Should we get a discount?

grumbler

lisyloo wrote:

I would GUESS that it's because on the face of it that they THINK that debit cards are cheaper.

I think that such a big company bases their policy on some reliable information about charges (unfortunatelly, I don't have this information). As the infrastructure for accepting debit and credit cards is the same, is not this obvious that the only reason for not accepting credit cards is higher charges? And Aldi are not alone in accepting only debit cards. They are known for their low prices. Probably, one of reasons is that they don't accept CCs. Those who accept CCs, have to add the fee to the price.

Whether they have fully taken into account the benefits they get e.g. extra custom, I don't know.
It's very difficult to quantify the custom they lose by not taking credit cards, so I would say it's hard to prove absolutely one way or the other.

It's also possible that Aldi are wrong and their policy is costing them big time in terms of lost custom.

By saying this you admit that credit cards are more expensive for a retailer to accept. Whether these higher charges can be compensated by higher turnover or not is absolutely different question that have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion.

gingercordial

Al_Mac wrote:

You're probably right:o

Do Tesco et al, put the credit card blurb on the bottom of all receipts?

Al, are you talking about the bit that says about you agree that 2.5% of the amount is payable to X plc finance division, or whatever?

If so, that's not a credit card fee. That's a VAT planning scheme. Nothing to do with how much it costs to process a credit card transaction vs cash, it's just an opportunity for them to make some money back. Which in fact defrays some of the cost of merchant fees.

lisyloo

By saying this you admit that credit cards are more expensive for a retailer to accept.

Ah ha...I think here is where we get to the nub of the problem.

If I were a business and I were looking at whether credit cards were expensive then I wouldn't just look at their immediate cost.
I would look at the benefits and knock on costs.
e.g. costs to having cash lying around and employing staff to pay it in at a bank, lost custom etc.

If you are talking about DIRECT charges, then I agree with you that credit cards are more expensive and I think we can agree that this is factual.

However this isn't the way I would look at it if I were running a business and when I read "costs" in a sentence I think of the entire picture and not just the direct charges.

So it's partly down to how you intepret the question of "are they more expensive".
I intepret it in a way that takes into account the whole picture.

chriz1000

If it’s a big purchase and especially if it’s to do with my car I always ask what the cash in hand price is. Body shops especially like cash in hand, usually knocking off around 20%

lisyloo

At the end of the day I think it is retailers and the "market" that will decide what happens.

Some companies have put charges on cards and consumers can decide whether to pay those charges, pay by a different method or go elsewhere.

It is common place with a lot of companies for regular bills to give a discount for direct debit.

This issue won't get decided by a poll, but by market forces e.g. retailers and consumers.

In general I use a card (with cashback if possible).
If the charge exceeds the cashback then I pay by a different method.

The_Boss

chriz1000 wrote:

If it’s a big purchase and especially if it’s to do with my car I always ask what the cash in hand price is. Body shops especially like cash in hand, usually knocking off around 20%

In most cases for illegal reasons - i.e cash not having to be declared to the taxman

Joe_Bloggs

If you pay more than £100 by credit card you may qualify for protection under Section 75 of the Consumer credit act 1974.
I think traders who charge extra for using credit or debit cards should put this fact in a prominent position on their store/literature for all to see at a glance.
It is no use to consumers for these fees to be buried and revealed at the time of purchase. This is perhaps an issue to be dealt by the Office of Fair Trading.

I once asked for a discount if I paid with a newly minted £2 coin. The answer was newly minted 2p in change.
J_B.

bs7

lisyloo wrote:

Ah ha...I think here is where we get to the nub of the problem.

If I were a business and I were looking at whether credit cards were expensive then I wouldn't just look at their immediate cost.
I would look at the benefits and knock on costs.
e.g. costs to having cash lying around and employing staff to pay it in at a bank, lost custom etc.

If you are talking about DIRECT charges, then I agree with you that credit cards are more expensive and I think we can agree that this is factual.

However this isn't the way I would look at it if I were running a business and when I read "costs" in a sentence I think of the entire picture and not just the direct charges.

So it's partly down to how you intepret the question of "are they more expensive".
I intepret it in a way that takes into account the whole picture.

i THINK you are being a little too pedantic!

And with regards to credit card transaction there are many more costs than you are suggesting: the cost of setting up a merchant account, PDQ terminals or integrated terminals (and upgrading them all for chip and pin if they were owned out right), connecting them to a telephone line, the 2% transaction fee can vary upto about 8% in some cases, and then all the costs associated with fraudulent card payments.

Perhaps grumbler's response should have been to ask YOU to prove what you're saying about the costs.


At the end of the day I GUESS it depends. It depends on the nature of the business, the risks associated with it, its customer base, etc, etc.

lisyloo

i THINK you are being a little too pedantic!

I don't agree.
I think the interpretation placed on the sentence can completely change the meaning.
I think myself and the other poster (grumbler?) interpreted it differently with different meanings which is why we didn't agree.

I actually think if we were talking about the same thing then we would probably agree.

Perhaps grumbler's response should have been to ask YOU to prove what you're saying about the costs.

I don't agree.
I have said that I THINK certain things or I GUESS certain things.
By all means ask me to justify them but I am not stating them as FACT or claiming them to be FACT.
I think there is a big difference and it's not pedantry.

When someone publicly says some thing is a "well known fact" then I think I am entitled to ask them to provide a source for that fact.
If I say something is my opinion then you can ask me to justify it but you can't ask me to prove it.
My feelings and opinions are all my own.

An opinion, discussion or feeling can be justified, but a fact can be proved or disproved.

I think I agree with most of the point made about credit cards, but I am not sure what a poll or discussion will acheive.

Whilst I can get cashback for using a card I will.
If I get penalised then I will choose to pay by other methods.
At the end of the day it will come down to simple supply/demand economics.

In some ways I think our society would be better off without credit cards because many people spend too much money they don't have - but that is a different topic.

Daniel_B

grumbler wrote:

Can you explain why Aldi and some other shops accept all debit cards, but don't accept credit cards?

At a guess, I would say this is because Credit card CC's take a fair while to cough up the cash, where as Debit cards are instant I think - well the money dissapears out of my account the same day when I use one.

I have been told by more than one trader than AMEX for example, can easily take 6 weeks to get the funds to the establishment - that's 6 weeks of lost interest.

Dan