Merchants who ask for ID on credit card purchases
Pat
Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
� Marie Johnson, Denver
A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
store owner doesn't agree.
h
"Pat" <p...@peace4life.com> wrote in message
news:200906071457...@poisonous.dizum.com...
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
> store owner doesn't agree.
>
>
spendwize.com
- there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather the clerks make
sure I am whoI say I am.
xxxxo
-------------------------------------
Pat wrote:
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.spendwize.com http://www.spendwize.com/groups/
Consumer News and Discussions Platform of the Net
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
misc.consumers,misc.consumers.frugal-living,co.denver.general - messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
krw
(spendwize.com) wrote:
>It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection for you
>- there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather the clerks make
>sure I am whoI say I am.
It's a protection for *them*. You're not protected by giving the
cashier even more information about you. That said, much too much is
made about this here.
Rod Speed
> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
> It's a protection for *them*.
Its protection for both partys.
> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately that keeps
the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall if everyone does that.
Rod Speed
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license
> when I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it.
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must
> accept the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer
> immediately if the store owner doesn't agree.
And nothing will happen when you 'report' that.
krw
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>krw wrote
>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>Its protection for both partys.
Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>Wrong.
No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately that keeps
>the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall if everyone does that.
Dumb as a stump, too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>> Its protection for both partys.
> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>> Wrong.
> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>> to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately
>> that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall
>> if everyone does that.
> Dumb as a stump, too.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
krw
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>krw wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> krw wrote
>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>>> Its protection for both partys.
>
>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
That you're wrong, Ronnie? All one has to do is hang out here for a
day and that fact becomes evident. The fact is that it is *NO*
protection for you and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any
information.
>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
It's pretty obvious to anyone but a Usenet troll and welfare queen,
Ronnie.
>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids having
>>> to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and ultimately
>>> that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card costs overall
>>> if everyone does that.
>
>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
I made a simple comment that it really isn't as important as people
make it, and you puff it up even more with your nonsensical blather.
Who's the troll here, Ronnie? Wanna vote?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
> That you're wrong, Ronnie?
Both of the claims above, fuckwit.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you
Obvious lie if your card is stolen.
> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.
You aint giving anyone any information if they just check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.
>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.
>>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
Obvious lie.
>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
krw
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>krw wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> krw wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>
>>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
>> That you're wrong, Ronnie?
>
>Both of the claims above, fuckwit.
You are *clearly* wrong, so that makes you thrice wrong here.
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
>> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you
>
>Obvious lie if your card is stolen.
You're too stupid for words.
>> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.
>
>You aint giving anyone any information if they just check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.
They now have all the other information on the ID too, stupid Ronnie.
Can yo say Identity theft? I knew you couldn't.
>>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>>>> Wrong.
>
>>>> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>
>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Perfect self analysis, stupid Ronnie.
>>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.
>
>>>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
>
>Obvious lie.
You are an obvious liar, yes.
>>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
You repeat yourself a lot, huh stupid Ronnie.
Gordon Burditt
>effort at all into verifying that the person presenting the card is in
>fact the owner of that card? These droids are simply going through the
>motions. They NEVER check signatures, and when they look at my
>driver's license their eyes don't even focus.
There have been a few "undercover stings" by reporters checking to
see how much checking is actually done on ID. The result was
"essentially none". Nobody objected to any of these:
One guy's credit card identified him as something like "First Baptist
Church of San Francisco", and his driver's license had a matching
name and a picture of the church building on it.
One guy (black, bald, over 300 pounds) presented a credit card with
the name "Britney Spears", and the driver's license name match and
the picture was a nude photo of a supermodel.
One guy presented a credit card with some female name, his driver's
license showed a different female name and a picture of someone in
a gorilla suit.
One guy presented a credit card with the name "John VOID", and
his driver's license clearly had VOID stamped over it, although the
name was something else entirely.
One 10-year old boy, wearing nothing but a diaper and made up to
look much younger, presented a credit card to buy beer. His driver's
license showed a picture of a senior citizen. He got his beer.
For this one, they had the parents (one of whom was also the store
owner) watching from outside the store on a video monitor, they
were shocked, and all hell broke out afterwards.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a protection
>>>> for you - there's so much credit card fraud these days, I'd rather
>>>> the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>> Its protection for both partys.
>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>> Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used.
> Heh. You think these pimply-faced, minimum-wage punks
> are putting any effort at all into verifying that the person
> presenting the card is in fact the owner of that card?
Plenty of them do.
> These droids are simply going through the motions. They NEVER check signatures,
I've had them do that.
> and when they look at my driver's license their eyes don't even focus.
You wouldnt know whether they do or not.
> My license photo has a picture of me with a moustache that I shaved
> off a couple of years ago, my hair is a completely different length,
> and I wear glasses IRL but don't have them on in the photograph.
Its obvious enough when that sort of thing has happened.
> Not once has a store clerk even given either my license or me a
> second glance. I bet I could go over to Santa Ana and get a fake
> DL with Obama's picture on it and these droids wouldn't even notice.
You'd lose your bet with plenty of them.
> If a thief steals your wallet, they not only get your
> credit card but they get your driver's license, as well.
Pity that the photo doesnt match.
> Your protection from fraudulent use of your stolen card is now almost ZERO.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> krw wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>>>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>>>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>>>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>>>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>>> That you're wrong, Ronnie?
>> Both of the claims above, fuckwit.
> You are *clearly* wrong, so that makes you thrice wrong here.
How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.
>> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you
>> Obvious lie if your card is stolen.
> You're too stupid for words.
How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.
>>> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.
>> You aint giving anyone any information if they just
>> check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.
> They now have all the other information on the ID too,
Like hell they do if they just compare the photo
with the person and check that the names match.
> Can yo say Identity theft? I knew you couldn't.
How odd that no one has ever stolen my identity, fuckwit.
>>>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.
>>>>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
>> Obvious lie.
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
George
> Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> YES, the merchanit is in violation of their merchant agreement, but
>> I've never heard of a case where reporting them caused any changes
>> whatsoever in the way the merchant does business.
>>
>> Same thing with minimum purchase requirements (e.g. "$10 minimum for
>> credit cards") - they're a violation of the merchant agreement, but
>> reporting the merchant does nothing.
> Must be something in the water. I can personally vouch for two
> merchants who lost their Visa deals and a third who stopped charging a
> sliding "processing fee" for debit/credit card purchases within 6 weeks
> of my complaints to Visa and to my state's Attorney General this year,
> alone (Minimum charges, surcharges, etc. are illegal in FL but a
> merchant may offer a discount for cash). I rat the thieves out almost
> all of the time.
So apparently you rationalize the banks are your friend and the
merchants who want to cover the banks cut are "thieves"? I think all CC
transactions should be presented as an extra fee just as sales tax is
charged.
> It is important to complete the transaction and insist on a
> complete itemized receipt that shows the bogus charge. Include copies of
> the receipt with the complaint form - which may be filled out at any
> affiliated bank, not just the issuing/sponsoring bank - to the cardco
> and with the complaint letter to Attorney General. Complaints may be
> unsigned (that is not to say "anonymous") but it is my belief that those
> go into the trash.
> Gratuitous Aside: In FL, auto registrations are processed by county
> tax collectors. Because they are transacting state business, our state's
> Attorney General granted tax collectors dispensation to collect a rather
> high "card convenience fee" for card transactions. Visa refused to play
> so now those counties which insist on their priviledge no longer accept
> Visa cards.
I agree with your state's AG. If someone wants to use a CC to get
"rewards" or for convenience or whatever they should pay for it.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:h0itqs$ot0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why? They'll just make the purchase with a different vendor or, in the case
of the gub'mint, pay with cash or check. The credit card issuers have every
right to make whatever rules they want for both those who use the cards and
those who accept them. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to play.
99% of my income comes from selling my custom made products via credit cards
through my website . There are those who insist on mailing checks or using
PayPal, but they are few and far between. I happily pay the fees to the CC
companies to facilitate my sales. It's part of "the cost of doing business"
or haven't you ever heard of that?
And no, I would never even THINK of asking for ID on a very rare in-person
credit card sale. It's not allowed under the card acceptance agreement that
I signed. Besides, who really cares if your card gets skimmed/spoofed? The
CC company, that's who. It has no negative impact on you at all. It's not
like you have to pay any of the charges. They'll close out that card number,
credit any fraudulent charges, overnight you a new card, and you're good to
go. The only real hassle is learning the new 16 card number, exp. and
security code. I know this because I've had my card skimmed twice in two
years. Now I know better than to use a credit card to purchase gas in NJ.
