out on customers for passing on the cost of credit cards? 
  In fact, it's easy to do it in reverse: provide a cash discount. In a lot of cases, small businesses will automatically just pass on the charge of the electronic cost to everyone and instead provide people who pay in cash with a discount. This is functionally the same thing, yet nobody seems to be bothered by it. So I don't think the extra cost of a "convenience fee" is really make or break for many customers. >
  
  Not for the credit card fees but for having access to a credit card machine.
  If you go to a place like McDonalds at night, their card machines are (allegedly) down during that time. You will see cars of potential customers leaving without purchasing because they only have cards. That's a lot of lost revenue. Plus with some situations it doesn't make sense to carry cash. If i'm going to buy a $1000 TV I don't want to walk around with the money on me. 
  Another commenter mentioned it and I would find that shady too. Like you said it's just doing the same thing in reverse >
  
  I've never been to a McDonald's at night and not been able to use my card >
  
  Happens every night where I live >
  
  Have you asked them why? I can't imagine any good reason for this business practice. Granted many mcdonalds are not corporate run so they can do whatever they want within reason. >
  
  A lot of older restaurants have to have a nightly reboot of their systems to keep everything running well. Happened at the BK I worked at in uni. We were 24/7 at the time, but from 3-4am every night we couldn't take card and would have to take orders by hand instead of the terminals. Most people getting a 3am cheeseburger knew the deal so brought cash, mainly truckers and other night staff. >
  
  I just don't understand why it would take an hour to reboot and why you would reboot everything at the same time. I worked many overnight shifts at 24/7 gas stations and we never shut down our terminals aside from a 10 minute period where we would count our drawers and let the next guy log in during shift change. But even then the next guy used the other register for that period to keep things moving. >
  
  Because they a large corporation.
  Their POS systems are doing multiple things at once.
  It's sending sales data, receiving new sales prices, advertisements to their smart screens and touch screen terminals etc. Ontop of probably consolidating all those card , cash payments through the day etc.and Doing probably a 100 other data backups to their head offices.
  That requires a shitload of processing power to undertake.
  That's why it's down for so long.
  It really depends on the system they running.
  A smaller chain can maybe do those processes manually but for them automating it all is much more cost effective solution. >
  
  I worked at ExxonMobil do you really think they're not a huge corporation? All of what you said is stuff that happens while the POS systems are online and processing orders. They don't turn it off to send data back to corporate. And it really doesn't take as much processing power as you seem to think to update a database...it takes more to process the card than it does to send that data to corporate. >
  
  This isn't a frequent enough problem for me to really worry about. 
  The few times I have,  it's generally a local small business that I appreciate being in my area, so I either pay the fee with a smile, or make sure I have cash. >
  
  My barber takes a dollar less for cash, but otherwise I use card everywhere else. Companies that you are buying from aren't to blame here. It's the card companies that charge them >
  
  Yes, the card companies charge them.
  The card companies are providing a service so that you and I aren't walking around with wads of cash that's unrecoverable if lost.
  The card company are providing a service so business isn't limited to only those walking around with cash.
  I don't have a problem with the fees per se. We pay for convenience. 
  Most bigger corporations spread the cost among a large number of customers.  The local mom and pop may not be able to. 
  I don't want to cut into the narrow margin most small business operates at. >
  
  The whole reason why they have it cuz debit/credit card companies charge companies that you buy from, which they pass onto you, unless you use cash/check with some businesses. The companies could just raise the price of the item, so it still costs the same on card. But now you lose the ability to pay at a lower price with cash/check. What's the point, except now it being worse for cash/check? >
  
  Reading through this thread has me wondering… is the fee on both credit AND debit transactions? or just credit? because the business I work at charges you either way- so long as you’re using a card. >
  
  Either cuz both have fees from card companies, not equal amounts though I think >
  
  I’m sure this has been said over and over but all expenses are ALWAYS paid for by the customer.  You can itemize and see the upfront cost or just see the end price.  You are delusional to think added cost will just be ate by businesses.  The only exception will be when a competitor finds a way to cut said cost and pass the savings therefore gaining price advantage therefore competitive advantage.
  Consumer’s bear the costs or businesses die.   Taxpayers could subsidize the businesses but they ultimately are consumers also. >
  
