Now we can be charged Credit Card Fees

[marc515]

Heard on the news last night that merchants can now charge consumers up to 4% credit card fees.

Not sure how many businesses will actually pass along the charges, but I'm sure some will.

The sad thing is the credit card fees are already built into product costs as store overhead, so if merchants want to charge consumers, they better lower the product costs; yeah right!

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

 

[HighRoller]

If they really start adding 4% to the bill when I use a credit card, I'll just start paying in cash.

 

[ziggy29]

I believe there are still ten states which will not allow it, with three of the most populous states -- California, Texas and New York -- among those which will not permit it under their existing laws.

In reality, most of the major retailers have already said they have no plans to impose such a surcharge. It's not worth losing a lot of sales on items with a 20-50% margin (or more) in order to recoup a 2-3% fee for accepting credit cards. It's the smaller, mom-and-pop retailers which will feel the pressure to do this... but that would also make them even less competitive with the big boxes than they already are.

 

[JakeBrake]

I think this is a non-event. The big boys like Walmart, Target, Exxon and the many restaurant chains will probably not implement and lose the competitive advantage unless they get together (I think that's illegal) and do it at the same time.

Around here many of the small businesses have always charged extra if a credit card was used.

Also, around here, government agencies have always charged a "convenience fee" if a credit card is used while paying taxes, etc.

I use credit cards for the cashback feature and convenience, but I can live without that.

 

[HighRoller]

I believe there are still ten states which will not allow it, with three of the most populous states -- California, Texas and New York -- among those which will not permit it under their existing laws.


I had read the same thing so I wasn't too worried since I live in Texas. But then on the "local news" yesterday they mention the 4% increase without saying anything about Texas not allowing it. Just more inaccurate, incomplete or mis-information from the media.

 

[Texas Proud]

IMO, people have to be deluded if they think that these fees were not already baked into the prices... we have been paying them all along... nothing new here....

In reality, the difference now is that they can advertise a cheaper price for cash purchases...

 

[HighRoller]

IMO, people have to be deluded if they think that these fees were not already baked into the prices... we have been paying them all along... nothing new here.....

agree with that

 

[ziggy29]

In reality, the difference now is that they can advertise a cheaper price for cash purchases...

In many cases, they already could advertise cash discounts. The real difference is now they can choose to call them "credit card surcharges" instead of "cash discounts". That said, because of consumer psychology, I would expect that pretty much every retailer which wants to create different pricing would still prefer to call it a "cash discount" because that sounds a lot more consumer-friendly than "credit card surcharge".

 

[bUU]

Everyone has been paying them, meaning that those using credit cards were getting something that even those not using credit cards were helping to pay for. So the surcharge would reflect at least some change.

I've read some equivocations, in addition to that mentioned above (states where surcharges are not permitted).

I've read folks claiming that the rules require a store charging a surcharge for Visa and Mastercard also charge a surcharge for AMEX if they accept AMEX, and AMEX, not covered by this agreement, doesn't permit a surcharge, thereby prohibiting those retailers from charging a surcharge.

I've also read folks claiming that the rules prohibit a "chain" (whatever that means) from varying their policy from state to state, thereby precluding a "chain" from charging a surcharge if they operate in a state that prohibits surcharges.

Does anyone know if either of these are valid statements?

 

[Bestwifeever]

In many cases, they already could advertise cash discounts. The real difference is now they can choose to call them "credit card surcharges" instead of "cash discounts". That said, because of consumer psychology, I would expect that pretty much every retailer which wants to create different pricing would still prefer to call it a "cash discount" because that sounds a lot more consumer-friendly than "credit card surcharge".

Our favorite little Italian restaurant offers 10% cash discount--hope they keep it. I also notice a lot of small shops and cafes take only cash but offer generic atms for customers to use (and I imagine the atm fee income is split between the store owner and the atm owner).

 

[Bikerdude]

If they do this it will just push more people to buy on the web.