They take the card into the building (there is no self-serve gas in Jersey),
run it through a reader, generate a new card with the same credit info, slap
a new name on it, and they're good to go. If it seems to take "too long" for
them to fill out the info, then you might be getting skimmed. I'm certainly
not suggesting that it happens at all gas stations in NJ, but I've only used
my credit card to buy gas 3 times in NJ (near the PA border) and the card
was skimmed twice. Different gas stations, different years. About a week
after the trip someone started using "my card" in Philly. The first time the
CC company caught it because I was supposedly buying lunch in Philly 10
minutes after I bought groceries at home. The second time I was checking my
account a lot after I got back from my trip and I caught them in 4 hours.
They were certainly NOT stopped by some droid checking IDs. Besides, since
they can put whatever name they want on the fake cards, the name as well as
the signature will match. Checking IDs is pointless.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
> store owner doesn't agree.
mine is signed C ID so i expect them to ask.
kjw
Which does nothing, other than possibly make YOU liable for fradulent
charges since your cardholder agreement requires you to sign it. If
your lost or stolen card finds its way back to the issuer with "See
ID," they can, and probably will, hold you responsible for bogus
charges.
As to the main topic, I've finally given in. I used to argue with
them, but the $6/hr employee doesn't give two shits and will just deny
the purchase. Do you really think the card issuer is going to do
anything to a large company like Best Buy? Fighting this at the
merchant level is a waste of time.
One Who Waits
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
instead of signature I wrote "Ask for I.D." on my one card.
Good Luck ! all
--
It's amazing what you can do. If...
you put your mind to it.
Dave Garland
> There have been a few "undercover stings" by reporters checking to
> see how much checking is actually done on ID. The result was
> "essentially none". Nobody objected to any of these:
Here (Minneapolis) the State runs stings occasionally. It's not
uncommon to see a news item that someplace has lost its license to
sell alcohol or tobacco due to underage sales. Sometimes just their
license for that particular good. Places with repeated offenses
(especially if there's anything about them that would annoy John Q.
Public, like lots of minority customers or noisy kids or fights in the
parking lot) are liable to be closed down by the city council, the
underage sales being one of the justifications.
But that's just on state-licensed goods. Your credit card, they could
care less.
Dave
Rod Speed
They're legally entitled to refuse to do the transaction with an unsigned card.
Rod Speed
Thats just plain wrong when the card is physically stolen or
found instead of having the details skimmed to a new card.
> Besides, since they can put whatever name they want on the fake cards, the name as well as the signature will match.
Not true of a card thats physically stolen or found.
> Checking IDs is pointless.
Mindlessly superficial.
George
I'll bet you would think differently if say you had "h's coffee shop"
and you were constantly processing $3 and $5 charges for those wanting
to get their "rewards". Clearly you would need to raise your prices so
cash customers like me would help pay for the "rewards". If someone
wants "rewards" let them pay for it.
krw
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>krw wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> krw wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> krw wrote
>>>>>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>
>>>>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>
>>>>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>
>>>>>> Wrong, as usual, Ron.
>
>>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
>>>> That you're wrong, Ronnie?
>
>>> Both of the claims above, fuckwit.
>
>> You are *clearly* wrong, so that makes you thrice wrong here.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.
How odd that you can't read, stupid Ronnie.
>>> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
>>>> The fact is that it is *NO* protection for you
>
>>> Obvious lie if your card is stolen.
>
>> You're too stupid for words.
>
>How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claims.
How odd that you can't read, stupid Ronnie.
>>>> and somewhat of a risk giving anyone any information.
>
>>> You aint giving anyone any information if they just
>>> check that you are who you say you are, fuckwit.
>
>> They now have all the other information on the ID too,
>
>Like hell they do if they just compare the photo
>with the person and check that the names match.
You *are* stupid. Why now have your address and DL# and who knows
what else.
>> Can yo say Identity theft? I knew you couldn't.
>
>How odd that no one has ever stolen my identity, fuckwit.
Why would anyone want to steal a welfare queen's identity?
>>>>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>
>>>>>> No Ron. You're wrong, as usual.
>
>>>>> How odd that you couldnt substantiate your claim.
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
That's that lonely thought again.
>>>>>>> You're protected by not having a stolen card used. That avoids
>>>>>>> having to have a transaction using your stolen card reversed and
>>>>>>> ultimately that keeps the costs down and so you pay less in card
>>>>>>> costs overall if everyone does that.
>
>>>>>> Dumb as a stump, too.
>
>>>>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>>> Good thing I don't have to bullshit about this one, huh, Ronnie.
>
>>> Obvious lie.
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Going, going...
>>>>>>>> That said, much too much is made about this here.
>
>>>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
><reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Gone.
krw
<dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
>> There have been a few "undercover stings" by reporters checking to
>> see how much checking is actually done on ID. The result was
>> "essentially none". Nobody objected to any of these:
>
>Here (Minneapolis) the State runs stings occasionally. It's not
>uncommon to see a news item that someplace has lost its license to
>sell alcohol or tobacco due to underage sales. Sometimes just their
>license for that particular good. Places with repeated offenses
>(especially if there's anything about them that would annoy John Q.
>Public, like lots of minority customers or noisy kids or fights in the
>parking lot) are liable to be closed down by the city council, the
>underage sales being one of the justifications.
VT does that, as well. Selling tobacco or alcohol to an underage
person was a criminal offense (not a violation). One criminal offense
and you couldn't have a liquor license. If the bar owner was behind
the bar and got stung by an undercover "kid" with a fake ID they'd
lose their license, permanently. VT is nutz.
>But that's just on state-licensed goods. Your credit card, they could
>care less.
Of course.
Rod Speed
krw desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Robert Neville
>> instead of signature I wrote "Ask for I.D." on my one card.
>
>They're legally entitled to refuse to do the transaction with an unsigned card.
And the USPS Offices around here all have signs up to that effect... (Any card
with other than a traditional signature will be refused.)
h
"kjw" <k...@kjw.net> wrote in message
news:pi8q255ets4fvaqge...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:56:18 GMT, "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
> <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pat" <p...@peace4life.com> wrote in message
>>news:200906071457...@poisonous.dizum.com...
>>> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>>>
>>> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license
>>> when
>>> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can
>>> they?
>>> - Marie Johnson, Denver
>>>
>>> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
>>> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>>>
>>> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
>>> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
>>> store owner doesn't agree.
>>
>>mine is signed C ID so i expect them to ask.
>
> Which does nothing, other than possibly make YOU liable for fradulent
> charges since your cardholder agreement requires you to sign it. If
> your lost or stolen card finds its way back to the issuer with "See
> ID," they can, and probably will, hold you responsible for bogus
> charges.
>
It is against my card acceptance agreement to accept a card which does not
have a signature. My favorite is the idiot who refuses to sign the card at
all, because then "The thief will know how to sign my name". Umm, no, the
thief can now sign the card any way they want and they're good to go.
Morons. If a card has "See ID" on the back or the back is blank, I'm
supposed to either confiscate it or refuse it.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
I process small charges all the time. It's called the cost of doing
business. My business is 99% internet, so I don't have any cash customers.
h
"Robert Neville" <do...@bother.com> wrote in message
news:bdfr25d05s2li484l...@4ax.com...
As it should be.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Scott in SoCal wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> krw wrote
>>>>> info_at_1-sc...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote
>>>>>> It may be "illegal" - I don't know - but its actually a
>>>>>> protection for you - there's so much credit card fraud these
>>>>>> days, I'd rather the clerks make sure I am whoI say I am.
>>>>> It's a protection for *them*.
>>>> Its protection for both partys.
>>>>> You're not protected by giving the cashier even more information about you.
>>>> Wrong. You're protected by not having a stolen card used.
>>> Heh. You think these pimply-faced, minimum-wage punks
>>> are putting any effort at all into verifying that the person
>>> presenting the card is in fact the owner of that card?
>> Plenty of them do.
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Cant even manage its own lines. Or anything else at all either.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door onto its lard arse.
>>> These droids are simply going through the motions. They NEVER check signatures,
>> I've had them do that.
