Does your BMW add 3.75% for paying for service/part using a credit card?

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Pathy01

Federal law also requires banks to provide very similar protections for debit cards so your maximum exposure is $50 if you keep track of your banking regularly.

But you do you. Keeping most of all your money in your checking account is an interesting strategy...

Still doesn't negate that whatever is taken out of my account is what's at risk no matter what the end liability I have under Federal law.

And yes, I'll do me. I rather not deal with the headaches which when I rebutted that the faith you put into the security of NFC/tap to pay is already starting to crumble. No response. I use only two credit cards when I'm out and about for purchases. One for product/services purchases. The other for use at restaurants and gas stations for the higher cash back rewards. Limits the headaches I have if either card is compromised.

And you have no idea what I do with my finances. Most of my money is not in my checking account.

[erickonphoenix]

You think that's bad, my wife is an esthetician and any tips added to the credit card receipt she eats the %3 credit card fee. Cash is king in her trade.

My company will not process invoices that have that charge on it so I have to negotiate it out or just have them roll it into the subtotal and send me a revised invoice.

[BenFenner]

Originally Posted by erickonphoenix

Cash is king in her trade.

No. According to the brainiacs in this thread, cash is worse to deal with than credit. Did you not get the memo?

[OC40]

Originally Posted by BenFenner

No. According to the brainiacs in this thread, cash is worse to deal with than credit. Did you not get the memo?

Cash fucking sucks. That’s the memo.

[Pathy01]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Still doesn't negate that whatever is taken out of my account is what's at risk no matter what the end liability I have under Federal law.

And yes, I'll do me. I rather not deal with the headaches which when I rebutted that the faith you put into the security of NFC/tap to pay is already starting to crumble. No response. I use only two credit cards when I'm out and about for purchases. One for product/services purchases. The other for use at restaurants and gas stations for the higher cash back rewards. Limits the headaches I have if either card is compromised.

And you have no idea what I do with my finances. Most of my money is not in my checking account.

No, whatever is taken out of your account is at risk for the bank, not for you due to the federal protection laws. Some banks are better at restoring funds immediately than other so who you choose to bank with does impact timeframes and hassle.

You stated no facts about NFC/tap so there was nothing to rebut. No system is 100% safe, and avoiding use of a debit card also does not make you immune to bank fraud so you are not completely shielding yourself by simply not using your debit card. The number of credit cards you use and what type of items you purchase with each has no particular relevance so I'm not sure why you shared that information.

You yourself stated that "most of all my own money isn't at risk" by choosing to not use a debit card. Perhaps you were simply using hyperbole for dramatic effect, but that is what you stated. Glad to hear that it wasn't an actual fact.

So, to the original point, in cases where a convenience fee is charged for credit vs. not for debit, are you paying that fee for the enhanced security you feel credit provides?

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by Pathy01

Federal law also requires banks to provide very similar protections for debit cards so your maximum exposure is $50 if you keep track of your banking regularly.

But you do you. Keeping most of all your money in your checking account is an interesting strategy...

While this is true, the one key difference is that debit cards draw the cash out of your account immediately, so that cash will be gone until the dispute is resolved. A credit card, on the other hand, is paid in arrears so there's no cash-outlay during the time it takes for the dispute to be handled. In fact, the couple of disputes I've had for credit transactions actually froze the transaction until the dispute was resolved, so I wouldn't pay for it even if it spanned a billing period.

Additionally, while superior in many ways, my credit union is not particularly fast and the one dispute I've had to do with them took a couple of weeks. To me, that's a pretty big downside for the debit vs credit payments debate.

I never use debit over credit – not for any security concerns per se, but more of a "why would I want to?" consideration. There's no compelling reason, and I get cash-back from credit cards. I essentially treat them as debit transactions anyway, paying the entire balance each month. So why not? Outside of not getting ripped off with businesses pushing their transactions fees on to me, there's not really much of a compelling reason to use my debit card.

[BenFenner]

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

Outside of not getting ripped off with businesses pushing their transactions fees on to me

They were always doing that. The only difference is that now you know where that slice of the pie goes (or is claimed to go).

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by BenFenner

No. According to the brainiacs in this thread, cash is worse to deal with than credit. Did you not get the memo?

It is. Carrying it is a PITA, constantly having to go to ATMs to restock it is a PITA, it can be easily lost, and though this is a personal preference, I hate having change. Not using cash solves that one.

Carry it if you like – I don't really care – but there's no disputing that a credit card is easier. There's a reason banks hand out debit cards, and it's not because people don't prefer them.

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by BenFenner

They were always doing that. The only difference is that now you know where that slice of the pie goes (or is claimed to go).

You're not that naive, are you? If that's the case, why haven't I noticed prices going down by 3% once they started adding the fee?

I'm sure it was a consideration previously when setting prices, but the fact of the matter is that prices stayed the same (and went up) while businesses found a way to take another 3% on top of everything else. After all, if they were already factoring in the 3% fee and aren't simply using it as an excuse to make more, why change it to something they must know people aren't going to like?