  As far as I know, at least where I'm from, businesses pay to even have the option to accept card payments in stores, etc. Although i don't know how much € is involved, payment terminals, POS/EPOS's (and whatever else they may be called) have fees associated. >
  
  Customers will pay regardless, either with a fee or hidden in the price 🤷🏻‍♀️ >
  
  At the place I work, credit and debit purchases incur a 3.25% processing fee. My boss described it as the easiest way he could save 1000s a year.
  I am a server. The card companies give the business owner the choice to either eat the fee, pass it to the customer, OR PASS IT TO THE SERVER.
  I’m not expecting a delta for this, just thought it would be interesting to add to the discussion.
  I also know a server personally who pays 3.25% out of all her tips on debit/credit transactions. 
  It isn’t right, that’s for sure. 
  But I am not bothered by small businesses charging me a convenience fee. It sucks but I get why they do it. 
  And I would rather it be you paying that fee, than me paying everyone’s fee. >
  
  Disagree.  I prefer to know exactly who's fucking me over, and by how much.
  Is that information not appealing to you?  
  While I like them visible, I think they should always be part of the upfront price when possible, like they do with airfare.  It makes no sense that between adding a ticket to your cart and purchase that the price jumps by 50% or whatever. >
  
  I don't really know what you're saying. I would prefer not to be fucked over >
  
  You are paying the fee either way.  Either it’s rolled into the cost or it is broken out and only charged to card users.  
  What you want is to have everyone paying the fees as part of the regular price. >
  
  
  What you want is to have everyone paying the fees as part of the regular price
  
  So you support a separate "cash handling fee" added to the total of cash customers, to account for the cost of arranging drop-offs of notes/coins, cash pickup, register maintenance costs, etc? >
  
  I've mostly seen this in convenience stores where transaction amounts are small. Given that card fees are (a+bx), where a is a base fee per transaction, the lower the transaction amount the higher the overall percentage is that the store pays.
  Also, many businesses do this to encourage customers to pay in cash, which is often used to cheat on taxes and save the business even more money :) >
  
  Businesses like cash for more reasons than just cheating on taxes. It simplifies a lot of things. When you get cash you get that money right away. Not always with cc transactions. Also if your margins at your store are 10% and cc fees are 2% visa and mastercard are taking 20% of your profit... >
  
  
  Businesses like cash for more reasons than just cheating on taxes
  
  Oh sure, my main point was that businesses do this to encourage customers to pay cash, the cheating on taxes was just one of the reasons one might do this. I'm just thinking of the types of places where I've see them charge for using cards, and it's usually the locally owned bodega without a POS system where the clerk rings you up with a calculator and there's no record of the transaction created. >
  
  The problem with this position is that if you want the fees paid by the business it will shift the burden of paying fees to cash users.
  Bc it is always going to be paid by the customer. If a business can't charge cc users for transaction costs then they will raise all prices in the store by a few % points. This means cash users end up paying more for things so that credit card users get the convenience of not having to carry around cash.
  Also it means that cc users get reward points on their transactions while cash users get nothing. Further moving people who would pay cash to use their credit card.
  Basically, you as an end user, are getting the benefit of a more convenient payment method; therefore, you should be the one paying for said benefit. If you don't want to pay for that benefit that is fine, carry around cash. >
  
  Why should people who pay with cash pay more because you feel entitled to fee-free card payments? >
  
  Why should people who pay with card pay more because you feel entitled to fee-free cash payments?
  Cash handling has associated costs of additional security to deliver cash payments/collect cash payments for larger establishments, register operating costs, time spent to courier physical cash to banking institutions, additional staff required to do till cashing up and counting of physical currency (in my experience for a small shop could be anywhere between 30 minutes and an hour at the end of the night), which is more time consuming than tallying merchant receipts. Cash businesses then also introduce significantly higher chances of robbery, as thieves aren't stealing card receipts. You then have to account for fraudsters who do quick exchange scams with staff in shops, which isn't possible with card payments. You have to account for counterfeit notes as well.
  Are you operating under the assumption that there are literally zero associated costs with physical currency? >
  