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Cant even manage its own lines. Or anything else at all either.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door onto its lard arse.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
> >> instead of signature I wrote "Ask for I.D." on my one card.
>
> >They're legally entitled to refuse to do the transaction with an unsigned card.
>
Merchants are legally REQUIRED to refuse to do the transaction with an
unsigned card.
Rod Speed
> Robert Neville <d...@bother.com> wrote
Nope, thats just what the merchant agreement says, not what the law says.
Cheapo Groovo
In article <200906071457...@poisonous.dizum.com>,
p...@peace4life.com says...
> http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_12533443
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
> ? Marie Johnson, Denver
John Mayson
> Same thing with minimum purchase requirements (e.g. "$10 minimum for
> credit cards") - they're a violation of the merchant agreement, but
> reporting the merchant does nothing.
Along similar lines what about merchants who charge extra to use a credit
card? We had our roof replaced recently. I called to give them my credit
card number and was told it'd be an extra 4%. That's 4% of over $6,000.
Thanks, but no thanks.
The obvious workaround for this though is to give a 4% discount for cash
(yeah, I know, 4% fee != 4% discount exactly).
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Gordon Burditt
>card?
There may actually be *laws* (not agreements between the merchant
and someone else that isn't you) prohibiting this. I think California
does. But at least they told you up front (or I hope they did).
You have every right to scream bloody murder if they told you this
after the work was completed.
>We had our roof replaced recently. I called to give them my credit
>card number and was told it'd be an extra 4%. That's 4% of over $6,000.
>Thanks, but no thanks.
>The obvious workaround for this though is to give a 4% discount for cash
>(yeah, I know, 4% fee != 4% discount exactly).
But there is a very significant difference between the two: the
advertised price.
George
have inserted themselves everywhere and maybe you haven't followed how
much money the government has picked out of our pockets to give to these
pirates.
I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with an
adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or
"rewards" they get to pay for it.
h
"Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
news:Ut-dndfLZtWr2bLX...@posted.internetamerica...
> >Along similar lines what about merchants who charge extra to use a credit
>>card?
That's not legal, at least according to my card acceptance agreement. I am
not allowed to charge a fee for using a credit card nor am I allowed to set
a minimum purchase amount. How the government gets around that rule (they
charge a fee to pay your taxes via a credit card) makes me wonder...
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with an
> adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or "rewards"
> they get to pay for it.
Sorry...you don't get to tell me how to run my business. My only "cash"
sales are checks and money orders, and they are a huge pain in the ass. It
inconveniences ME to have to go to the bank or mail in the deposit. Give me
a credit card sale any day. It's a whole lot cheaper than a "cash" sale
through PayPal, too.
It sounds like you're just cranky because you can't get a credit card with
good rewards, like the rest of us have.
Rod Speed
> "Gordon Burditt" <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote in message
> news:Ut-dndfLZtWr2bLX...@posted.internetamerica...
>>> Along similar lines what about merchants who charge extra to use a
>>> credit card?
> That's not legal, at least according to my card acceptance agreement.
That purported 'agreement' which is in fact nothing like that, doesnt get to set whats legal.
> I am not allowed to charge a fee for using a credit card
In fact thats pure bluff.
> nor am I allowed to set a minimum purchase amount.
And that in spades.
> How the government gets around that rule (they charge a fee to pay your taxes via a credit card) makes me wonder...
The answer is obvious, the govt has enough of a clue to realise its pure bluff.
Rod Speed
Trouble with that line is that its just as true of cash that has its own overhead costs for the merchant.
ra...@vt.edu
It's easy for a government, or any large corporation, to get around that
requirement. It's not a law, it's a contract clause. Believe me, the
credit card companies will modify or drop clauses for a big enough
merchant. A small merchant doesn't have the leverage and pretty much
has to take what they get in the contract language, but you can bet
WalMart gets all sorts of modifications to the contract.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
George
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h0o6hq$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with an
>> adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or "rewards"
>> they get to pay for it.
>
> Sorry...you don't get to tell me how to run my business. My only "cash"
> sales are checks and money orders, and they are a huge pain in the ass. It
> inconveniences ME to have to go to the bank or mail in the deposit. Give me
> a credit card sale any day. It's a whole lot cheaper than a "cash" sale
> through PayPal, too.
Sounds like you like to read in something completely different from what
I wrote. Exactly where did I say anything like you wrote?
I get it that CC sales are really great for ***you*** because of your
particular business.
You did conveniently forget to answer my earlier question to you that if
you had a different business say "h's coffee shop" and folks hammered
you all day long with small CC sales what would you do.
>
> It sounds like you're just cranky because you can't get a credit card with
> good rewards, like the rest of us have.
>
>
See above, Not interested in "rewards". I simply want those who want
rewards, convenience or whatever to pay for them and those who don't get
to pay the cash price. I also want the cash price to be the normal base
price with a CC surcharge. And if I chose to use a CC I would not expect
myself to be exempt.
John Mayson
I'm not sure "legal" is the best term. It's an agreement between two
private entities, the card issuing company and the merchant. Since the
two parties can agree on pretty much anything, it's possible they've
allowed the federal government to charge a premium.
Rod Speed
>>>> Along similar lines what about merchants who charge extra to use a credit card?
>> That's not legal, at least according to my card acceptance
>> agreement. I am not allowed to charge a fee for using a credit card nor am I allowed to set a minimum purchase
>> amount. How the government gets around that rule (they charge a fee to pay your taxes via a credit card) makes me
>> wonder...
> I'm not sure "legal" is the best term. It's an agreement between two
> private entities, the card issuing company and the merchant. Since
> the two parties can agree on pretty much anything, it's possible
> they've allowed the federal government to charge a premium.
Or the federal govt has enough of a clue to realise its pure bluff and just ignores that.
The credit card companys get to like that or lump it.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>h wrote:
>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:h0o6hq$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with an
>>> adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or
>>> "rewards" they get to pay for it.
>>
>> Sorry...you don't get to tell me how to run my business. My only "cash"
>> sales are checks and money orders, and they are a huge pain in the ass.
>> It inconveniences ME to have to go to the bank or mail in the deposit.
>> Give me a credit card sale any day. It's a whole lot cheaper than a
>> "cash" sale through PayPal, too.
>
> Sounds like you like to read in something completely different from what I
> wrote. Exactly where did I say anything like you wrote?
>
at the cash price with an adder for credit cards". Ok, so that wasn't quite
in English, but I could figure it out.
>
> You did conveniently forget to answer my earlier question to you that if
> you had a different business say "h's coffee shop" and folks hammered you
> all day long with small CC sales what would you do.
>
Wrong. I did INDEED respond. I wrote, "I process small charges all the
time. It's called the cost of doing business. My business is 99% internet,
so I don't have any cash customers."
You have serious reading comprehension issues.
George
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h0p32f$pbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> h wrote:
>>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:h0o6hq$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with an
>>>> adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or
>>>> "rewards" they get to pay for it.
>>> Sorry...you don't get to tell me how to run my business. My only "cash"
>>> sales are checks and money orders, and they are a huge pain in the ass.
>>> It inconveniences ME to have to go to the bank or mail in the deposit.
>>> Give me a credit card sale any day. It's a whole lot cheaper than a
>>> "cash" sale through PayPal, too.
>> Sounds like you like to read in something completely different from what I
>> wrote. Exactly where did I say anything like you wrote?
>>
> Umm, above, where you wrote, "I think transactions should always be offered
> at the cash price with an adder for credit cards". Ok, so that wasn't quite
> in English, but I could figure it out.
Sure it was. You are so fixated on credit cards that you see the word
cash as a foreign language.
>> You did conveniently forget to answer my earlier question to you that if
>> you had a different business say "h's coffee shop" and folks hammered you
>> all day long with small CC sales what would you do.
>>
>
> Wrong. I did INDEED respond. I wrote, "I process small charges all the
> time. It's called the cost of doing business. My business is 99% internet,
> so I don't have any cash customers."
>
> You have serious reading comprehension issues.
>
>
Didn't see your reply. So now that I did how would your answer have
anything to do with the question I posed about a business like I
described that isn't 99% Internet and does have cash customers.
Tom Oska
>
> Q: It's become common for store clerks to ask for my driver's license when
> I use a credit card, then refuse the sale if I won't provide it. Can they?
