Boots charging you to pay them

Reggie_Rebel

If you really want to see how you are charged extra for using a credit card go into any High Street Travel Agent and see how much a £2000 holiday will cost you if you pay by Credit Card.

I'll give you a clue, it will be more than £2000 and they won't let you pay by cheque as an alternative.

If you read the small print on the receipts then you will see that the 2.75% is being paid to Boots Credit Card Folks, or something similar, so you are paying exactly the same amount but to two different parts of the business.

Think of it like going into Grace Brothers and buying a suit and a dress. You pay Mrs.Slocombe for the dress and then go and pay Captain Peacock for the suit. Young Mr.Grace gets all the dosh whichever way up it happens.

See if you'd have had me teaching your MBA you'd have got a better mark

JasonLVC

Sugarfree_Babe wrote: »

I am sorry you seem to have trouble understanding English. I said SOME of you and that is based on information provided in the thread.

It would have been easier to just say sorry rather than dig deeper holes - we can all get heated in forums from time to time.

You quote that you mentioned SOME folks on this thread are in debt based on information in this thread, which is why you mentioned it....yet looking back over the posts in this thread, no-one has posted "I am in debt" so if you can point it out fine, if not, it is an assumption.

Your later posting seems to be about bank charges, which I agree are extortionate, but your thread was suggesting Boots is somehow stealing from you. I understand your initial confusion, but if I may expand on the answer which has already been given :-

The credit card scheme (the Debenhams case failed at the High Court by the way) is a simple VAT planning scheme which allows the shop to load more of the price of the purchase towards being a taxable supply (and thus allow them to recover VAT on expenditure) rather than load it onto the credit card transaction which blocks the shops ability to recover VAT on expenditure - which will affect their profitabilty (hence why some make an extra charge for credit card transactions as it has knock on effects elsewhere in the business)

To do it properly, they must make a 'seperate' supply to the customer, hence why the credit card purchase is made up of two purchases (one for the goods and one for the card transaction) - the numbers are all the same and it is a single transaction from the customers perspective, but allows the VAT treatment to be different and in the shops favour.

vikingaero

Sugarfree_Babe wrote: »

I am sorry you seem to have trouble understanding English. I said SOME of you and that is based on information provided in the thread.

If it does not apply to you, why assume it does?

I am off to engage in some intelligent conversation on another forum.

D-i-s-c-u-s-s-i-o-n F-o-r-u-m. :rolleyes:

SFB,

If you don't like what people say then there's no point in posting threads for debate.

BA = B****r all
BA (Hons) B****r all Honour
MBA = More B****r All

Just goes to show that you can have all the qualifications in the world but were at the back of the queue for common sense.

JasonLVC

Reggie_Rebel wrote: »

Think of it like going into Grace Brothers and buying a suit and a dress. You pay Mrs.Slocombe for the dress and then go and pay Captain Peacock for the suit. Young Mr.Grace gets all the dosh whichever way up it happens.

See if you'd have had me teaching your MBA you'd have got a better mark

Reggie Rebel - Top Stuff!!. I work in the taxation sector, working for large multi-nationals who operate such credit card schemes and I LOVE your explanation which paints the perfect picture and I'll be using it in future meetings with my clients (although as many of them are based in Geneva and French, they'll probably not get the Grace Brothers analogy so will not get the Mrs Slocombe's puissy joke either!).

Lavendyr

Sugarfree_Babe wrote: »

I am off to engage in some intelligent conversation on another forum.

Interesting that you skipped my post above entirely. I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion with you on the ins and outs of absorption costing (something about which, if you do have an MBA, you should have a reasonable working understanding), but it would appear I am out of luck.

Pollycat

JasonLVC

You quote that you mentioned SOME folks on this thread are in debt based on information in this thread, which is why you mentioned it....yet looking back over the posts in this thread, no-one has posted "I am in debt" so if you can point it out fine, if not, it is an assumption.

I think the OP got her information re debt from some (or at least one) of the signatures.

That said, I don't agree with the points put forward by the OP.
Many shop receipts have stated this information for a long time.
Has the OP only just noticed?

I personally consider that the OP's comment about debt is in very poor taste, especially on a website such as this one.

uktim29

Sugarfree_Babe wrote: »

I am sorry you seem to have trouble understanding English. I said SOME of you and that is based on information provided in the thread.

Yeah I know, but you said "some", only one has any info on debt in their sig. I don't have trouble understanding English. Technically if you wanted to make reference to debt you should have wrote "one" of you!!! I feel like I'm singling that person out now which I don't mean to do. I didn't write the original debt comment.

You seem to have trouble understanding English & disclaimers (although thats just technically English as well!).