Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickjj | Hacker News Reader

Yep, but the problem is my moral compass is potentially out of whack. I'm 100% confident I could control using the card, but fundamentally I don't like how credit card companies are ran. Plus I don't agree with a company keeping tabs on my financial transactions and then profiting from that data on my behalf.

With that said, the 2% is nice but it's not enough to make me reconsider. There probably is a number where I would give in, but since that's never going to happen, I don't bother thinking about it.

On the other hand, debit card theft is a real concern. I partly combat that by keeping the minimum in that account. Fortunately I haven't misplaced my card in the last ~20 years. I'm hoping my bank would resolve it. They did really well in a few cases where an online vendor didn't honor their own policies (they helped me recover the funds without it being a huge deal).

View on HN

> Plus I don't agree with a company keeping tabs on my financial transactions and then profiting from that data on my behalf.

You'll have that near equally as long as you do non-cash transactions unless you use your debit card from an equally privacy conscious institution (maybe a small town credit union? Until they got bought at least..).

Personally I've just accepted that my boring life is known to everyone and try and get the perks I can out of it; free trip once a year being about what I've managed to extract without much effort.

That still does not address the "I don't agree with how they are ran"-concern.

There sadly is no US version of the Fair Finance Guide yet, but in the countries where it does exist it is a pretty good guideline for finding banks that align with your moral interests:

https://fairfinanceguide.org/

The Dutch one is the first version, and as a result also the most elaborate:

https://eerlijkegeldwijzer.nl/bankwijzer/themas/

Doesn't matter where the debit card is issued, the relevant data still goes over the same network(s), mostly managed by Bank of America Corp...

I don't see a significant enough difference between the negative bits of how credit card companies are run vs. how the rest of the banking and financial system is run, so I honestly don't understand the distinction you've drawn -- to your own financial detriment. I guess I do plenty of irrational things for emotional reasons too, though, so I can't fault you too much for it.

If your debit cards info gets stolen, they take YOUR money and the bank may not necessarily be in as much of a hurry to get it bank. In the mean time, you have no cash, maybe for days or weeks.

If your credit card info gets stolen, the thief had access to credit card company money, not yours, and you still have access to all your cash as long as you personally can refuse to pay for fradulent charges. It is the banking institutions money they have stolen access to, and the CC company has incentive to shut down the fraud ASAP.

It's not about the morality of supporting credit card companies or controlling spending impulses, it's about whose money the thieves have access to and wither or not you have the ability to pay rent 2 days after your card gets stolen.

I think you're replying to the wrong person here. I absolutely agree with you on this point, and at any rate wasn't at all talking about personal liability when using a debit/bank card vs. a credit card. I was in fact replying to a poster who doesn't use credit cards because they don't like how the CC system is run, which I thought was odd, since the banking system overall is rife with sketchy practices. In other words, if they don't like CCs, then they shouldn't like debit/bank cards either.

Credit Cards are often a way for us to get our money back because everything has been marked up 0.5-2% for credit card fees.

When you're paying with cash - you're giving a little bit more profit to the retailer.

This is also an issue for the under privileged who do not have access to meaningful credit to get cash back.

Not sure if that might change the perspective.

Are you suggesting that you use a credit card to combat credit card fees?

That feels like "not solving the problem"

Actually it feels like the prisoners dilemma: if everyone chooses what's best for themselves the we're worse off overall...

That ship sailed long ago, though, and nothing short of the collapse of our financial system will bring that ship back to dock. The only rational decision is to "defect" in this particular dilemma: cooperating just hurts you and doesn't change the overall outcome for anyone else.

Not suggesting a solution at all. Just was curious if the original poster was aware most thing we pay for in cash are inflated to include the retailer's credit card fees.

What might be interesteing is a till discount at each retailer for not using a credit card.

I preferred to use debit for a long time too. As fraud increases, I'd rather the bank be hit with fraud on a CC instead of my bank account. It's not the best insurance, but banks are far more motivated to get their own money back quickly over their customers'.

You're getting your money back and a bit of everyone else's who has to use cash. Visa is splitting the ill-gotten gains from its market power with you so that you'll help keep the system going. It's mildly unethical to use credit over debit. That 3% skim isn't from doing something socially positive, it's completely zero-sum.

Let's unpack what you're stating, I think you have misunderstood something:

Retailers often include their half of CC fees in the price you pay at the till, regardless of whether a cc is used. This is on top of any fees you may pay.

Since it's the retailer deciding to leave their CC fees in the retail price, I'm getting back my money on my purchase.

It's the retailer who's keeping the extra few percent on their prices, not visa, or you, when someone is paying cash.

The questions of ethics is interesting. While I appreciate the morality checks from strangers at any time, if the retailers are pocketing the extra %, instead of providing a cash/debit price, should disdain towards 'ill-gotten gains' be focused on each 'mildly unethical' retailer you are dealing with?

You don't like how credit card companies like Visa, MasterCard or Amex are ran? How do you use a debit card without them?

Not having a debit card would make modern day living too much of a pain. I pay for almost everything in cash and really only use my debit card for paying recurring bills. Can't always win. :)

Have you considered rewards churning in an attempt to cause net losses for the issuer? IMO that's a better protest move than simply not participating, at least until something better can be coordinated.

You're still causing a ~3% loss to the vendor every time you spend money using a credit card.

The vendor has calculated the transaction cost into their prices. You're paying ~2% more than necessary if you pay with cash.

The vendor often isn't even getting that 2% anyhow - it's dead losses from cash-handling expenses and employee theft.

Not if I shop at cash only places.

Is it feasible to do this all the time? No. But quite often it is.

I personally believe most of the "cash only" places (or places that beg you to pay cash) only do so to get out of paying taxes. It's a lot easier to underreport your income if your whole business is cash.

Many businesses are cash-only because they had so much credit-card fraud associated with them that no merchant bank is willing to process their payments.

That doesn't refute the argument for having and using a credit card for places that do take credit cards, when you inevitably run across one of them.

Not everyone that uses a credit card is financially supporting the company.

Inevitably you support the company with virtually every transaction. The vendor will pay a fee for using Visa, for example. I believe it's a percentage of the purchase.

True, but everyone who uses a credit card without defaulting on it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com