  IN reality, if they're not charging a credit card fee, they're probably just adding the cost on top of every transaction type :) >
  
  People should just use a debit card to avoid those scammy high creditcard fees. Debitcard transactions are something like 0,17 per transaction, which the merchant can easily bake into the price. Because it's much cheaper than cash or creditcard transactions.
  I'm surprised that America still hasn't made laws against exorbitant cc fees. >
  
  People should never use a debit card for standard consumer purchases. >
  
  Out if curiosity, why? >
  
  Credit cards add a level of security >
  
  This is valid, Credit Card companies are typically quicker to side with the customer over the retailer and will stop a payment without any hesitation and have been know to take a retailer to court to recoup any losses. >
  
  With debit cards, you're using your money. With credit cards, you're using their money. >
  
  You can buy something with a credit card and literally before you leave the store you can open the app and make a payment. If the CC is with your own bank, the payment will likely be instant and you probably won't ever see an interest charge.
  If you buy with debit and you get defrauded, it takes a lot of evidence before the bank will reverse the charge and they'll still leave you to fight with the retailer. Credit card companies will just reverse the charges, no questions asked. On top of that, Credit cards sometimes have insurance policies on items purchased that would cover it for up to 90 days.
  Don't get me wrong, Credit card companies aren't a beacon of light, but using a credit card for many purchases can be a great decision because of how much more secure you "can" be with your purchase.
  Besides, anyone with real wealth would tell you they never spend their own money, they always spend someone else's money and that's how they get richer. build equity, borrow on equity, invest in equity with borrowed money, rinse, repeat. Obviously they aren't talking about credit card debt, but the point is, who cares who's money it is? The rich don't. >
  
  You don't need to pay it instantly... Just pay it by the due date after the monthly billing cycle. Between business and personal cards, I've run millions of dollars through credit cards and I've never paid a dime of interest. 
  Credit cards don't charge you interest unless you miss a payment or leave a balance. They're an amazing tool. It's, effectively, free money from the cash back/points as long as you treat the credit card as if it's cash and don't finance anything on it. Pay it off every month, same as you would use a debit card, and it's a great setup. You get the rewards, the extra insurance, fraud protection, customer service, the ability to charge back for truely bad situations... It's a no-lose situation for anyone other than the merchant paying the processing fee. 
  The secret is that merchants love them though, because people buying with credit cards will spend more money. >
  
  I think it should be the other way, it should be illegal for companies to cover the cost. 
  If businesses pay the fee then credit card companies will have (like they do) stuff like cash back or reward miles to incentivize people to always use their credit card. This is bad for society in general, it encourages for everyone to go into debt which isn't good for anyone except the people profiting off of it. >
  
  Credit cards don't put people into debt. People put themselves into debt. If you have even a modicum of self control, credit cards won't put you into debt. >
  
  You are literally in debt the second you use a credit card. >
  
  Technically, yes. However, when people talk about going into credit card debt, they don't mean they bought a burger and didn't pay the bill until the next day. They mean they spent $5000 on a new TV when they only had $2000 in the bank. The first one doesn't matter. Actually, it's a good thing. It lets you build a credit score which helps significantly when applying for a mortgage. The second one.... >
  
  My point is it's a lot easier to accidently fall into serious credit card debt if you're conditioned to always use your credit card for the cash back which only exists in the first place because the businesses are taking the fees. >
  
  Business has its own rules that don't involve the word "should"; business ethics is taught at universities but in practice businesspeople are considered good if they make profits and aren't caught breaking the law.
  So, given that, it can really only work how it already works: businesses that serve affluent people making large charges eat the cost exactly like you say they "should", but not because they should.  Because it's what nets them the highest profits. 
  On the other hand, businesses that survive selling $3 worth of Swisher Sweets per customer per day pass the cost on because that's what nets them more profits.  
  Just the perverse nature of living under a class system, I guess! >
  
  The business wants to deter credit card usage. Why would they assume the cost?
  ​
  
  it's pretty much expected that people pay with their cards.
  
