Merchants who ask for ID on credit card purchases

John Mayson wrote:

This might come as a surprise, but not everyone is a cheating liar.

This is true, but I've been in a restaurant with a group where one of
the people in the group was an IRS agent, and she pointed out to me that
at many restaurants cash transactions are just rung up as $0.00 and the
cash stuck in the drawer.

I was at an Asian seafood buffet last week where they offered a free
soft drink if we would pay cash (it was a large group). So for about 10¢
in cost for ice and soda they saved about 35¢ in credit card fees, but I
suspect the big savings to them comes later.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

John Mayson wrote:

This might come as a surprise, but not everyone is a cheating liar.

This is true, but I've been in a restaurant with a group where one of
the people in the group was an IRS agent, and she pointed out to me that
at many restaurants cash transactions are just rung up as $0.00 and the
cash stuck in the drawer.

I was at an Asian seafood buffet last week where they offered a free
soft drink if we would pay cash (it was a large group). So for about 10¢
in cost for ice and soda they saved about 35¢ in credit card fees, but I
suspect the big savings to them comes later.

I have found several small merchants in my areas (Southern New Jersey)
who would refuse to accept credit cards for charges under some limit,
typically $10 or $15. When I was vacationing in England recently,
several refused to let me pay with my credit card unless it was over 25
pounds. Yes, its a violation of the merchant agreement, but credit card
companies have no way of enforcing that provision.

Scott in SoCal wrote
Stan Horwitz wrote

I have found several small merchants in my areas (Southern New
Jersey) who would refuse to accept credit cards for charges under
some limit, typically $10 or $15. When I was vacationing in England
recently, several refused to let me pay with my credit card unless
it was over 25 pounds. Yes, its a violation of the merchant agreement,
but credit card companies have no way of enforcing that provision.

Sure they do: they can take away the offending
merchant's ability to accept credit cards.

In practice they arent that stupid on an issue like that.

The most they do is put that in the alleged 'merchant agreement'
and that does bluff some of the legally pig ignorant.

Thats ALL it ever is, pure bluff, and they know it.

They can impose fines/penalties/fees and withhold
those funds from the merchant's income stream.

And they dont even do that with that minimum transaction value situation.

The truth is, credit cards are issued by BANKS, and banks are heavily
biased in favor of businesses at the expense of the consumer.

Thats very arguable with 'rewards' etc.

This whole Check-21 business is a prime example: it's all geared
to make it easy for a merchant to take money out of a consumer's
checking account, while simultaneously making it extemely difficult
for the consumer to block such transactions.

Completely trivial actually, use a credit union for your funds.

You know how some companies will transform the
checks you send them into EFT debit transactions
so they can get their hands on your money faster?

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use checks.

If someone is doing that, call the cops.

If you're a consumer, and you ask your bank to disallow such
transactions, you'll be told it's not possible. However, if you have
a BUSINESS checking account, such transactions are either
blocked by default, or blocking is easily enabled with a simple
phone call. And merchants are allowed to destroy your original
check, sometimes without even being required to make any
sort of facsimile image. There's nothing to stop a mechanst from
"accidentally" issuing an EFT debit for any amount they want, any time
they want. If you're paying attention you might notice the error on
your statement a month after the fact (or sooner if your checks start
bouncing). Sure, after lots of hassle and aggravation, you might even
get your money back, but shouldn't the system be designed to PREVENT
such mistakes in the first place? But that's never gonna happen because
the entire system is biased in favor of merchants and against consumers.

And if you arent stupid enough to use checks, none of that can happen.

Scott in SoCal wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Scott in SoCal wrote

The truth is, credit cards are issued by BANKS, and banks are
heavily biased in favor of businesses at the expense of the consumer.

Thats very arguable with 'rewards' etc.

Then why is the Obama administration pushing
reform legislation for the credit card industry?

For other reasons entirely.

This whole Check-21 business is a prime example: it's all geared
to make it easy for a merchant to take money out of a consumer's
checking account, while simultaneously making it extemely difficult
for the consumer to block such transactions.

Completely trivial actually, use a credit union for your funds.

And what, exactly, will that do?

Gets you away from the banks.

You know how some companies will transform the
checks you send them into EFT debit transactions
so they can get their hands on your money faster?

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use checks.

The fact that a workaround exist

It isnt a workaround. Its avoiding dinosaur technology that has very real downsides.

does not alter the fact that the banking system is heavily
biased against consumers and in favor of businesses.

