Caught Capital One's hand in my pocket

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha You could argue that this theory did not didn't lead to the best results in the credit card example. Consumers were allowed to choose freely what credit card service they wanted and anyone could start up a credit card company.

Actually, I think the theory still holds. What breaks down is that (for reasons I do not completely understand), the credit card market is not a free market. Too few players. I assume barriers to entry are too high for others to join in at this point, but I suspect that *that* is the problem, not that the theory does not hold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever (my bolding)--completely agree, Ziggy; our decisions are all made based on our individual criteria and mindsets and best to respect that others' needs and wants often differ.

OK, I understand (well, accept?) that this is an emotional decision for some. Fine, but what I was "objecting" to is what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize it with a financial statement, that the rewards were "meaningless". That's where it crosses a line. I can assure you that I do not spend more because of the rewards, that it is convenient for me - not inconvenient, and that thousands of dollars is not "meaningless" to me, esp when I do not pay a "price" for it.

Maybe it was just semantics - if someone says those rewards are not worth the perceived risks for them (maybe *they* would spend more, or *they* forget to pay the bill), OK. But it is different to say the rewards are "meaningless".

That's all I'm sayin'.

-ERD50

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Fine, but what I was "objecting" to is what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize it with a financial statement, that the rewards were "meaningless". That's where it crosses a line.

Whoa. Let me remind you of the exact quote you're objecting to (my emphasis added in bold):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever perhaps it's just an emotional decision but the rewards programs and the float are absolutely meaningless to us from a financial standpoint so why bother.

Why would you object to someone having an opinion they are only applying to their own situation? Did she say others should also see it as meaningless? Did anyone say that we all have the same definition of what is "meaningless" in our own situation?

You're taking a *personal* statement here that someone is applying to themselves and you are choosing to extrapolate from that and treat it as if she is projecting here.

Did she say that because they consider it "meaningless," everyone else should too or else they deserve to be criticized for their personal choices? I sure didn't see it. So frankly I don't see where a line could have been crossed.

[growing_older]

Quote:

But they may not even want to keep you. You probably pay off your card in full most of the time and you are crabby when they try to squeeze extras out of you.

Oh, certainly. I'm sure I am a lousy credit card customer. I'm always polite and talk nicely to them, but not willing to cough up the extra fees for nuisance reasons. They ONLY get the merchant fees and will never have to write off a bad debt with me. Makes me marginal business at best I think, since I am unlikely to trigger overlimit, late payment, overdraft or other juicy bank fees. What little levarage I have had is that I am a GOOD bank customer, maintaining substantial balances in deposit accounts and even using their "premium" bank/brokerage accounts and services and keeping a whole list of accounts for me and my family at the same institution. Where I bank now, that seems sufficient to get good customer service from ALL the bank divisions, so I'm a happy camper. If one bank division started to be objectionable, I wouldn't mind asking internal bank people from an area that WANTS my business to see if they can take care of the problem. There usually is wide latitude in making exceptions from revenue enhancing policies and nothing like an internal bank champion asking on your behalf to fix a problem that really shouldn't have been there to begin with - they do KNOW when they are sticking it to the customer. Usually they just don't care.

[calmloki]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 ... OK, I understand (well, accept?) that this is an emotional decision for some. Fine, but what I was "objecting" to is what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize it with a financial statement, that the rewards were "meaningless". That's where it crosses a line. I can assure you that I do not spend more because of the rewards, that it is convenient for me - not inconvenient, and that thousands of dollars is not "meaningless" to me, esp when I do not pay a "price" for it. Maybe it was just semantics - if someone says those rewards are not worth the perceived risks for them (maybe *they* would spend more, or *they* forget to pay the bill), OK. But it is different to say the rewards are "meaningless". That's all I'm sayin'. -ERD50

Had a good example of a real financial reward that is meaningless to me this morning: While hunting a great car rental for our recent AZ excursion my gal ran into a "sign up for our program - first month only a dollar - and get a $20 free gas card" deal. She refused, hassle not worth it, until they jacked up the freebie to $60. Ok, for that she figured she could remember to call and cancel. The day before the month was up we still hadn't received the freebie, so she called and they said they would ship it out. She canceled her membership the next day. So the card arrived today: actually 6 postcards, each good for one $10 gas refund per quarter. To get each $10 check we have to mail in the filled out card during the applicable quarter and the original gas receipt dated during that quarter. Then they send back a check for $10. Six times over the next year and a half.