  So then the current system works. Seems like consumers are okay with assuming the cost. What is the problem? Do you think that significantly more customers are going to come rushing in to a bakery because their $40 order now costs $39.30 instead? >
  
  So the formula for this is super simple. CC rates are around $.50 per transaction + 2.2% of the amount. Higher rates for small businesses, smaller for larger businesses.
  As such the business simply calculates, sale price * gross margin % - 2.2% - $.50. if that calculation is negative, the business lost money on the transaction. >
  
  There's really only two viable options that all businesses use, none of which involve the business just talking a loss on cc fees. 
  
  
  Let the customer know about the charge and charge them extra.
  
  
  Increase prices of products to account for the extra fees, regardless of payment method used.
  
  
  When using a cc, the result is the same, but the customer experience is better with the second option. The first option benefits everyone when the extra cost outweighs the convenience though (like when making large/infrequent purchases) >
  
  It is convenient FOR THE BUYER to use a credit card. You get the points and immediate payment. Otherwise, send a cashier’s check. Or pay the fee. >
  
  From my understanding. It's the people who carry a balance and don't pay off their debt who are most responsible for crazy fees. 
  We should either charge higher interest rates for people who don't pay on time. Or increase the standards needed for a credit card. >
  
  Credit card balance is a profit for the bank, the interest rate more than makes up for the people who don't end up paying off the balance and get sold off to collections. The interchange fees are more for paying out the cashback / rewards benefits. >
  
  Agree 💯💯💯💯 >
  
  Most of them do already.  The only times I've been asked to pay the credit card fee was at a gun store, and I think a vape shop.  The gun was over $300 (this was back in 1990) so the fee wasn't trivial. >
  
  The people who own the credit card company also owns the stores you shop in. 
  And the convenience fee is nothing more than another step in the process of fucking with our money. >
  
  You're close but the actual argument you should be making is that CC companies shouldn't be allowed to both charge large interest rates to cardholders, while simultaneously charging fees to the business, without being capped at much lower than current rates. >
  
  The one that really chaps my ass is that gas at the pump is $0.10 per gallon for using a debit card.  That cost for them is like $0.20 total, which means it has the same overhead as cash which incurs a similarly nominal handling administrative time.
  But CC fees allow them to keep pricing the same, which would be annoying to punish all forms of payment. >
  
  I am conflicted on this one. I have a small business. I do way more sales that are cc based than any other. I wouldn't get a lot of my business if I didn't accept cc. I am the one that pays the fees though. I don't tack it on to the customer because it helps me more by accepting cc's. I can understand large business not wanting to pay that amount it would be though.
  But as a customer it is also a convenience to me. Maybe the fee should actually be split evenly. >
  
  the bussiness will always pass the cc fees on to the customer.  the difference is will they lie to the customer  about them or no.  they will still pass the fee to the customer >
  
  I was just talking about this. The only reason I understand why the fee, is for people who get that money directly (ex. Hairstylist using square). That money is direct deposited 1-2 days after transaction, so they don't wait for a biweekly check so that processing fee is being taken from their immediate pay check.
  However other than that, I don't get it. A business should be writing off that processing fee as a business expense (because it literally is). They get that money back during tax season. So companies who charge are always making profit no matter what. >
  
  That's not true. There is another example in the thread as mine. 
  I'd do catering events where the customer insisted on paying with CC on a 30000 bill. That'd be 1000$ in fees I'd be responsible for. 
  Now, I'd do over 100 of these events in a year. 
  Can't write that off just because it's an expense.  Not sure if you understand write-offs >
  
  Nah. The business giving the customer the option To pay with multiple forms of payment is for the customers convenience. Customers pay extra for convenience when buying single slices of pizza instead of a whole pie. It’s the same thing for swiping a card or using Apple Pay. Convenience that the customer should have to pay for, not the business. >
  