 

[bUU]

Except if web retailers start doing this as well. There are reasons why most retailers wouldn't but I don't think we can say that those who would would necessarily be B&M retailers.

 

[rbmrtn]

I've read folks claiming that the rules require a store charging a surcharge for Visa and Mastercard also charge a surcharge for AMEX if they accept AMEX, and AMEX, not covered by this agreement, doesn't permit a surcharge, thereby prohibiting those retailers from charging a surcharge.


Does anyone know if either of these are valid statements?

I had read just the opposite. The settlement involved just MC/VISA so others like AMEX/DISCOVER etc would not be subject to the "checkout fees". But don't know if that is fact or not.

 

[ziggy29]

Except if web retailers start doing this as well. There are reasons why most retailers wouldn't but I don't think we can say that those who would would necessarily be B&M retailers.

Except that credit card purchases (including debit cards "swiped" like a credit card, which incur the same fees) are probably more than 99% of the business of most online retailers. That segment of the retail space would be slitting its own throat if they charged more for credit card purchases.

 

[bUU]

I had read just the opposite. The settlement involved just MC/VISA so others like AMEX/DISCOVER etc would not be subject to the "checkout fees". But don't know if that is fact or not.

Yes, that's for sure, but what I read is that MC/VISA can still require "me too" - insist that if they're surcharged then AMEX must be too (and of course AMEX won't allow surcharges). It sounded like a massive loop-hole was left in.

 

[Zathras]

My understanding is that any store charging these fees will also be required to post signs in the store indicating they do so.
This will be my clue to shop somewhere else.

Once I do some price comparisons, if I find out they aren't charging 4% more than their competitors, I may return.

 

[sheehs1]

IMO, people have to be deluded if they think that these fees were not already baked into the prices... we have been paying them all along... nothing new here....

In reality, the difference now is that they can advertise a cheaper price for cash purchases...

+1. I agree. It was already "baked" into the prices.

 

[rbmrtn]

My understanding is that any store charging these fees will also be required to post signs in the store indicating they do so.
This will be my clue to shop somewhere else.

Once I do some price comparisons, if I find out they aren't charging 4% more than their competitors, I may return.

The checkout fee is also supposed to be clearly shown on the receipt. So far I haven't seen any.

If it was already baked into the price, which is certainly possible, how would you ever know.

 

[ziggy29]

If it was already baked into the price, which is certainly possible, how would you ever know.

Every cost of doing business is baked into prices. Credit card fees merchants pay are a cost of doing business.

 

[RockyMtn]

Visa going in the drawer....American Express my card of choice anyways.

 

[scrabbler1]

I so rarely use my credit card or debit card, averaging maybe $300 a year in the last 9 years, that this whole thing is a non-issue. I live in New York so I exect it matter even less than that. My local gas station has a cash discount so I make sure to use cash there like I always have. I would welcome more cash discounts if they are offered but I don't expect any changes in my personal spending habits or methods of payment.

 

[GrayHare]

I like it since now more merchants will be able to openly/effectively offer cash discounts.

 

[HFWR]

I believe there are still ten states which will not allow it, with three of the most populous states -- California, Texas and New York -- among those which will not permit it under their existing laws.

I had read the same thing so I wasn't too worried since I live in Texas. But then on the "local news" yesterday they mention the 4% increase without saying anything about Texas not allowing it. Just more inaccurate, incomplete or misinformation from the media.

Get a rope...

 

[W2R]

If anybody is curious (I was), the 10 states that will not allow these fees are:

1. California
2. Colorado
3. Nebraska
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas
6. Florida
7. New York
8. Massachusetts
9. Connecticut, and
10. Maine.


http://news.msn.com/us/new-credit-card-fee-hits-consumers-in-the-wallet

 

[Original Wally]

***Also, around here, government agencies have always charged a "convenience fee" if a credit card is used ***

b4 i retired, w*rked for a municipal utility in Sacramento. We **had** to pass the cost along to those who wanted to use a card - if not, the non-users would be subsidizing those who used cards. It is the way the law was written.