Now that is a real financial reward that is worthless to me - requiring saving the cards, filling them out, mailing them... Just not worth the time and hassle for the reward - even if the rewards ship out without repeated calls. Only way I can imagine the girl redeeming the reward cards is because of embarrassment at getting hooked in. Kind of expect the company to charge us at least a month of regular rate dues anyway...

Now PenFed, monthly rebate, and autopay, that is low enough irritation that my cheap self can deal with it. 1.25% rebate is like getting to live for 4.5 days/year free!

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 (snip)I've never thought of using a logo-bearing debit card as doing business with the credit card company, but as doing business with my bank, the same as writing a check or using my non-logo bank ATM card back in the day. The money comes from my checking account not a loan, and when I get the statement, it doesn't say "Visa" on top, it says "Bank of America".(snip)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 I think you just agreed with me. I don't have a B of A credit card, I have a Bank of America checking account with a linked Visa logo debit card, and I think of that as doing business with Bank of America, not with Visa. (snip)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud If you have a BofA credit card, you are doing business with BofA.... a Chase CC with Chase... and a Capital One CC with Capital one... the same banks that you are using their debit cards... it is NOT Visa or MC that is loaning you the money.. so you ARE dealing with the same people you say you do not like... you can not get away from it...(snip).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud No we do not agree.... you seem to think that a BofA Visa card is doing business with Visa.. it is not... it is doing business of BofA... so in your example.. if you had a BofA CC, or a BofA debit card there is no difference in the company you are doing business with... Visa gets money from the bank for using their logo, from both the CC and debit card.. but that is all....

(emphasis added)

One of us is obviously missing something here. ISTM the bolded statements in both of our comments mean the same thing: "use of logo debit card=doing business with the issuing bank (in my case B of A), not with Visa". Visa are "the people I say I don't like"--so how am I dealing with the people I don't like, if I use my debit card?

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Actually, I think the theory still holds. What breaks down is that (for reasons I do not completely understand), the credit card market is not a free market. Too few players. I assume barriers to entry are too high for others to join in at this point, but I suspect that *that* is the problem, not that the theory does not hold.

Well, we can disagree. As I said, I am not an economist, and not even that interested in economics, but it sure seems like there are other factors operating besides how free the market is, especially as the cc market was initially wide open and unregulated. Winners in the market game can drive others out and we end up with monopolies or oligopolies. The difficulty in dealing with the complexities of consumer choice is a big issue in my mind. Some time ago I read the Paradox of Choice. I'll have to read it again, it has some good points on this issue.

Quote:

OK, I understand (well, accept?) that this is an emotional decision for some.

I think you are minimizing the decisions people make by calling it emotional. I have no opinion in the discussion of the financial rewards of purchasing on credit. However, human behavior and decision making is filled with mistakes, flaws and rationalization. Sometimes you purport to be Vulcan like in your decision making. My bet is that you make about as many rationalizations in your life as most of the rest of us.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Whoa. Let me remind you of the exact quote you're objecting to (my emphasis added in bold):

Thanks for adding the emphasis - I may have actually mentally 'skimmed' that a bit as I read it. When I see "from a financial standpoint", that is how I take it - a financial standpoint, not an emotional one. And the rewards are not meaningless from a financial standpoint (unless you are Bill Gates), but they may not be "worth it" if one feels they need to jump through hoops to get it. From my experience, those "hoops" seem to be imagined, or blown out of proportion, but to each their own in that regard.

As in calmloki's post - I often pass those offers up too, because there is effort involved, and it isn't worth the hassle to me. I still wouldn't say the $20 or $60 is meaningless, it just isn't worth the effort sometimes. $20 is $20, the effort is variable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Well, we can disagree. ... Winners in the market game can drive others out and we end up with monopolies or oligopolies.