  Where are companies going to get the money to pay?  They're going to raise their prices to cover it.
  Now imagine what happens in that scenario where someone does happen to pay in cash.  They pay the higher prices and the company gets to keep an extra 3% in profit.
  Are you sure this is the system you want?  CC users are going to pay the same price, but cash users will pay more now.  The only person coming out ahead is the store. >
  
  Bahahahahahaha. OP you're funny.
  Businesses don't just eat the cost from the kindness of their heart - they add it to the base price and choose not to tell you. The fee also isn't like 0.03 cents - it's at least 3%. If you hand me a check or cash, I don't have to give up $30 of your rent payment to a third party - I'm more than happy to pass those savings on to you.
  You're just upset because you have a more expensive mode of payment, and instead of me giving the other guy a "discount", I'm charging you a "service fee". If I did what you asked and just "made the fee go away" - then everyone has to suffer because you decided to pay with your card.
  As someone who hates the service fee- esp in this day and age - I get it. It's annoying as hell man. I gotta add 3% to rent every month when I pay it. The solution to solving it though isn't making the business that did nothing wrong eat the cost - it's introducing legislation and supporting banks that cut the middle man.
  (Seriously Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc quite literally exist to be middle men and charge you). >
  
  What difference does the company or yourself paying the fee make? Companies already pay the fee, you get a surcharge. What you're really asking for is that the company remove the surcharge, in which case any economically sound business would increase the price to include the fee.
  There is no way to win in this scenario, it's the exact same argument behind showing GST prices or including it in the listed price. >
  
  They largely already do, they just like to give a break to today who pay with cash/deposit instead but credit card merchant agreements force you to not advertise it in that manner.
  They also incur tons of other merchant fees that are built into the price.
  You saying "they should pay the fee" is just a complete lack of understanding of how business operates and that its all a single pool of money/cost anyway, and your idea is them paying the fee is just you TAKING away potential discounts for others who pay a different preferred way.
  This thinking is the kind of shit where it sounds like "fairness" and you get a bunch of idiots together to support it and make it a law, which then just increases prices, drops discounts for people, and raises taxes. Stop and think. >
  
  Most businesses (IE: your local supermarket or coffee joint) pass credit card transaction costs on to all customers in the form of slightly higher prices. In practice this means the actual cost of these fees is absorbed by people who don't have access to a platinum tier credit card with a high quality cash back incentive program.
  Businesses who pass the entire fee directly back to the credit card user who generated it are basically doing the right thing to combat what is effectively an abuse of power by the large credit card issuers to get cash, check and bronze tier credit card users (who don't have cards with cash back incentives) to pay for the incentive programs that platinum tier credit card users mostly take for granted.
  Nothing is free. No matter how much you personally feel entitled to it. Someone has to pay for it. Healthcare, education... and credit card incentive programs. >
  
  Even if businesses paid for it, the cost would still just be transferred to the customer. Businesses have to break even. They will raise the rice to make up for the cost. Raising costs for corporations (whether through convenience fees, tariffs, taxes, etc) will always just raise costs for customers. >
  
  This is a meaningless distinction. Just like how businesses don't pay taxes, they don't pay customer fees either. It becomes a part of the math they use to set the price they charge the customer. So you can spend $50 on the item and a 2$ convenience fee, or pay $52 for the service and the 'business will pay' the convenience fee. >
  
  If the business pays, they’ll just charge you for a credit card transaction or raise the price more than the actual amount. Thats how this all works. The whole reason we cant charge the businesses is because they almost always pass on any extra charge to the customer. >
  
  We have it in Israel - there is no difference between paying cash or card, the price is the same and the cost of the transaction is already included in the price of the product. That is, even if i want to pay by cash, i would still pay the transaction fees since it is included in the price, so i as the customer  loses and the business sometimes collects to its pocket the transaction fee. Bad idea >
  
  Sales taxes are supposed to be paid by the store instead of the consumer too, it's just accepted practice for the company to pass it on to the consumer >
  
  
  Convenience is a marketable service. 
  Is my business vital enough to you that I can refuse to accept any tender other than cash? There is no law in the US that requires me to accept any tender other than cash. Any other tender is a convenience. 
  Convenience requires human effort. Humans must be paid for the work they do. 
  Customer slides their card issued by Bank A that will be deposited by Bank B. The machine is made by Company C, using software from Company D. Companies E and F process the payment from Points G and H. From A to H, there are a lot of people involved.  
  