[BenFenner]

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

Carrying [cash] is a PITA, constantly having to go to ATMs to restock it is a PITA, it can be easily lost, and though this is a personal preference, I hate having change. Not using cash solves that one.

Carry it if you like – I don't really care – but there's no disputing that a credit card is easier. There's a reason banks hand out debit cards, and it's not because people don't prefer them.

I see why you're so confused. You're only thinking about yourself. (Yourself as a consumer.)

In context, we've been talking about vendors/retailers, not consumers. Do try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

You're not that naive, are you? If that's the case, why haven't I noticed prices going down by 3% once they started adding the fee?

Because they wanted to raise their prices anyway and found a convenient spot to do it and a convenient scapegoat that you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

They were going to do it anyway. Inflation is a thing. Time marches on.

Vote with your wallet. Patronize and reward the places that did not do this.

Enjoy being more informed.

[Pathy01]

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

While this is true, the one key difference is that debit cards draw the cash out of your account immediately, so that cash will be gone until the dispute is resolved. A credit card, on the other hand, is paid in arrears so there's no cash-outlay during the time it takes for the dispute to be handled. In fact, the couple of disputes I've had for credit transactions actually froze the transaction until the dispute was resolved, so I wouldn't pay for it even if it spanned a billing period.

Additionally, while superior in many ways, my credit union is not particularly fast and the one dispute I've had to do with them took a couple of weeks. To me, that's a pretty big downside for the debit vs credit payments debate.

I never use debit over credit – not for any security concerns per se, but more of a "why would I want to?" consideration. There's no compelling reason, and I get cash-back from credit cards. I essentially treat them as debit transactions anyway, paying the entire balance each month. So why not? Outside of not getting ripped off with businesses pushing their transactions fees on to me, there's not really much of a compelling reason to use my debit card.

The cash is not necessarily gone until the dispute is resolved if you bank with an institution that immediately restores the funds to your account pending their investigation. Yes I understand that many banks do not do this so YMMV.

I don't believe anyone in this conversation has suggested using debit over credit for security. It is only suggested as an option to avoid the "convenience" fees applied to credit cards. Some are afraid of the risk they associate with using their debit card. My point is that making a debit tap to pay transaction at your BMW dealer carries an extremely low likelihood of potential fraud on that singular transaction along with the token authorization for that single transaction so it cannot be used to complete any additional transactions. Your actual bank account information is never transmitted to it can't be accessed.

The potential for fraud is there with debit, but it is not from making a payment to a reputable merchant using tap to pay.

Would I hand my debit card to a restaurant server? No.
Would I use it over the internet? No.
Would I use it at a BMW dealer to avoid a 3.75% convenience charge for using a credit card? Yes.

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by BenFenner

I see why you're so confused. You're only thinking about yourself. (Yourself as a consumer.)

In context, we've been talking about vendors/retailers, not consumers. Do try to keep up.


Because they wanted to raise their prices anyway and found a convenient spot to do it and a convenient scapegoat that you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

They were going to do it anyway. Inflation is a thing. Time marches on.

Vote with your wallet. Patronize and reward the places that did not do this.

Enjoy being more informed.

Wow, zero to dick in under 3s. Impressive. The M5 of assholes, it seems.

In case you haven't noticed, I haven't fallen for shit since I'm actively complaining about the surcharge and have called it out for what it is. Do try to keep up. Or be a dick. Whichever works for you.

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by Pathy01

The cash is not necessarily gone until the dispute is resolved if you bank with an institution that immediately restores the funds to your account pending their investigation. Yes I understand that many banks do not do this so YMMV.

I don't believe anyone in this conversation has suggested using debit over credit for security. It is only suggested as an option to avoid the "convenience" fees applied to credit cards. Some are afraid of the risk they associate with using their debit card. My point is that making a debit tap to pay transaction at your BMW dealer carries an extremely low likelihood of potential fraud on that singular transaction along with the token authorization for that single transaction so it cannot be used to complete any additional transactions. Your actual bank account information is never transmitted to it can't be accessed.

The potential for fraud is there with debit, but it is not from making a payment to a reputable merchant using tap to pay.

Would I hand my debit card to a restaurant server? No.
Would I use it over the internet? No.
Would I use it at a BMW dealer to avoid a 3.75% convenience charge for using a credit card? Yes.

Right, but the contention was that it was equally as safe as using credit which is true transaction-wise, functionally there's still a potential downside if that debited cash is withdrawn immediately and held during a dispute.

How a bank handles that with regards to a dispute may, as you say, differ. But my experience was that the cash was unavailable until the dispute was resolved, so I can only speak to that.

I would also probably use it at the dealership to avoid the fee, so we're in agreement there. But I shouldn't have to, because that cost of doing business shouldn't be passed to me.

[BenFenner]

1) Describe how awful it is to deal with cash and how gloriously convenient credit cards are to deal with.
2) Complain bitterly about being charged a convenience fee for said glorious convenience.
3) ???
4) Profit!

[OC40]

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

It is. Carrying it is a PITA, constantly having to go to ATMs to restock it is a PITA, it can be easily lost, and though this is a personal preference, I hate having change. Not using cash solves that one.