Actually, I think we agree. Because once there is a monopolies or oligopolies, it is no longer a free market. And then there are problems.

Quote:

I think you are minimizing the decisions people make by calling it emotional. I have no opinion in the discussion of the financial rewards of purchasing on credit. However, human behavior and decision making is filled with mistakes, flaws and rationalization. Sometimes you purport to be Vulcan like in your decision making. My bet is that you make about as many rationalizations in your life as most of the rest of us.

I'm really not trying to minimize the emotional aspect of decisions, it is very real, but I do think it is worthwhile for us to recognize it for what it is. If it is leading us to poor choices or missed opportunities, maybe we should give it a good hard look?

I'm sure I rationalize things also. Maybe where I'm different from some is that I totally appreciate someone pointing them out to me. That can open my eyes - maybe I change, maybe I don't, but I think we are best served by making informed decisions.

-ERD50

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 (emphasis added) One of us is obviously missing something here. ISTM the bolded statements in both of our comments mean the same thing: "use of logo debit card=doing business with the issuing bank (in my case B of A), not with Visa". Visa are "the people I say I don't like"--so how am I dealing with the people I don't like, if I use my debit card?

You are saying that the credit card company is the one who is doing all the dirty deads to the people... all I am saying is it is not Visa who is doing the dirty deads... it is the bank... Visa has nothing to do with the fees that are charged on a CC statement, the bank does... Visa has nothing to do with mailing out all those CC offers, the bank does, Visa has nothing to do with the double interest (or even the 6 month one someone mentioned), the bank does... heck, the only thing I think Visa does is some of the ads on TV... and I know that Chase and Capital One puts on more ads on TV for CC than Visa does...

So you seem to think that if you have a Visa CC you are doing business with Visa.. and I am saying you are not... you are doing business with the issuing bank... and that issuing bank is your bank... they are the ones screwing the customer... so I do not see how you can say you do not deal with a firm who will do all this bad stuff and then say you deal with BofA... not Visa... and think you are doing good...

But hey, if you really believe it is only Visa who does the things listed.. then continue with what you are doing...

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm really not trying to minimize the emotional aspect of decisions, it is very real, but I do think it is worthwhile for us to recognize it for what it is. If it is leading us to poor choices or missed opportunities, maybe we should give it a good hard look? I'm sure I rationalize things also. Maybe where I'm different from some is that I totally appreciate someone pointing them out to me. That can open my eyes - maybe I change, maybe I don't, but I think we are best served by making informed decisions. -ERD50

Maybe I am being overly pedantic. . . you said "this is an emotional decision for some" but I it seemed as if the decisions people talked about weren't emotional decisions but instead were decisions which may have psychological components. For example, if a person thinks that they may spend more if they use a credit card then they would spending cash, this decision may have psychological components but it is a reasoned decision, not an emotional one. Decisions that are emotional are not thought out, but reactive based on feelings. You charged too much on your cards this month, you get pissed and cancel the cards. I haven't seen any evidence on this thread that people were making unreasoned decisions.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Maybe I am being overly pedantic. . . you said "this is an emotional decision for some" but I it seemed as if the decisions people talked about weren't emotional decisions but instead were decisions which may have psychological components. For example, if a person thinks that they may spend more if they use a credit card then they would spending cash, this decision may have psychological components but it is a reasoned decision, not an emotional one.

No, we are in agreement there. While it would be best to learn how to use the card positively, lacking that, a recognition of one's own limits is the next best thing. If that means giving up the rewards, then it really is the best decision for them at that time.

It probably got lost in the long string of posts, but what I was irked at a bit is that some posters implied that anyone using the cards for rewards was spending more than they otherwise would, or being inconvenienced - and that just simply is not true for most everyone with the mindset of paying the bill in full and on time each month.