  If the greater convenience is to the customer, then the customer should pay for it. >
  
  here in germany it is paid by the business and they’re not allowed to charge any fee for it to the customer (correct me if im wrong) >
  
  When "a business pays for it" where do you think the money comes from?  All you are proposing is increasing the price across the board so we are all now paying your convenience fees.
  Unless your proposal is "business should have less profit" in which case I can hear the laughter already. >
  
  
  All you are proposing is increasing the price across the board so we are all now paying your convenience fees.
  
  You could argue the same is being done to card paying customers for the associated costs of handling cash. >
  
  What would those costs be?  I am looking forward to this. >
  
  Additional work hours for staff cashing up tills and performing menial cash handling duties, like distributing floats. When I worked in a small local version of a supermarket, we would have 3-4 people cashing up tills at the end of the night, taking roughly an hour. 
  You have the costs of getting money delivered/picked up from shops, and the associated security that comes with it, mainly for larger shops, but even as a smaller shop we had security who'd drop off and pick up money.
  You also have the associated costs of things like higher security for cash safes on premises, higher insurance costs to cover cash on the premises overnight, which isn't needed for solely card payments.
  You also have to account for things like increased risk of fraud/scamming with fake notes, switch scams from customers attempting to trick staff members into giving back more change than required.
  You're then also accounting for just standard currency discrepancies, with tills being down due to staff error.
  Carrying cash also makes you more of a target for thieves, because card-only businesses won't have cash to be stolen on the premises.
  I assume you didn't mean for your comment to sound so snarky, but a lot of this is common sense stuff associated with the handling of cash.
  Businesses don't add a separate "cash inconvenience fee" on for cash customers to cover all of this, so why should the "card fee" be separated, and not included in the same way?
  Here's an article covering a lot of what I've said. >
  
  
  Businesses don't add a separate "cash inconvenience fee" on for cash customers to cover all of this, so why should the "card fee" be separated, and not included in the same way?  
  
  As someone who has had a show with multiple payment methods, why do you think that is? >
  
  TV show, or theatre show?
  Seriously though, because why would you turn down extra money when you can fleece it from all your customers, not just the ones who pay cash.
  No comments on the massive list of associated costs you were "looking forward to"? >
  
  Shop, you may answer the question now :-) >
  
  If you read past the first sentence, you'd have your answer. >
  
  Well, you say they should do it but they don't.  Why are all of these shops so stupid and negligent?
  Because the costs you talk about are not direct, meaning that if I stop ising cash they won't just go away, mostly at least.
  If you have pais staff using their time to handle cash, a) you don't just pocket that money if they don't do it so you have no savings to pass to your customers and b) of you could at least they are your employees getting the money and not a company making a profit off my sales.
  The difference between direct costs and indirect ones is impprtant in decision making.
  Plus the article comes from a card payment seller?  Very neutral.  
  I agree card payment is more convenient to the customer, thus it's better to have it, but your argument that it's pretty much cheaper is not really there at this time.
  Maybe for full digital shops that were created cashless adding cash would be a burden.  Maybe. >
  
  
  meaning that if I stop ising cash they won't just go away, mostly at least
  
  If you stop accepting cash, you don't need to pay staff as long to handle floats, you don't need to worry about counterfeit notes, you don't need to worry about paying security to transfer physical currency, these costs do go away.
  
  but your argument that it's pretty much cheaper is not really there at this time
  
  That's not my argument, I'd advise you re-read my comments, then you can come back when you properly understand what's being discussed.
  Where did you get the impression that was my argument? >
  
  It's an additional cost to the business, having to work through an intermediary oligopoly that charges them a fee; one way or the other - the customer is going to pay for that cost. They can charge you upfront or split the cost among all their customers. Very simple. >
  
  
  Credit/debit card fees in this day and age should not be paid for by the customer. 
  
