Poor reward

NickX

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

I would go further and say that nobody should be allowed to have more than one credit card.

Well I'm glad you don't make the rules - that would be the stoozer's nightmare. I have had in excess of 10 cards for years now, the more the better as far as I'm concerned

Robert_Sterling

geoffd50 wrote: »

they don't make money from thousands of other customers who pay off in full every month. What's the difference ?

And as for only being allowed one card...Back in your cave !
And while you're there contemplate the difference between cash in the bank for a rainy day, and credit on a card for a rainy day.

Credit card companies get a percentage from the vendor on every purchase you make.

The idea is that you save money for a rainy day.

P.S. It is warm in my cave at the moment.:j:j:j

Robert_Sterling

Any wrote: »

completely disagree.
I was before now in situation where bank stopped transaction because they thought it might be fraudulent and without having a second card as a back up I wouldn't be able to buy the item.

And as it was online I wouldn't like to use my debit card for that purchase.

I accept that you have pointed out clearly circumstances in which having two credit cards would have an advantage for you over having only one credit card.

Nevertheless I now think that everyone should be limited to one credit card account.
The lender could give you two or more separate cards with separate numbers with your overall limit split between them in a ratio chosen by you.

Robert_Sterling

NickX wrote: »

Well I'm glad you don't make the rules - that would be the stoozer's nightmare. I have had in excess of 10 cards for years now, the more the better as far as I'm concerned

Me too.
While something is legally available I take advantage of it.
e.g. I was against denatioanalisation but bought shares and made a profit.
I was against demutualisation of building societies but open many accounts to make money.
Similarly you stooze and I stooze but I still think one account only should be allowed.

Eydon

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

Credit card companies get a percentage from the vendor on every purchase you make.

No they don't - at least not all of them.

Card acquirers (i.e. those that provide and run the terminals in the shop) charge a percentage of the transaction (some of which then is paid to Visa/Mastercard).

Card issuers only make money by charging fees and interest on your card account.

At least that's how it used to work, and I'll be surprised if things have changed.

Obviously, some institutions (Barclays and Natwest for example) are both acquiriers and issuers. But others (MBNA and Egg for example) are issuer only.

NickX

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

I was against denatioanalisation but bought shares and made a profit.
I was against demutualisation of building societies but open many accounts to make money.
Similarly you stooze and I stooze but I still think one account oinly should be allowed.

It sounds as though you have socialist principles but your actions are more pertaining to those of a capitalist.

I think you would do well in the "New Labour" party :rotfl:

Eydon

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

I now think that everyone should be limited to one credit card account.
The lender could give you two or more separate cards with separate numbers with your overall limit split between them in a ratio chosen by you.

How would that help in the case stated above where the card issuer declined the transaction because of suspected fraud. If you had two cards with the same issuer linked to the same account they'd decline both of them.

Best to have (as a minimum) one Visa and one Mastercard, both from different issuers.

Robert_Sterling

Eydon wrote: »

No they don't - at least not all of them.

Card acquirers (i.e. those that provide and run the terminals in the shop) charge a percentage of the transaction (some of which then is paid to Visa/Mastercard).

Card issuers only make money by charging fees and interest on your card account.

At least that's how it used to work, and I'll be surprised if things have changed.

Obviously, some institutions (Barclays and Natwest for example) are both acquiriers and issuers. But others (MBNA and Egg for example) are issuer only.

Thank you for that information.
We agree that somebody makes a percentage on the purchase.

CopperPlate_2

squack wrote: »

Yes hope the OP gets treated better elsewhere...i take it that RBS (royal bank of scotland) is different from Bank of Scotland ? bit confused but just got a card from the latter

Yes, two different institutions. RBS is Royal Bank of Scotland, currently majority owned by the government. Bank of Scotland was a separate listed bank in its own right until it merged with Halifax a few years ago, retaining their separate brands, and calling the merged group HBOS. HBOS basically imploded during the 'credit crunch' and was forced into a 'merger' with Lloyds TSB to create Lloyds Banking Group. LBG still retains the different retail brands of Bank of Scotland and Halifax, and others it acquired.

alidai

Excuse me if this is stupid but...

OP, why dont you just spend a quid on the card, pay it off, and keep the existing limit?????