>
> A: Nope. Merchants cannot require identification as a condition of
> accepting a signed credit card, according to the folks at MasterCard.
>
> If it's signed, according to card issuer rules, the retailer must accept
> the card on its face. Report them to your card issuer immediately if the
> store owner doesn't agree.
>
>
This happened to me last year. I contacted Mastercharge and obtained a
"Merchant's Agreement" copy and then filed a certified letter with the
store's corporate office with a copy to the store manager. I included the
pertinent parts of the agreement with my letters.
I received a written apology from the store and an apology from corporate
with a $100 gift certificate.
It pays to not be Sheeple.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>h wrote:
>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:h0p32f$pbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> h wrote:
>>>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:h0o6hq$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> I think transactions should always be offered at the cash price with
>>>>> an adder for credit cards. That way if someone wants convenience or
>>>>> "rewards" they get to pay for it.
>>>> Sorry...you don't get to tell me how to run my business. My only "cash"
>>>> sales are checks and money orders, and they are a huge pain in the ass.
>>>> It inconveniences ME to have to go to the bank or mail in the deposit.
>>>> Give me a credit card sale any day. It's a whole lot cheaper than a
>>>> "cash" sale through PayPal, too.
>>> Sounds like you like to read in something completely different from what
>>> I wrote. Exactly where did I say anything like you wrote?
>>>
>> Umm, above, where you wrote, "I think transactions should always be
>> offered at the cash price with an adder for credit cards". Ok, so that
>> wasn't quite in English, but I could figure it out.
>
> Sure it was. You are so fixated on credit cards that you see the word cash
> as a foreign language.
No, moron, the use of the word "adder" is what threw me. It can mean several
things (snake, digital circuit, etc.) but it has NO meaning in the sentence
you wrote.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>h wrote:
>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:h0p32f$pbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> h wrote:
>>>> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:h0o6hq$bsi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>
>> time. It's called the cost of doing business. My business is 99%
>> internet, so I don't have any cash customers."
>>
>> You have serious reading comprehension issues.
> Didn't see your reply. So now that I did how would your answer have
> anything to do with the question I posed about a business like I described
> that isn't 99% Internet and does have cash customers.
You are so clueless! You said I would hate it if I processed small
transactions all day instead of cash. I told you that I DO process small
transactions all day, instead of cash and that I don't have a problem with
it at all.
You're beyond help. PLONK!
George
Really? You never heard the term "adder" in business? Just open this as
an example of how "adder" is very commonly used in business:
"...the opportunity cost or a value no greater than the calculated
opportunity cost. The Frequently Mitigated Unit (FMU) adder as well as
the 10% cost adder are ..."
I guess you are loosing the argument if you need to introduce an ad
hominem attack?
George
Works for me. You are so fixated on credit cards that you perceive
everything as an attack and can't even read for content and see only
what you want to see.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
> I get it that CC sales are really great for ***you*** because of your
> particular business.
>
> You did conveniently forget to answer my earlier question to you that if
> you had a different business say "h's coffee shop" and folks hammered
> you all day long with small CC sales what would you do.
>
>
It does vary with the type of business. I have a small business, and I
do accept credit cards. MOst of my sales are $30 and up, so I don't
have many small orders like a coffee shop does. So, the minimum part
doesn't bother me.
But I disagree that credit cards are so much better than accepting
checks and money orders. At least not for all businesses. Again, it
depends on the type of business, what methods work best, and which
cause problems.
For me, checks are great. Most of my sales are at specific events. I
see the same people over and over. And most orders are shipped after
the fact. So, if a check should bounce, I can easily find them and get
the money. I have yet to receive a bad check. Why do I like checks? I
can cash them and use the money right away. Not so with credit card
purchases. Big stores probably have a better deal. I have to wait 3-4
business days before the money becomes available to me.
I did find this whole topic surprising as I never noticed any rule
that said I couldn't ask for ID. I don't as I get all the information
anyway when they sign up for my service. I also work at a large
grocery store, and we actually have a company policy that requires ID
anytime a customer's payment fails, and they switch cards. So, if they
try one card and then try a second card, we are required by the store
to ask for ID. I have never had anybody in 19 years refuse to show ID.
I've had people tell me they didn't have ID with them, and they almost
always opted to pay cash when I started to call the manager, or they
went to their car to get their ID and never returned. Of course, the
store is located in an area that has a higher rate of fraud. The last
year that we gave cash back for checks, the store lost over $50,000 in
bad checks (for that one location). They also set up a system to track
how many checks are written within a certain time frame. It can be
overridden by the managers, but really helps to keep people from going
store to store with stolen checks.
I do get asked for ID a lot when using a credit card, and it doesn't
bother me in the slightest. I think it is only fair that businesses be
allowed to protect themselves when accepting a payment other than
cash.
Dennis
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>I do get asked for ID a lot when using a credit card, and it doesn't
>bother me in the slightest. I think it is only fair that businesses be
>allowed to protect themselves when accepting a payment other than
>cash.
It doesn't particularly bother me to show ID, but I can't help but be
amused at the silliness of expecting a minimum-wage cashier to spot
fraud as she gives your ID a cursory glance.
It's all just a show to provide warm-fuzzy feelings, no real security.
See this site for a hilarious example of the effectiveness of
checkout-line security procedures (follow the links as it gets funnier
as the experiment progresses):
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
h
"Dennis" <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3os435dac5oh8pi5j...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:41:14 -0700 (PDT), "frie...@zoocrewphoto.com"
> <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>
>>I do get asked for ID a lot when using a credit card, and it doesn't
>>bother me in the slightest. I think it is only fair that businesses be
>>allowed to protect themselves when accepting a payment other than
>>cash.
>
> It doesn't particularly bother me to show ID, but I can't help but be
> amused at the silliness of expecting a minimum-wage cashier to spot
> fraud as she gives your ID a cursory glance.
>
> It's all just a show to provide warm-fuzzy feelings, no real security.
>
"heightened" security exist only to make rich, white people feel safe? Not
to actually BE safe, mind you, but to FEEL safe. Doesn't make me feel safe,
just pissed off.
Rod Speed
> <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>> I do get asked for ID a lot when using a credit card, and it doesn't
>> bother me in the slightest. I think it is only fair that businesses be
>> allowed to protect themselves when accepting a payment other than cash.
> It doesn't particularly bother me to show ID, but I can't help
> but be amused at the silliness of expecting a minimum-wage
> cashier to spot fraud as she gives your ID a cursory glance.
The point isnt what the minimum wage ape can do.
The point is that requiring ID sees card thieves that cant produce
proper fake photo IDs use other operations that dont require ID.
> It's all just a show to provide warm-fuzzy feelings, no real security.
Wrong. It does have some effect on what thieves can get away with.
> See this site for a hilarious example of the effectiveness
> of checkout-line security procedures (follow the links as
> it gets funnier as the experiment progresses):
> http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
Irrelevant to who gets deterred from using operations that require ID.
George
>> I get it that CC sales are really great for ***you*** because of your
>> particular business.
>>
>> You did conveniently forget to answer my earlier question to you that if
>> you had a different business say "h's coffee shop" and folks hammered
>> you all day long with small CC sales what would you do.
>>
>>
>
> It does vary with the type of business. I have a small business, and I
> do accept credit cards. MOst of my sales are $30 and up, so I don't
> have many small orders like a coffee shop does. So, the minimum part
> doesn't bother me.
Yes, not every business is the same as some think. If you had the
hypothetical coffee shop you would need to screw your cash customers to
help out the banks by raising your prices to cover the transaction fees.
If you didn't you would would loose your shirt. If you added a surcharge
which I think is the proper way to do things the zealots would report
you. Facing someone direct is a lot different than doing business via
some web site.
>
> But I disagree that credit cards are so much better than accepting
> checks and money orders. At least not for all businesses. Again, it
> depends on the type of business, what methods work best, and which
> cause problems.
>
My buddy creates and sells fairly high priced art work. He has a
merchant CC account but is more than happy to cut the bankers out of the
loop by taking checks.
Lou
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Well, I don't know what fairly high priced means, and I know not all
businesses are alike, but...
There's a local appliance store near me - not quite a mom and pop, but not a
chain either. I've bought my major appliances there for the last 20-odd
years. Their prices are the best around. I always offer to pay cash *if*
they'll split the credit card fee with me - if the bank charges the merchant
3%, give me 1.5% off and I'll give you cash, you get the other 1.5%. I know
it's not much money - we're looking at a total of $5-$10. The store has
always refused.