  Every cost is in the end paid for by the customer. If you're forcing businesses to hide it in the article price, the only thing you're doing is spread the costs of credit card transactions also over people who aren't actually using any credit cards in the first place. That hardly seems fair, especially towards people who can't afford them. >
  
  How else are companies going to nickel and dime customers for every penny if they don't shove every cost they can onto said customers?
  Directors/CEO's need 10 holidays a year and at least 2 supercars didn't you know? >
  
  No offence but this is one of the most naive views I’ve ever seen on here. You’re paying for Ops costs one way or the other, either they charge you the fee or they include it in the price, either way you’re paying. Your reasoning on this specific fee is only brought forward because the business thought it was best to outline to you why the price is what it is. >
  
  If the cost is not charged separate, The business Will pass on the cost to you with higher prices. When it’s done this way it will make it a lot easier for visa Mastercard etc to intresse the fees. This way everyone except visa and Mastercard wins. >
  
  No matter what, the customer always pays. The difference is just whether it's priced into the goods, or as a surcharge.
  Also, I am not sure where you live, but where I live, it's illegal to charge it to the customer directly, so it has to be priced in. >
  
  I think in this day and age 3% commission is extremely high. The only reason why it persists is because most customers don't see it and therefore don't differentiate between payment services based on it. Passing it on to the customers would incentivise Visa and Mastercard to reduce their commissions or will help their competitors to bring lower priced transactions to the market. >
  
  Businesses do pay to have your credit card accepted. It ain't free to them, either. 
  Source: Company bookkeeper for small business. We paid fees to the Merchant Services company that processes the transactions, including a percentage of sales. The Merchant Services company is the one that dictates which cards a given retailer can process.
  Not sure why you think only the retail customer gets dinged. Those fees are over and above the extra you get charged. >
  
  It is en EU as per law >
  
  To us in Europe it’s insane that you have to cover this. >
  
  TBH fees should not be percentage based. Credit card companies shouldn't get away with it. >
  
  I’ll one up you and say that credit cards should be banned. They serve no real function, and have financially ruined a lot of people. Additionally, literally EVERYTHING is more expensive because of credit cards. Businesses have long ago accounted for their middleman parasitic fees when setting prices.  Get rid of em. We already have a currency that works just fine. Nobody should be buying dumb consumer shit on credit. That said, I think something like debit cards are okay. >
  
  If a company does not charge the fee, they still charge it in the cost of their goods. You pay it either way, and the company isn’t taking the hit. 
  The only thing a transparent fee does is give someone a discount for paying in cash. That discount is available to everyone, but some people prefer the convenience of a card. The company doesn’t care either way. >
  
  I want to pay the minimum possible for something.  If the process for setting price includes how much profit margin makes sense for the business (it does) then if the cost were buried in price than everyone would have to pay the amount that the transaction costs - that fee then has to apply to everyone.  Even though I want to pay cash, the business in your want to have them "pay the fees" has to pass it to everyone, rather than just those who actually incur it.
  Seems better for everyone to be transparent about source of costs and pass them only to those who want that convenience. >
  
  I agree here. I just feel like the juice is a little high. If I tried to charge this many points loaning people money, I’m organized crime. >
  
  A lot of businesses run on extremely thin margins. 
  3% is a lot more than you think. You want the company to pay for those fees but for many it would not be feasible so if you absolutely made them would just increase their prices… this wouldn’t be an issue with competition because everyone would increase the prices and since you wouldn’t be able to single out credit card payers, everyone would get hit with the price increase, including customers paying with cash >
  
  The problem with that is it forces us all to use credit cards or WE lose out. 
  Credit cards are a huge hassle. You have to apply, remember to pay them, keep up with their convoluted programs to optimize your points. Keep switching as they usually have introductory deals. What a hassle just to spend your own money. Then if you forget something they hit you with fees!
  YOU benefit from all this bullshit jumping through rules they made up to get the stuff they give you, so you should pay the ful cost  for participating in their stupid game. For me I would rather just use real money and skip the games. But if the retailer pays, then I lose out if I don’t bother jumping through those contrived hoops.