-ERD50

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 OK, so maybe it makes sense for *you* to not have a CC. The problem I'm having is that some posts in this thread imply that anyone who has a CC is "exposing" themselves to problems, and they just don't know it (or something like that). Now, this will probably come across in a post as condescending, but I actually mean it only in an honest, helpful way - if you have trouble paying bills on time, I'd suggest you work out a system to address that. You have much to gain. If you had a system that worked for you, you could take advantage of the float, the rewards, and avoid late fees and hits on your credit score. My "system" is (in order of preference): A) Have the bill charged to my rewards CC. This gives me the float (time to respond), and I earn rewards with these purchases that I would make anyway. B) If they don't allow auto CC charges, I set up an autopay through my bank online. I don't get any float, and no rewards, but I don't have to buy a stamp, worry about it getting lost in the mail, forgetting to mail it, etc. C) Set up an autopay through the business (I don't like this so much, as it is a slightly different system to learn and another site to go to. No biggie, but I avoid it if I can. D) Pay at the site directly (put a reminder on the calendar, and do an electronic reminder too). Same issues as C, but no auto feature. I use my CC if there are no charges. In addition, I have an autopay set up for my two CCs from my checking account. Defaulted with an amount larger than my typical bill. I can't be late, and am unlikely (as in it has never happened) to pay too little and be charged fees. I have several weeks to go in and adjust it to the proper (usually lesser) amount.(snip) -ERD50

It didn't strike me as condescending. "Set up an automatic method to ensure timely payment" is totally consistent with my goal of avoiding unnecessary aggravation! And in fact, I do use various forms of automatic payment, I just pass on "Option A". My bus pass is on payroll deduction. So are my tax deferred retirement plan contributions. There was one bill I used to forget repeatedly, because it was only quarterly. I finally had that one put on autopilot—an automatic transfer from my bank. Likewise my car insurance, because in WA car insurance is a legal requirement, so letting that lapse would also be a major pain in the neck. It costs a little more than paying it once or twice a year, but I think it's worth the extra few bucks. My ISP bill is on my debit card—I don't think they take any other kind of payment but cards. And contributions to my Roth IRA are also by automatic transfer. I pay all my other bills via online banking out of my checking account, so I don't have to write checks, buy stamps, etc. The bank does all of that (for free). I suppose a payment could still get lost in the mail, but AFAIK it never has. It never did when I was mailing them myself, either. Next item on the agenda, get everything switched over to paperless billing.

I haven't put everything on automatic payment, because I get paid every two weeks but most of the bills are monthly. The different schedules make it probable that every now and again the bills would arrive at the bank a few days before the paycheck (which has been on automatic deposit for years), with resulting overdraft charges and mega-hassles. But once I retire, I think the pension checks come monthly and I may well take advantage of automatic billing and get all that stuff out of my hair. You can, IIRC, have income tax withheld and health/LTC insurance premiums deducted from the pension check beforehand, and put the remainder on direct deposit. Of course, all this automation leaves open the possibility of something like this happening

I will only add in closing that you've objected elsewhere on the thread to what seemed to be people pushing the idea that everyone should get rid of their credit cards—but it seems to me that you are at least a little bit pushing the idea that we CC-free types ought to get some credit cards, ought to want to get cash back or other rewards, and ought to want to take advantage of the float. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit contradictory? My response is "thanks, but no thanks." I just don't want the money that much. Quite the contrary, I am eagerly looking forward to being completely debt-free after retirement: no mortgage, no credit cards, no car loan, & don't give a rip about my rating, 'cause I don't need to borrow money ever again. Maybe that's not your cup of tea, but I don't think I could feel comfortable retiring at all with debt hanging over my head.

[Mysto]

I think a person's view of a CC is their view and is OK with me. I, for one, like my CC. I always pay full on time and have never paid any interest or fees (rather than the cc company not liking me as a customer they increased my rewards recently as I pointed out in another post). I like the protection and extended warranty I get on purchases. I find it easier to track my expenses (they even give me a year end summary) and I love the travel points I get.

For those that don't like the cards, I will have a drink for you on my cruise next month - paid for with cc points.

[samclem]

I started a separate thread for discussion of the "non-optimum" things we do in our financial lives for the sake of convenience, emotion, etc. I think a lot of us do these things.. We're not Vulcans, and we should revel in that.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 I will only add in closing that you've objected elsewhere on the thread to what seemed to be people pushing the idea that everyone should get rid of their credit cards—but it seems to me that you are at least a little bit pushing the idea that we CC-free types ought to get some credit cards, ought to want to get cash back or other rewards, and ought to want to take advantage of the float. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit contradictory? My response is "thanks, but no thanks." I just don't want the money that much.