I had occasion to buy a boatload (for me, anyway) of flowers from a florist
once. When it came time to pay the bill, the florist said they'd take cash
or charge, but would prefer cash since that way they didn't have to pay the
bank's cut. I offerred to split the fee - I'd pay cash if he'd discount the
total by half the fee he'd pay master card. He refused. I charged it.
I keep hearing businesses do it, but in 30 plus years, I've never had a
seller give a discount for cash.
The world runs on credit. I don't mean just consumer credit. A big truck
backs up to the dock at the supermarket, tons of groceries are offloaded.
Does the store manager come out and pay the driver? Of course not -
somebody sings a delivery receipt, the driver goes on his way. Restaurants,
department stores, etc. work the same way. It goes further - think your
local electric utility pays the engineer of a coal train when the load is
dumped? Or that a steel mill worker forks over cash or check when a load of
ore is delivered?
60-70 years ago, credit cards as we know them today were'nt around, but my
parents rarely paid cash for routine purchases. They had charge accounts at
the local grocery, men's store, women's store, etc. So instead of having a
dozen charge accounts around town, people today have a credit card - some
bank gets the interest instead of the merchant, but the merchant doesn't
have to do the bookkeeping and collections.
The cost of credit has always been part of the cost of goods and services -
the only innovation in recent years (the last half century or so) has been
in who furnishes the credit.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
>
> It doesn't particularly bother me to show ID, but I can't help but be
> amused at the silliness of expecting a minimum-wage cashier to spot
> fraud as she gives your ID a cursory glance.
>
> It's all just a show to provide warm-fuzzy feelings, no real security.
>
I'm sure some clerks don't care or make much effort, but the intent of
the store is not a fuzzy feeling. I'm not minimum wage, but I've been
checking for many years, and I help the new people in my department,
some of whom are minimum wage. Sure, we won't catch all the thieves.
But we do look for red flags. A person that acts like they are in a
hurry may be trying to rush us into missing something. So, I
intentionally go a little slower and make sure I am not missing
anything. Anybody who switches cards after one fails will get their ID
checked, per store policy. And I do look at the photos. I have called
management for photos that look too different.
Lots of gift cards or commonly stolen items? I will ask for ID. If it
is a check, I will ask for ID or even call a manager without putting
it through the check reader. I don't want the check reader to approve
when I know a manager should look at it. I am also extra careful with
people who appear to be on drugs.
Maybe we are unusual, but we've always been very aware of anything
that seems like a red flag. One girl caught a fake $100 bill on her
second day. We also prevent a lot of shoplifting just by being aware
and catching the red flags that people give off in their behavior.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
> I keep hearing businesses do it, but in 30 plus years, I've never had a
> seller give a discount for cash.
Once you do it for one person, word gets out, and you have to do it
for everybody. Honestly, saving that 1.5% wouldn't be worth it to me
if I suddenly found myself pissing off all my customers. Cash
customers would want the same discount that the first guy got. And CC
customers would say I was charging a fee for credit. Either way, I
would get screwed. Better to be fair to everybody and lose the fee.
I've already accepted the cost as part of doing business. Not so much
that accepting credit cards costs me more money, but that it brings me
more sales. I know for a fact that I have gotten sales because I
accept cards, and before then, I lost sales because I couldn't accept
cards.
Would I prefer people to pay with cash or check? Yes, of course. But
I'm not going to give a discount, even if it is still cheaper than
accepting the card. My customers talk to each other. It would get
around that some people were getting deals and others weren't.
SMS
> On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, "Lou" <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I keep hearing businesses do it, but in 30 plus years, I've never had a
>> seller give a discount for cash.
>
> Once you do it for one person, word gets out, and you have to do it
> for everybody. Honestly, saving that 1.5% wouldn't be worth it to me
> if I suddenly found myself pissing off all my customers. Cash
> customers would want the same discount that the first guy got.
I was at a restaurant tonight and they offered "free beverage" for cash
payment. It was one of these Asian seafood buffet places, not my choice
as I find the quality lacking, but it was a group thing. I remember
being in NYC and a restaurant offered "no sales tax" if we paid cash,
which was like an 8% discount at the time.
Of course the reason these businesses want cash goes far beyond the
1.5%-2% in merchant fees for credit cards, they prefer cash because they
can report less income.
SMS
> I did find this whole topic surprising as I never noticed any rule
> that said I couldn't ask for ID.
You're allowed to _ask_ for ID. What you can't do (according to the
merchant agreement) is to refuse to honor the card if the card holder
refuses your request for ID. The logic of the credit card company is
that if the transaction is approved then the merchant gets their money,
and they don't want the merchant doing _anything_ to discourage credit
card use which is supposed to be easier and faster than using checks or
even cash. The merchant that tries to require ID may be doing so in
order to discourage credit card use because a) they don't want to lose
the 1.5-2% in fees, and b) they don't want a record of the transaction
because they want to declare less income.
What I've heard is the reason that some merchants ask for ID even when a
transaction is approved is because the credit card company will raise
their transaction percentage if the merchant processes an abnormally
larger number of transactions that later turn out to be made with stolen
cards.
It's getting rarer and rarer to be asked for ID as more stores move to a
system where the customer swipes the card rather than handing it to the
cashier. Also, more and more stores are not even requiring a signature
for credit card transactions under a certain amount, usually $25;
Target, Walgreen's, and Costco do this, and Home Depot tried it then
discontinued it (gas stations have been doing this for years with pay at
the pump, often for amounts far greater than $25).
George
That was my point that we shouldn't need this dance when dealing with a
retail merchant. I understand what credit is and why it is used. Thats
why I said it could and should be super simple. All retail prices should
be for cash. And then the adder for credit should be clearly given as an
option. If the coffee shop guy needs to add $2 then thats the adder etc.
>
> I had occasion to buy a boatload (for me, anyway) of flowers from a florist
> once. When it came time to pay the bill, the florist said they'd take cash
> or charge, but would prefer cash since that way they didn't have to pay the
> bank's cut. I offerred to split the fee - I'd pay cash if he'd discount the
> total by half the fee he'd pay master card. He refused. I charged it.
>
> I keep hearing businesses do it, but in 30 plus years, I've never had a
> seller give a discount for cash.
They have to worry about the zealots turning them in for one thing. We
have a large local family owned general merchandise/hardware store here
that had cash and credit buttons on all of their electronic registers.
You simply walked up to the register and said cash and got an immediate
discount. If someone liked banks a lot and wanted "rewards" they got to
pay for it. The zealots complained and the store no longer has the cash
discount.
> The world runs on credit. I don't mean just consumer credit. A big truck
> backs up to the dock at the supermarket, tons of groceries are offloaded.
> Does the store manager come out and pay the driver? Of course not -
> somebody sings a delivery receipt, the driver goes on his way. Restaurants,
> department stores, etc. work the same way. It goes further - think your
> local electric utility pays the engineer of a coal train when the load is
> dumped? Or that a steel mill worker forks over cash or check when a load of
> ore is delivered?
Likely the store manager or steel mill worker doesn't hand over a bag of
cash on delivery but you might be surprised to know that an ACH might
have happened when the load was delivered. Without getting into detail I
am familiar with multiple businesses that operate just like I described.
And it has nothing to do with credit. The wholesaler simply offers two
prices. Buy on credit pay x, pay less via ACH when you get the goods. My
one friend uses it to great advantage.
>
> 60-70 years ago, credit cards as we know them today were'nt around, but my
> parents rarely paid cash for routine purchases. They had charge accounts at
> the local grocery, men's store, women's store, etc. So instead of having a
> dozen charge accounts around town, people today have a credit card - some
> bank gets the interest instead of the merchant, but the merchant doesn't
> have to do the bookkeeping and collections.
But it also was very common for cash discounts to be offered if you asked.
Lou
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote in message
news:381c3b24-2940-41f4...@c19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 6:08 pm, "Lou" <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I keep hearing businesses do it, but in 30 plus years, I've never had a
> seller give a discount for cash.
I take it back - one place where a discount for cash is fairly common at
times, and offered to all customers in big bold signs, is at gas stations.
If cash or credit is the same price when I fill up my gas tank, I pay with
credit. If there's a discount for cash, I pay with cash.
