I have been using credit cards in the US since I was a kid 15+ years ago, and my parents have been using them for 20+ years easy. I feel like they have had the ability to autopay for at least that long.
To me a credit card always feels "dirtier" because of the connotation that it produces debt and that I have to rely on someone else extending me credit, even if momentarily. It seems much cleaner to just spend your own money directly with as little middlemen as possible.
As long as interest is avoided, rewards and protection. I end up with a 'free' plane ticket to Europe every year through my primary CC. The Apple Card gives 3% back on anything Apple (plus some others like TMO), and allows you buy almost any Apple item with 12 month, 0% payments. I could spend the 2k on that laptop or keep that money invested and just pay 166/month. The Amazon card is 5% back on anything Amazon (and Whole foods if that's your thing). I bought a 'free' TV with the rewards last year.
I've had my CCs stolen many times, and the buffer means I've never had that money leave my bank account.
I was taught early on in life that cash is king. The longer you can keep the cash in your control the better. Using CCs to provide a buffer does exactly that. And the rewards are a bonus for money I'm spending anyway.
Even if you are not earning extra points, using a credit card may be helpful for some who are trying to establish a credit history, which will be important if they wish to borrow larger sums (auto loans, home mortgages) in the future.
Ah, that explains part of it, I guess. This isn't a thing in my European country.
What I don't understand is why simply using a credit card would count more towards establishing you as a good creditor than not even having to use a credit card at all. I guess that's a weird bias in the system?
Not borrowing any money, and hence not having any history of repaying borrowed money is zero signal.
If it was true that people who never borrowed money were more likely than repaying borrowed money on time than people who regularly borrowed money, then a lender would have already noticed this in their data and would have offered a more competitive financing product in the marketplace.
Since that has not happened, it is reasonable to surmise that the tiny signal of maintaining a small revolving credit card loan with timely payments is better than the zero signal of not maintaining any loan balance.
Note that having many tiny credit card revolving loan amounts is viewed negatively.
In the US, you lose out on 2%+ cash back rewards when you do not use credit card (because the price for purchasing with a credit card is the same as not using a credit card, and the minimum cash back rewards in free credit cards is 2%).
Merchants (generally large merchants) do not offer a discount for paying with debit cards because people spend more money when using credit cards.
There are some notable exceptions that offer cheaper prices for using debit card, such as Target that offers a 5% discount for using a debit card to pay. Hence I pay at Target with a debit card.
Basically, other people’s cash flow problems and/or inability to resist temptations to spend more than what they have results in profit for merchants, banks, and people that pay their credit card balance every month.
Also, I assume that most credit companies (VISA, MC, etc.), have rules, expressly forbidding charging different rates for the use of credit cards. It makes sense, because they don't want to be avoided as a payment option.
I learned this, when I did my first shopping cart, and read the whole freakin' VISA Merchant's Manual.
There was some kind of loophole that gas stations used.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/new...
> A PCN cannot stop you from offering your customers a discount or another incentive for using a certain method of payment, as long as you offer it to all your customers and disclose the offer clearly and conspicuously. For example, you can offer your customers a discount or a coupon if they pay with cash or a debit card rather than a credit card.
In Mar 2017, Supreme Court went further and said state laws banning credit card surcharges were a violation of merchants’ first amendment rights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressions_Hair_Design_v._Sch...
What you may be thinking about is rules prohibiting charging different payment card network prices for various credit cards (i.e. different price for Visa vs Amex vs Mastercard vs Discover). This was deemed allowable by the Supreme Court in Jun 2018:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_v._American_Express_Co.
As an aside, this Ohio v AmEx ruling was of great benefit to tech companies that operated market places, because
> This decision was considered to have created a new type of rule that could make it difficult to seek antitrust litigation; with credit cards being a two-sided market serving two distinct sets of customers, a successful antitrust argument would have to show how both sides of the market were harmed.