Have fun explaining credit cards that are nothing like that.

Scott in SoCal wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Scott in SoCal wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Scott in SoCal wrote

The truth is, credit cards are issued by BANKS, and banks are
heavily biased in favor of businesses at the expense of the consumer.

Thats very arguable with 'rewards' etc.

Then why is the Obama administration pushing
reform legislation for the credit card industry?

For other reasons entirely.

Which would be what?

For stuff like offering insane limits to those who are economic illiterates and
the way they play silly buggers with the due date, late fees and interest rates.

This whole Check-21 business is a prime example: it's all geared
to make it easy for a merchant to take money out of a consumer's
checking account, while simultaneously making it extemely
difficult for the consumer to block such transactions.

Completely trivial actually, use a credit union for your funds.

And what, exactly, will that do?

Gets you away from the banks.

But not the banking SYSTEM, which is where the bias is.

There is no bias if you use a credit union, essentially because hardly
any merchants use credit unions so there is no reason for them to be
biased in favor of merchants, because they are owned by the consumers.

Check-21, check-into-EFT-debit, and all the other consumer-
unfriendly stuff can still occur even when you bank at a credit union.

Different matter entirely to your claim about BIAS.

Even Check-21 isnt bias, its just an attempt to minimise transaction costs
and that benefits both merchants and those who write checks too.

does not alter the fact that the banking system is heavily
biased against consumers and in favor of businesses.

Have fun explaining credit cards that are nothing like that.

Ever dispute a charge on your credit card bill?

Yep. Thats an absolutely classic example of bias AGAINST merchants.

They get the transaction reversed immediately the consumer claims
that he never authorised the transaction, gets to prove that the consumer
did authorise the transaction, gets to prove that the item was actually
delivered to the consumer's billing address and signed for by the consumer.

AND gets to wear the $25 fee for a disputed transaction even if the
merchant does prove that he is entitled to the amount in dispute.

Ever have the CC company "investigate" and then decide in favor of the merchant?

Nope.

It's happened to me.

Corse it happens, because plenty of consumers try to rort the system.

They didn't follow up with me, didn't ask for any evidence or
explanation or anything, they just summarily ruled against me.

Bet they actually asked the merchant for proof
that you did authorise the transaction and got it.

Even if that particular transaction was ****ed up, all that
proves is that some transactions inevitably do get ****ed
up, not that there is a general bias in favor of the merchant.
In fact the bias is against the merchant with card transactions.

People seem to have this illusion that using a credit card is
like having a magic eraser that will make all the charges you
don't want simply disappear. The reality can be quite different.

And thats why they dont just take the consumer's word for what allegedly didnt happen.

Also, if there's no merchant bias, then how come merchants
can violate their credit card agreements with impunity?

Because the card companys know that they have no legal right
to impose those conditions and so they go for pure bluff in the
alleged 'merchant agreements' which are in fact nothing even
remotely resembling anything like an 'agreement' at all. They
are in fact just edicts from the card company to the merchant.

They impose minimum fees, they ask for ID, some even add
a surcharge if you use a CC, all with no repercussions.

If there really was a bias in favor of the merchants, those
restrictions wouldnt be in the purported 'merchant agreement'
in the first place when clearly so many merchants want them.

Why do all the CC companies look the other way when
these consumer-protection provisions are violated?

Because they know that they arent legally enforceable
and that they are just there to bluff the legally pig ignorant.

How can you honestly say that this is not biased?

Corse its not biased. If they really were biased towards the merchants,
those restrictions wouldnt be in the purported 'merchant agreement' in
the first place. They are clearly there because the card companys
believe that they will get more card transactions if the merchants arent
allowed to do that sort of thing and that is precisely what card
companys are about, card transactions instead of cash being used.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message , "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Completely trivial actually, use a credit union for your funds.

And what, exactly, will that do?

Nothing. Check 21 applies to credit unions as well as banks.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use checks.

The fact that a workaround exist does not alter the fact that the
banking system is heavily biased against consumers and in favor of
businesses.

This is true in terms of Check 21. However businesses should be careful
what they wish for. Based on Check 21, it would be exceedingly foolish
for anyone to write a check to a business if the business takes credit
cards, and businesses would prefer checks for high value purchases. If
they don't take credit cards then either pay cash or find another
business. Of course there are other benefits to paying with a credit
card as well.