>Once you do it for one person, word gets out, and you have to do it
>for everybody.
Again, gas stations seem to manage it quite well.
>Honestly, saving that 1.5% wouldn't be worth it to me
>if I suddenly found myself pissing off all my customers. Cash
>customers would want the same discount that the first guy got. And CC
>customers would say I was charging a fee for credit.
So you'd net a little bit more on the cash customers, compared to the CC
customers
I've always understood that it's not legal to charge extra for CC users, but
it's OK to give a discount for cash customers.
(snip)
>Would I prefer people to pay with cash or check? Yes, of course. But
>I'm not going to give a discount, even if it is still cheaper than
>accepting the card. My customers talk to each other. It would get
>around that some people were getting deals and others weren't.
If you give a discount to one cash customer but not to another cash
customer, I can see where that would make people unhappy.
Anyway, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to run their business, merely
reporting on my own experience.
h
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:pXJYl.5985$fD....@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> frie...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote:
>
>> I did find this whole topic surprising as I never noticed any rule
>> that said I couldn't ask for ID.
>
> You're allowed to _ask_ for ID. What you can't do (according to the
> merchant agreement) is to refuse to honor the card if the card holder
> refuses your request for ID.
That's true, although the wording of my agreement says, "you cannot require
ID", which to me means that I shouldn't ask. However, they also give a list
of "red flag" type transactions such as a person using a credit card pulled
from a pocket, rather than a wallet or purse.
A few years ago, while buying several hundred $ worth of groceries I pulled
the card out of my pocket and swiped it, and the clerk immediately DEMANDED
to see my Driver's License. She seemed very upset by the fact that I didn't
carry a purse with me, and expected me to go back to my car to get it. I
said, "Fine, I'll go to your competitor for my food. Have fun putting all
this back. Oh, and I'll be reporting you to VISA as soon as I get home." I
was almost out the door when the manager caught me and apologized profusely
and finished the transaction himself. The really annoying part was that I
had used my grocery store affinity card for several items, so they already
had my info. I never went back to that store, either. About a month later
WalMart's super center opened up. It's closer, cheaper, and has everything
the "supermarket" has.
Rod Speed
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>> frie...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote
>>> I did find this whole topic surprising as I never noticed any rule that said I couldn't ask for ID.
>> You're allowed to _ask_ for ID. What you can't do (according to the merchant agreement) is to refuse to honor the
>> card if the card holder refuses your request for ID.
> That's true, although the wording of my agreement says, "you cannot require ID", which to me means that I shouldn't
> ask.
More fool you. If thats what they meant, they would have
said "you cannot ask for ID" or "you cannot request ID"
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
>
> More fool you. If thats what they meant, they would have
> said "you cannot ask for ID" or "you cannot request ID"
>
But there really isn't much difference. If you ask, you expect to see
it. Why ask if you will approve the transaction without it? I've never
had somebody refuse to show me their ID (unless they said they didn't
have it with them), and in those cases we always called management.
Most of those transactions were refused.
The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the
transaction. There wouldn't be any reason to ask if you will accept it
anyway. ANd usually, refusal to show ID is a red flag for fraud. Could
be innocent, but around here, it usually means fraud.
SMS
> That was my point that we shouldn't need this dance when dealing with a
> retail merchant. I understand what credit is and why it is used. Thats
> why I said it could and should be super simple. All retail prices should
> be for cash. And then the adder for credit should be clearly given as an
> option. If the coffee shop guy needs to add $2 then thats the adder etc.
The merchant could have a base price, then different adders for checks,
cash, debit cards, and credit cards based on the cost they incur for
each type of payment.
For example a business that gets a lot of customers paying cash will
have to hire an armored truck service to pick up the cash, and factor in
the losses when the bank receives less cash than they give the armored
truck service. Some retailers, like Costco, install those air tube
systems to send cash back to the safe, and those have a cost to install
and maintain, as well as the cost of the delay they cause when the
cashier stops taking customer in order to deal with an excess of cash in
the register.
For checks, the adder would be based on the cost of bad checks that need
to be covered, presumably by all customers paying with checks.
For debit cards you have fees similar to credit cards, though for
smaller purchases the debit card ends up costing the merchant more than
a credit card.
For credit cards, the adder would be the per transaction fee plus the
1.5-2% of the total fee, though in reality what's needed is different
adders for the different types of credit cards, since rewards cards, and
Amex, have higher fees than non-rewards cards and MC/Visa and it's
rather unfair for the holder of a non-rewards Visa card to subsidize the
holder of a rewards Visa, or an Amex card.
You also have to take into account the fact that accepting credit cards
enables the merchant to have a higher volume of sales that ends up
driving down costs for all customers, but you don't want the cash
customers freeloading off the credit card customers that are responsible
for the increased volume. On the other hand, many merchants make much
more money on the cash transactions than on credit card transactions for
obvious reasons.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> I did find this whole topic surprising as I never noticed any rule that said I couldn't ask for ID.
>>>> You're allowed to ask for ID. What you can't do (according to the merchant agreement)
>>>> is to refuse to honor the card if the card holder refuses your request for ID.
>>> That's true, although the wording of my agreement says,
>>> "you cannot require ID", which to me means that I shouldn't ask.
>> More fool you. If thats what they meant, they would have
>> said "you cannot ask for ID" or "you cannot request ID"
> But there really isn't much difference.
Wrong with a legal document.
> If you ask, you expect to see it. Why ask if you will approve the transaction without it?
Because plenty with a clue are happy to produce the ID.
> I've never had somebody refuse to show me their ID (unless they
> said they didn't have it with them), and in those cases we always
> called management. Most of those transactions were refused.
Sure, but thats an entirely separate matter to what the purported 'merchant agreement' allows.
> The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the transaction.
The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves from using your operation
and that producing an increase in the merchant fee when enough card thieves do that.
> There wouldn't be any reason to ask if you will accept it anyway.
What the purported 'merchant agreement' allows and what makes sense are entirely separate matters.
> And usually, refusal to show ID is a red flag for fraud.
> Could be innocent, but around here, it usually means fraud.
There will always be some fools that just hate to provide ID even when they can do that.
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
> fries...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote
>
>
> > The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the transaction.
>
> The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves from using your operation
> and that producing an increase in the merchant fee when enough card thieves do that.
Okay, but honestly, what clerk or store owner is going to approve the
purchase with a crdiet card after asking for the card and being told
no by the customer?
If you ask for ID, you plan to deny the sale if the ID is not
produced. So, asking for ID implies that the store will refuse the
card without ID, which then breaks the rules.
I think the rule is stupid. But at the same time, I think anybody who
asks for ID is already disregarding the rule by asking, since the act
of asking implies the consequence of refusing.
I don't see how the credit card companies can even begin to enforce
this rule since so many places ask for ID (and will refuse to accept
the card if the customer refuses to produce ID).
George
Seems you have heard and believe all of the spin from the banks.
Interestingly enough if you see actual numbers it does cost more for a
merchant to handle plastic.
SMS
> On Jun 14, 2:36 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> fries...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote
>>
>>
>>> The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the transaction.
>> The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves from using your operation
>> and that producing an increase in the merchant fee when enough card thieves do that.
>
>
> Okay, but honestly, what clerk or store owner is going to approve the
> purchase with a crdiet card after asking for the card and being told
> no by the customer?
Yesterday I was at a store and they asked for an ID after the purchase
had been approved electronically. I couldn't find my license in my
wallet and told the clerk 'sorry, I don't have my ID with me.' What was
she going to do at that point? Of course she just forgot about the whole
I.D. rigmarole.
Sometimes if I walk or ride a bike to the store I just take a credit
card, no wallet. If they _required_ and ID, rather than just
_requesting_ an ID, then they'd lose the sale and I'd be pissed enough
to not go back to that store. There is no requirement in the U.S. that
you carry ID with you at all times.
It's like those exit checks that some stores do (like Fry's). You don't
have to stop to let them check your receipt and bags, and I don't, while
the sheeple line up a second time to produce their receipts.
SMS
> Seems you have heard and believe all of the spin from the banks.
> Interestingly enough if you see actual numbers it does cost more for a
> merchant to handle plastic.