I see I'm failing to convey the proper nuance and subtlety into my posts, and probably chose my words poorly in a few cases. Hopefully my previous post to this addressed some of your observations. I'll try to expand on that a bit:

OK, yes I guess I do feel somewhat that people "ought to" take advantage of these rewards. To me it's no different than a poster pointing out a good sale or deal on an item that I was interested in. Except this is a sale on almost every item you buy, all the time! Plus float! Why buy the same item at full price when it is available "on sale"? It's just an LBYM principal.

As I said in my previous post, if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, fine. Just don't try to tell me (as some seem to imply), that it *is* making me spend more, or that it *is* inconvenient for me, etc. Because it isn't, and never has - for me.

Quote:

Quite the contrary, I am eagerly looking forward to being completely debt-free after retirement: no mortgage, no credit cards, no car loan, & don't give a rip about my rating, 'cause I don't need to borrow money ever again. Maybe that's not your cup of tea, but I don't think I could feel comfortable retiring at all with debt hanging over my head.

Fine. But I really don't consider that CC statement as "debt hanging over my head" - the money is in my account ready to pay it each and every month. W/O the CC, the money would just be gone earlier. I fail to see any advantage to paying today what I could pay for next month. To me, it isn't "debt" any more than getting a utility bill (for example) on the first of the month that is due on the 25th of the month puts me "in debt" on the 2nd of the month. I suppose that is technically "debt", but few would consider it as "hanging over their head", or feel better if it was due immediately on receipt - which is what a debit card transaction is. I could even pay my CC in advance if I chose (over-payments just get credited to the account, I would have zero due on the due date if I 'prepaid'), so no "debt", but still get the rewards.

-ERD50

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 (snip)OK, yes I guess I do feel somewhat that people "ought to" take advantage of these rewards. To me it's no different than a poster pointing out a good sale or deal on an item that I was interested in. Except this is a sale on almost every item you buy, all the time! Plus float! Why buy the same item at full price when it is available "on sale"? It's just an LBYM principal. As I said in my previous post, if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, fine. Just don't try to tell me (as some seem to imply), that it *is* making me spend more, or that it *is* inconvenient for me, etc. Because it isn't, and never has - for me.(snip) -ERD50

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the LBYM principle is "spend less than you have coming in"? I think any personal financial regime— the cash envelope system a la Dave Ramsey, or credit cards paid in full every month, or pay-as-you-go with checks or ATM/debit cards, or some other—which results in a positive balance at the end of the month, or year, or life, is consistent with LBYM principles. But it doesn't seem to me that there is any "ought to" involved in choosing between "get as much mileage as you can out of your money by shopping the sales and getting cash back whenever possible" vs "buy less—it costs less". They are both valid methods of achieving LBYM.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the LBYM principle is "spend less than you have coming in"? I think any personal financial regime— the cash envelope system a la Dave Ramsey, or credit cards paid in full every month, or pay-as-you-go with checks or ATM/debit cards, or some other—which results in a positive balance at the end of the month, or year, or life, is consistent with LBYM principles. But it doesn't seem to me that there is any "ought to" involved in choosing between "get as much mileage as you can out of your money by shopping the sales and getting cash back whenever possible" vs "buy less—it costs less". They are both valid methods of achieving LBYM.

Sure, they are both LBYM. However, speaking strictly financially now, using a payment method which reduces the cost of the things you buy (by 1%-5%), and gives you float sure seems to be a financial advantage. I can't see any financial advantage to paying more, sooner.

So a rewards CC allows the LBYM'r to either live on a slightly lower 'Means', or to raise their 'Living' slightly on the same means. TAke your pick, but either choice is better. So I feel OK in saying (again, speaking strictly financially now), that it is something that they "ought to" do. Now, if they have reasons to feel they would have a problem using a CC, then fine, they should do what works for them. But I think they should recognize that they are giving up some financially power, and take that into consideration in the decision.