The only checks I write any more are for school and scout related
activities. The school actually will take credit cards via PayPAMS but
the fee is very high so few people use the service. For regular bills,
push EFT is much safer than checks.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
SMS wrote:

Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message , "Rod Speed"
wrote:
Completely trivial actually, use a credit union for your funds.
And what, exactly, will that do?
Nothing. Check 21 applies to credit unions as well as banks.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use checks.
The fact that a workaround exist does not alter the fact that the
banking system is heavily biased against consumers and in favor of
businesses.
This is true in terms of Check 21. However businesses should be careful
what they wish for. Based on Check 21, it would be exceedingly foolish
for anyone to write a check to a business if the business takes credit
cards, and businesses would prefer checks for high value purchases. If
they don't take credit cards then either pay cash or find another
business. Of course there are other benefits to paying with a credit
card as well.

The only checks I write any more are for school and scout related
activities. The school actually will take credit cards via PayPAMS but
the fee is very high so few people use the service. For regular bills,
push EFT is much safer than checks.

Yeh, when I bought my 2008 Prius, I wanted to put down $4,000 deposit on
one of my credit cards so I could get the rebate points. The dealer said
it was fine, but then a few minutes later, the manager of the dealership
gave me a whole song and dance,

You can hardly blame the dealer. You wanted the transaction to cost more
for them after you made the deal.


so I compromised and I wrote a check for
$2K and put $2K on my credit card, then when the credit transaction got
posted to my account, I paid the other $2K electronically.

This dealership has a great reputation, so I figured it was to my
advantage to work with them on this deal. Especially since they knocked
$1,000 off the price of my Prius.

Shawn Hirn wrote:

Yeh, when I bought my 2008 Prius, I wanted to put down $4,000 deposit on
one of my credit cards so I could get the rebate points. The dealer said
it was fine, but then a few minutes later, the manager of the dealership
gave me a whole song and dance, so I compromised and I wrote a check for
$2K and put $2K on my credit card, then when the credit transaction got
posted to my account, I paid the other $2K electronically.

Yeah, cars are one transaction where a check is often used. We just
bought a Toyota Camry hybrid and put $3000 on the credit card (the
maximum the dealer would allow), and paid the balance with a check.

SMS wrote:
Shawn Hirn wrote:

Yeh, when I bought my 2008 Prius, I wanted to put down $4,000
deposit on one of my credit cards so I could get the rebate points.
The dealer said it was fine, but then a few minutes later, the
manager of the dealership gave me a whole song and dance, so I
compromised and I wrote a check for $2K and put $2K on my credit
card, then when the credit transaction got posted to my account, I
paid the other $2K electronically.

Yeah, cars are one transaction where a check is often used.

Only by dinosaurs. I used EFT to pay for mine, much more convenient.

We just bought a Toyota Camry hybrid and put $3000 on the credit card (the maximum the dealer would allow), and paid
the balance with a check.

I paid the whole thing with EFT instead of farting around with a check.

On Jun 20, 3:22*pm, Scott in SoCal wrote:
In message
, Stan

Horwitz wrote:
I have found several small merchants in my areas (Southern New Jersey)
who would refuse to accept credit cards for charges under some limit,
typically $10 or $15. When I was vacationing in England recently,
several refused to let me pay with my credit card unless it was over 25
pounds. Yes, its a violation of the merchant agreement, but credit card
companies have no way of enforcing that provision.

Sure they do: they can take away the offending merchant's ability to
accept credit cards. They can impose fines/penalties/fees and withhold
those funds from the merchant's income stream.

The truth is, credit cards are issued by BANKS, and banks are heavily
biased in favor of businesses at the expense of the consumer.

Oh so wrong. As a merchant who accepts credit cards, I can tell you
that the issuing banks treat me like a thief. All a customer has to do
is challenge a transaction and they suck the money back instantly.
Then I have to jump through hoops to prove the transaction was
legitimate, and even if the chargeback is reversed, I'm out the $25
fee. If a customer claims they didn't receive the merchandise, out the
money goes until I can PROVE that not only was the merchandise
delivered and signed for, but that it was sent to the billing address
of the cardholder. If everything doesn't match, the consumer doesn't
have to pay. This has never happened to me because I am a stickler for
the rules and ship everything signature required, to billing address
only. However, I have merchant friends who have been burned big time
by not requiring a signature on every package (which really ****es
people off) or by shipping to the customer's work address.
Banks are NOT biased in favor of businesses. No way, no how, never.