I'm sure it does, but it doesn't cost the entire 1.5%-2%, plus the per
transaction fee more than cash. Accepting cash does have a cost. I.e. my
brother-in-law has a gas station that accepts only cash for fuel, though
they take credit cards for repairs. He takes in about $30,000 a day in
cash, mostly through the automatic cash payment machine. He has no
access to that cash, it all gets picked up by the armored car at a cost
of about 0.5%, built into the price. Debit cards are charged a 50 cent
flat fee, so a fuel purchase of $25 the customer's paying a 2% adder. At
gas stations with different prices for credit cards, the adder is also
about 2% (5-6 cents per gallon).
The other big expense with cash is the time it takes to process a cash
transaction. If a store processes a large volume of small transactions,
such at a drug store, the time spent waiting for the customer to produce
the cash (I'm sure you've been behind someone searching for coins) and
for the cashier to make change, can easily double the transaction time,
versus a credit card or debit card, requiring additional cashiers.
The problem ist that you've never learned to look at the big picture
using critical thinking skills. You see the merchant paying 1.5% to 2%
in credit card fees and you think that the merchant has no direct or
indirect costs for handling cash.
What I'd like to see is regulations similar to what's happened in
Australia where credit card fees have a limit. In Australia it's 0.95%.
Of course this put an end to most rewards credit cards pretty quickly.
h
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:dX0Zl.31929
> >
> The merchant could have a base price, then different adders for checks,
> cash, debit cards, and credit cards based on the cost they incur for each
> type of payment.
>
You've got George disease, I see. "ADDER" is how you might choose to
determine and account for the extra amount you plan to charge for various
payment options, but the word you're actually looking for in the sentence
above is "FEE". You want to charge people a FEE to use certain types of
payments. Again, that is completely against the rules of most merchant
credit card acceptance agreements, as is offering a discount for using cash.
Sure, there are lots of businesses out there that do it, but it's expressly
forbidden, at least according to the agreement that I signed. So is
requiring ID, so I wouldn't even bother to ask for it.
Dennis
wrote:
>Lou wrote:
>> 60-70 years ago, credit cards as we know them today were'nt around, but my
>> parents rarely paid cash for routine purchases. They had charge accounts at
>> the local grocery, men's store, women's store, etc. So instead of having a
>> dozen charge accounts around town, people today have a credit card - some
>> bank gets the interest instead of the merchant, but the merchant doesn't
>> have to do the bookkeeping and collections.
>
>
>But it also was very common for cash discounts to be offered if you asked.
When I was building my house a few years back, I bought most of the
materials at a local lumber yard (Parr Lumber). They offered charge
accounts that were billed monthly. If you paid your bill in full at
the end of the month, you got a 3% discount. So, if you paid by
cash/check/credit card at the time of purchase, you paid full price.
If you charged it to your account, they billed you, and you paid the
bill in full, you got a discount. I never really figured out the
logic of that system, but 3% of the tens of thousands of dollars that
I spent there was a fair chunk of change.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
Dennis
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>Maybe we are unusual, but we've always been very aware of anything
>that seems like a red flag.
IME, you are unusual. Did you read the link that I previously
included? While I haven't gone to the extremes detailed there, that
general behavior by cashiers pretty much matched what I have seen.
Whenever I use one of the electronic signature screens, I
intentionally make an unreadable scribble that doesn't come close to
matching what is on the back of my credit card. I have never been
denied or even questioned, including purchases of many hundreds of
dollars.
With, apparently, a few odd exceptions it's all just a (silly) show.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
Lou
This whole thing is ridiculous, in my opinion. The cost of accepting
payment (and there's always a cost, regardless of the method of payment) is
as much a part of the cost of doing business as is turning on the lights or
heat. If I go into a store with my own flashlight or infrared goggles, I
should be charged less than customers who don't, because I'm not using the
merchant's lights. Likewise if I bundle up warmly on a winter day, because
I don't need the store to be heated.
Get real.
aemeijers
> frie...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2:36 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> fries...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the
>>>> transaction.
>>> The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves from
>>> using your operation
>>> and that producing an increase in the merchant fee when enough card
>>> thieves do that.
>>
>>
>> Okay, but honestly, what clerk or store owner is going to approve the
>> purchase with a crdiet card after asking for the card and being told
>> no by the customer?
>
> Yesterday I was at a store and they asked for an ID after the purchase
> had been approved electronically. I couldn't find my license in my
> wallet and told the clerk 'sorry, I don't have my ID with me.' What was
> she going to do at that point? Of course she just forgot about the whole
> I.D. rigmarole.
>
> Sometimes if I walk or ride a bike to the store I just take a credit
> card, no wallet. If they _required_ and ID, rather than just
> _requesting_ an ID, then they'd lose the sale and I'd be pissed enough
> to not go back to that store. There is no requirement in the U.S. that
> you carry ID with you at all times.
No, not technically, but for practical purposes there is. Try convincing
a cop that you aren't up to no good without an ID, if they happen to
have 'contact' with you while you are out wandering around on your bike
or whatever. Odds are you will be sitting in the back of their car or at
the station awhile, while they check you out. Legally you are right, but
you still ain't gonna win.
>
> It's like those exit checks that some stores do (like Fry's). You don't
> have to stop to let them check your receipt and bags, and I don't, while
> the sheeple line up a second time to produce their receipts.
For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE don't start that one up again.
--
aem sends...
Rod Speed
> SMS wrote>>>> frie...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote
>>>>> The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the transaction.
>>>> The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves from using your operation and that producing an
>>>> increase in the merchant fee when enough card thieves do that.
>>> Okay, but honestly, what clerk or store owner is going to approve the purchase with a crdiet card after asking for
>>> the card and being told no by the customer?
>> Yesterday I was at a store and they asked for an ID after the
>> purchase had been approved electronically. I couldn't find my
>> license in my wallet and told the clerk 'sorry, I don't have my ID with me.' What was she going to do at that point?
>> Of course she just forgot about the whole I.D. rigmarole.
>> Sometimes if I walk or ride a bike to the store I just take a credit card, no wallet. If they _required_ and ID,
>> rather than just _requesting_ an ID, then they'd lose the sale and I'd be pissed enough to not go back to that store.
>> There is no requirement in the U.S. that you carry ID with you at all times.
> No, not technically, but for practical purposes there is.
Nope.
> Try convincing a cop that you aren't up to no good without an ID, if they happen to have 'contact' with you while you
> are out wandering around on your bike or whatever.
That situation is trivially avoidable by not having run ins with the cops.
> Odds are you will be sitting in the back of their car or at the station awhile, while they check you out.
Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it when that is a very rare event.
> Legally you are right, but you still ain't gonna win.
Corse you will. Even the stupid US system doesnt jail people for not carrying ID.
>> It's like those exit checks that some stores do (like Fry's). You don't have to stop to let them check your receipt
>> and bags, and I don't, while the sheeple line up a second time to produce their receipts.
> For the love of all that is holy, PLEASE don't start that one up again.
Nothing is holy.
Rod Speed
No reason why the merchant cant charge what it
costs the merchant for the higher cost transactions.
Or even the extra cost to the merchant for those.
Hordes of our operations have a surcharge for credit card transactions online
and that is perfectly legal and very common, particularly with the operations
that are attempting to sell at the lowest prices like with PC components etc.
> If I go into a store with my own flashlight or infrared goggles,
> I should be charged less than customers who don't, because
> I'm not using the merchant's lights.
Pity about the security the merchant needs to ensure you arent
helping yourself to the stock and stuffing it in your pants etc.
> Likewise if I bundle up warmly on a winter day,
> because I don't need the store to be heated.
> Get real.
You're the one that needs to get real.
Why should those who are happy to use low cost transaction methods
be subsidising those who want 'rewards' on their cards etc ?
JK Jones
That is just plain wrong. There are plenty of merchants that get slugged
3% or more for credit card transactions and some of them pass those on
to the buyer, most obviously with operations which price what they sell
very aggressively and so have lower than average margins.
http://www.netplus.com.au/terms-conditions.asp
You're confusing the charge that can be added BY THE CARD ISSUER
to what the user of the card gets charged with the merchant fee.
> Of course this put an end to most rewards credit cards pretty quickly.
Like hell it did. There are still hordes of reward cards.
Rod Speed
>>> The whole point of asking is to look at it before accepting the transaction.
>> The real point of asking for ID is to discourage card thieves
>> from using your operation and that producing an increase in
>> the merchant fee when enough card thieves do that.