Let's use a non-CC analogy. Say you have a strict budget of $20 gas/week. You could say it makes no difference if you buy a car that gets 20mpg, or one that gets 30mpg, because you are only going to spend $20 regardless. But you can do more (live "higher") with a 30mpg car (on the same means), right? Or, have more opportunities to go under budget on weeks you drive less, and save that money or use it elsewhere. Either way, you got more for your money at 30mpg.

-ERD50

[calmloki]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Sure, they are both LBYM. However, speaking strictly financially now, using a payment method which reduces the cost of the things you buy (by 1%-5%), and gives you float sure seems to be a financial advantage. I can't see any financial advantage to paying more, sooner. So a rewards CC allows the LBYM'r to either live on a slightly lower 'Means', or to raise their 'Living' slightly on the same means. TAke your pick, but either choice is better. So I feel OK in saying (again, speaking strictly financially now), that it is something that they "ought to" do. Now, if they have reasons to feel they would have a problem using a CC, then fine, they should do what works for them. But I think they should recognize that they are giving up some financially power, and take that into consideration in the decision. Let's use a non-CC analogy. Say you have a strict budget of $20 gas/week. You could say it makes no difference if you buy a car that gets 20mpg, or one that gets 30mpg, because you are only going to spend $20 regardless. But you can do more (live "higher") with a 30mpg car (on the same means), right? Or, have more opportunities to go under budget on weeks you drive less, and save that money or use it elsewhere. Either way, you got more for your money at 30mpg. -ERD50

Yeahbut. What if the 30mpg car is a VW bug with crappy heater, horrible defrost, no AC, no cruise, scratchy AM radio only? And you are a pro athlete making megabux? Choosing not to put up with the bug's hassle because it just isn't worth the savings/mile to you doesn't seem like an emotional choice to me - rather an assessment of what the savings is worth on a personal level.

Frinstance: I make little enough that I can't imagine paying for a first class airplane ticket - can't imagine that getting to the same place at the same time could be worth twice or three times as much. Were I Bill Gates the difference in cost, though the same dollar amount, would be irrelevant to his bottom line, while being more rested might well be.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calmloki Yeahbut. What if ...

There are almost always Yeahbut's and whatif's - to apply the analogy you almost always have to assume "all else being equal"....

I agree with you on the 1st class ticket. I've never paid for one, and if I was BG I wouldn't consider not paying for one (assuming I was BG and flying commercial flights).


-ERD50

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 There are almost always Yeahbut's and whatif's - to apply the analogy you almost always have to assume "all else being equal".... I agree with you on the 1st class ticket. I've never paid for one, and if I was BG I wouldn't consider not paying for one (assuming I was BG and flying commercial flights). -ERD50

If I were BG... I would wonder why anybody would think I would fly commercial at all....

With that kind of money... your private plane is like pealing off a couple of dollars for us...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyounge1956 Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the LBYM principle is "spend less than you have coming in"? I think any personal financial regime— the cash envelope system a la Dave Ramsey, or credit cards paid in full every month, or pay-as-you-go with checks or ATM/debit cards, or some other—which results in a positive balance at the end of the month, or year, or life, is consistent with LBYM principles. But it doesn't seem to me that there is any "ought to" involved in choosing between "get as much mileage as you can out of your money by shopping the sales and getting cash back whenever possible" vs "buy less—it costs less". They are both valid methods of achieving LBYM.

The difference... (and like ERD says... speaking financially).... it does not matter how you are spending.. or what you are spending it on... your example misses the point.. you seem to say that just "buying less - it costs less" is the way to go... fine.. buy less... but lets say we both buy the EXACT same thing... you go buy it.. I go buy it... at the end of the day... I am better off financially than you.. if what we bought were food.. I am 5% to the good.. gas, also 5%... anything else... 1.25%... so at the end of the year... when all is added up... and you spend 10,000 on a debit card and I spent 10,000 on a CC... I got between $125 and $500 more to spend as I got this money back... and if I wanted to spend time to move the money to an interest bearing account... I can get another $10 to $30 on the float.. (I do not do this... just showing what you can do)...

As others have mentioned... if you are the kind who will spend more with a CC, then anything over the $125 to $500 cash back you spend.. well, then you are worse off...