Carry it if you like – I don't really care – but there's no disputing that a credit card is easier. There's a reason banks hand out debit cards, and it's not because people don't prefer them.

Change is absolutely horrendous.

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by BenFenner

1) Describe how awful it is to deal with cash and how gloriously convenient credit cards are to deal with.
2) Complain bitterly about being charged a convenience fee for said glorious convenience.
3) ???
4) Profit!

I'm glad you finally understand.

Spoiler: credit cards are a huge advantage for retailers as well. Otherwise they wouldn't, you know, accept them.

I guess it's just me, but I don't enjoy having a retailers cost of doing business passed on to me when it previously wasn't. But man, you must love the trend of tipping everyone so that their employer can pay them less. Profit!

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Pathy01

No, whatever is taken out of your account is at risk for the bank, not for you due to the federal protection laws. Some banks are better at restoring funds immediately than other so who you choose to bank with does impact timeframes and hassle.

You stated no facts about NFC/tap so there was nothing to rebut. No system is 100% safe, and avoiding use of a debit card also does not make you immune to bank fraud so you are not completely shielding yourself by simply not using your debit card. The number of credit cards you use and what type of items you purchase with each has no particular relevance so I'm not sure why you shared that information.

You yourself stated that "most of all my own money isn't at risk" by choosing to not use a debit card. Perhaps you were simply using hyperbole for dramatic effect, but that is what you stated. Glad to hear that it wasn't an actual fact.

So, to the original point, in cases where a convenience fee is charged for credit vs. not for debit, are you paying that fee for the enhanced security you feel credit provides?

Phillies summarized perfectly why I won't evet use a debit card over a credit card. You said my reasons for not using a debit card are unfounded due to the tokenization of the transactions. This doesn't address the rest of the payment system which a simple online search will show that NFC relay attacks are possible along with ghost tapping. I'm sure as time goes on there will be more vulnerabilities that will come to light with NFC/tap to pay systems.

While any transactions I would potentially do with a debit card won't ruin me financially. this all falls on the same discussion about tipping. I got where I am financially because I do care where every dollar goes. And while a couple thousand being unavailable for some time won't kill me, I prefer not to deal with not having those funds out of my control when I don't have to with using a credit card.

[MisanoblueZ4]

Originally Posted by OC40

Cash fucking sucks. That’s the memo.

Great thing about wads of cash is that if you lose it, it’s gone forever. But you might make someone else very happy.😃

[KevinC]

I think this is a shitty policy. Yes, there is a cost associated with credit card payments. But rather than slap a fee on the customer (which at 3% is higher than what they're paying, assuming they didn't choose some hideously overpriced provider), so they're not only sticking you for their overhead, but making further profit. IMHO What they SHOULD do is just price their products/services accordingly and not charge anything extra. If I were about to pay a $2k service department charge there's NFW I'm eating a $60 "fee" on top of that - I'd go to the local bank and get $2k in SINGLES and pay them that way, just to make a statement. You know who doesn't slap a fee on me? My coffee shop. He has to bake it into his cost. Customers would absolutely revolt at a fee like this. And he's taking in exponentially less cash.

I get it that the dealership owner's massive yacht payment and insanely massive alimony payments are crimping his lifestyle, but I don't care to supplement his income to help cover this kind of cost.

Speaking of insane alimony settlements that a car dealer is dealing with, Google Fletcher Jones Jr's crazy settlement with his gold-digger ex-wife. It's enough to make you commit to staying single.

[maticCRO]

He had to give her 360 000$ a month, and she says its not enough???
What fkin planet are you living on?
This is one of the reasons why i will NEVER marry, or if i do, it will have a prenup size of the Bible... They all love you, Until they dont, and then rip your wallet aparat.. Thanks but no thanks, ill enjoy my money (how ever small or big that sum is) by myself...

[tracer bullet]

Depends who you marry, I guess. Right now my wife makes more than I do.

[Phillies8008]

Originally Posted by KevinC

I think this is a shitty policy. Yes, there is a cost associated with credit card payments. But rather than slap a fee on the customer (which at 3% is higher than what they're paying, assuming they didn't choose some hideously overpriced provider), so they're not only sticking you for their overhead, but making further profit. IMHO What they SHOULD do is just price their products/services accordingly and not charge anything extra. If I were about to pay a $2k service department charge there's NFW I'm eating a $60 "fee" on top of that - I'd go to the local bank and get $2k in SINGLES and pay them that way, just to make a statement. You know who doesn't slap a fee on me? My coffee shop. He has to bake it into his cost. Customers would absolutely revolt at a fee like this. And he's taking in exponentially less cash.

That's the thing, though: they were building this into their pricing – they'd have been crazy not to all these years. It's just that now someone got the "bright" idea to keep the prices where they are (and raise them), but pass that 3% onto their customers assuming they'd just swallow it. Which it seems they are – I mean hell, we've got people defending the practice. Great way to instantly grow your margins with approximately zero effort.

Again, if retailers don't like the fee the answer is simple: don't accept credit cards. Problem solved. Except, of course, that they may not enjoy the consequences and find out that that 3% fee wasn't so bad after all.