> Okay, but honestly, what clerk or store owner is going to approve the purchase
> with a crdiet card after asking for the card and being told no by the customer?
Any clerk with a clue who realises that there are some customers
who are paranoid about showing their ID because they stupidly
believe that that increases the risk of identity theft, and some that just
object to having to provide ID even tho they are capable of doing that.
Particularly when its obvious just by looking at the
customer that its very unlikely that its a card thief etc.
> If you ask for ID, you plan to deny the sale if the ID is not produced.
Thats just plain wrong too. Plenty do it like I said, just to deter card thieves
from using their store, so they dont get slugged a higher mechant fee etc.
> So, asking for ID implies that the store will refuse
> the card without ID, which then breaks the rules.
Any merchant with a clue realises that the 'rules' are pure bluff and can be ignored with impunity.
They do what it takes to discourage card thieves from using their
store, so they dont end up with a higher than normal merchant fee etc.
> I think the rule is stupid.
Corse it is and its obviously there to encourage card use instead of using cash.
> But at the same time, I think anybody who asks for ID is already disregarding
> the rule by asking, since the act of asking implies the consequence of refusing.
No it doesnt. The rule allows you to ask for ID and you are
supposed to do the transaction anyway if the card holder
chooses to refuse to provide ID or doesnt have ID available etc.
> I don't see how the credit card companies can even begin to enforce this rule
Corse they cant. Its pure bluff.
Thats true in spades of surcharges for card use and minimum transaction values too.
> since so many places ask for ID (and will refuse to
> accept the card if the customer refuses to produce ID).
Yes, but the bluff does work with the legally pig ignorant and there will always be plenty of those.
John Mayson
> You are absolutely correct.
> This happened to me last year. I contacted Mastercharge and obtained a
> "Merchant's Agreement" copy and then filed a certified letter with the
> store's corporate office with a copy to the store manager. I included the
> pertinent parts of the agreement with my letters.
> I received a written apology from the store and an apology from corporate
> with a $100 gift certificate.
> It pays to not be Sheeple.
I sent an email to the roofing company with a link to Visa's website where
they state they do not allow merchants to charge a fee to use a credit
card. I told them I didn't intend to formally complain to my credit card
issuer, but that I could not recommend them to friends nor would I ever
use them again.
I'll let the group know the result.
John
--
John Mayson <jo...@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Rod Speed
> Something to keep in mind. Handling cash is expensive. Someone has to count it. Someone has to take the cash to the
> bank. That's an employee's time. There's a constant risk of theft or loss. A
> merchant might have to pay a little to accept credit cards, but
> they're going to make up for it in the long run.
You dont know that last. You dont know that the overheads with
accepting cash are as high as the merchant charge with the cards.
And the other bonus with cash is that you can claim to have accepted less
cash than you actually have accepted and so avoid paying some tax too.
> Fast food restaurants started accepting credit cards about 20 years ago because they figured out customers spent more
> money when using a credit card
> over cash, so the loss they suffered on fees they made up for with more sales.
Its more that they will lose some business if they dont accept cards.
The Real Bev
> "frie...@zoocrewphoto.com" <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>
>><rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> More fool you. If thats what they meant, they would have
>>> said "you cannot ask for ID" or "you cannot request ID"
>>
>>But there really isn't much difference. If you ask, you expect to see
>>it. Why ask if you will approve the transaction without it?
>
> Why ask for a raise if you will continue working without one?
That's normally called begging, and it's done for the same reason. OTOH, if
you get a raise because you threatened to quit in a crisis (and were perfectly
willing to do so) they'll can you as soon as the crisis is over.
> Why offer the car dealer $32,000 if you're willing to pay $33,000 for
> the car?
So you can spend the $1K on something else. Duh.
--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"We're so far beyond fucked we couldn't even catch a bus
back to fucked." --Scott en Aztlan
John Mayson
> John Mayson wrote:
>
>> Something to keep in mind. Handling cash is expensive. Someone has to count it. Someone has to take the cash to the
>> bank. That's an employee's time. There's a constant risk of theft or loss. A
>> merchant might have to pay a little to accept credit cards, but
>> they're going to make up for it in the long run.
>
> You dont know that last. You dont know that the overheads with
> accepting cash are as high as the merchant charge with the cards.
Well, neither do YOU! Merchants aren't going to accept credit cards if
they're going to lose too much money.
> And the other bonus with cash is that you can claim to have accepted less
> cash than you actually have accepted and so avoid paying some tax too.
This might come as a surprise, but not everyone is a cheating liar.
>> Fast food restaurants started accepting credit cards about 20 years ago because they figured out customers spent more
>> money when using a credit card
>> over cash, so the loss they suffered on fees they made up for with more sales.
>
> Its more that they will lose some business if they dont accept cards.
Well, that wasn't the reason they were reporting back when they started
accepting them. But whatever.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> John Mayson wrote
>>> Something to keep in mind. Handling cash is expensive. Someone
>>> has to count it. Someone has to take the cash to the bank. That's
>>> an employee's time. There's a constant risk of theft or loss. A merchant might have to pay a little to accept
>>> credit cards, but
>>> they're going to make up for it in the long run.
>> You dont know that last. You dont know that the overheads with
>> accepting cash are as high as the merchant charge with the cards.
> Well, neither do YOU!
Fraid I do, having done that stuff myself.
> Merchants aren't going to accept credit cards if they're going to lose too much money.
It wasnt 'too much' being discussed. What was being discussed
was whether the merchant should be able to charge the customer
more with transaction methods that cost the merchant more.
>> And the other bonus with cash is that you can claim to have accepted less cash than you actually have accepted and so
>> avoid paying some tax too.
> This might come as a surprise, but not everyone is a cheating liar.
Hordes of small business do lie about their turnover for obvious reasons.
>>> Fast food restaurants started accepting credit cards about 20 years ago because they figured out customers spent
>>> more money when using a credit card over cash, so the loss they suffered on fees they made up for with more sales.
>> Its more that they will lose some business if they dont accept cards.
> Well, that wasn't the reason they were reporting back when they started accepting them.
You dont know that either.
> But whatever.
Coffee's For Closers
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> You're allowed to _ask_ for ID. What you can't do (according to the
> merchant agreement) is to refuse to honor the card if the card holder
> refuses your request for ID. The logic of the credit card company is
> that if the transaction is approved then the merchant gets their money,
> and they don't want the merchant doing _anything_ to discourage credit
> card use which is supposed to be easier and faster than using checks or
> even cash. The merchant that tries to require ID may be doing so in
> order to discourage credit card use because a) they don't want to lose
> the 1.5-2% in fees, and b) they don't want a record of the transaction
> because they want to declare less income.
>
> What I've heard is the reason that some merchants ask for ID even when a
> transaction is approved is because the credit card company will raise
> their transaction percentage if the merchant processes an abnormally
> larger number of transactions that later turn out to be made with stolen
> cards.
The processor will charge a fee every time a transaction is
reversed. Such as when the card later turns out to have been
stolen.
Being generally in a high risk situation will result in higher
percentage fees charged to the merchant, even for legitimate
transactions. "Card Not Present" situations like mail order,
phone order, and Internet order (especially with non-tangible
items like downloaded software, music, etc) pay the highest
rates.
There are probably other factors, like if a physical store is in
a high-fraud geographic area, plus the business's (and
proprietor's) overall history.
To many charge-backs will cause the merchant's credit card
acceptance account to be completely terminated.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
krw
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
>> "frie...@zoocrewphoto.com" <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>>><rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More fool you. If thats what they meant, they would have
>>>> said "you cannot ask for ID" or "you cannot request ID"
>>>
>>>But there really isn't much difference. If you ask, you expect to see
>>>it. Why ask if you will approve the transaction without it?
>>
>> Why ask for a raise if you will continue working without one?
>
>That's normally called begging, and it's done for the same reason. OTOH, if
>you get a raise because you threatened to quit in a crisis (and were perfectly
>willing to do so) they'll can you as soon as the crisis is over.
Asking for a raise is hardly "begging". It's more like a reminder of
your worth to the organization. A threat is never a good idea. One
should be canned for extortion. If the boss doesn't pay what you're
worth without "begging", find another boss. No threats.
>> Why offer the car dealer $32,000 if you're willing to pay $33,000 for
>> the car?
>
>So you can spend the $1K on something else. Duh.
Because you can. He can only laugh, and keep his car.