Why does Home Depot refund Cash for Debit Card purchases?
DerbyDad03
If you purchase something at home Depot on a debit card and then
return it, they will only give you a cash refund.
Even when you don't have the receipt, their system is able to find
your purchase if you give them the debit card, so they are obviously
linked up in the bowels of their computers.
Every other store I know puts the refund back on the debit card, most
times without even having to show them the card.
I'm now walking around with close to $200 in cash because of some
returns I processed yesterday.
I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
to report to the IRS?
Red Green
8aa722...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
My guess:
Debit card is used then they have the "cash". No risk to refund you cash.
By doing this they avoid their transaction fee for the refund.
Personally I'd prefer the refund in duct tape. Value is more stable than
cash.
Shaun Eli
Unless you stole the debit card and took the cash as profit, then
technically it'd be reportable income.
George
> Just venting...
>
> If you purchase something at home Depot on a debit card and then
> return it, they will only give you a cash refund.
>
Likely because there are bank fees involved if they do a transaction
back to the debit card. Since I didn't believe "too big to fail" and
don't care much for banks I say good for them.
> Even when you don't have the receipt, their system is able to find
> your purchase if you give them the debit card, so they are obviously
> linked up in the bowels of their computers.
>
> Every other store I know puts the refund back on the debit card, most
> times without even having to show them the card.
>
> I'm now walking around with close to $200 in cash because of some
> returns I processed yesterday.
>
> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
> to report to the IRS?
If you received over $10k and have a business you need to report it on
form 8300:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
Of course there would be no liability on your part since you would have
the backup to show it was a refund.
willshak
on two separate retirement incomes), I visit my bank to grab $100 from
the ATM machine. The $200 refund would save me two trips, or I can go to
the bank and deposit the $200 back into the checking account.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
mkir...@rochester.rr.com
> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
> to report to the IRS?
Are you mentally deficient?
Why would you have to report YOUR OWN money, that you ALREADY PAID
TAXES on, to the IRS?
mkir...@rochester.rr.com
> Every once in a while (maybe twice a month since I have direct deposit
> on two separate retirement incomes), I visit my bank to grab $100 from
> the ATM machine. The $200 refund would save me two trips, or I can go to
> the bank and deposit the $200 back into the checking account.
I think he's mostly paranoid over the fact that he has a significant
amount of cash in his pocket.
Of course the only way the bad guy would know you had that much cash
on you is if you walked along fanning yourself with a stack of $20
bills... If you don't advertise it, nobody knows you have it, and the
likelihood of getting held up is no more than any other person on any
given day.
Jim Yanik
news:BuWdncJIoMLlWLjT...@supernews.com:
perhaps HD doesn't want to pay a SECOND fee to credit your debit card?
Use of the card incurs a user fee to HD,then when "refunding",it might
incur a second fee to HD.
Every electronic monetary transaction incurs a fee to someone.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Robert Green
news:6477693c-ccff-4318...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
<< Are you mentally deficient?
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
Filing Requirements:
1.. Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or
business must file a Form 8300. The $10,000 may occur in a single
transaction, or a series of related transactions.
2.. What payments must be reported?
A business must file Form 8300 to report cash paid to it if the cash
payment is:
a.. Over $10,000,
b.. Received as:
1.. One lump sum of over $10,000,
2.. Two or more related payments that total in excess of $10,000, or
3.. Payments received as part of a single transaction (or two or more
related transactions) that cause the total cash received within a 12-month
period to total more than $10,000.
c.. Received in the course of trade or business,
d.. Received from the same buyer (or agent), and
e.. Received in a single transaction or in two or more related
transactions
--
Bobby G.
George
If he has a business he does because $10k cash is the government
mandated reporting threshold :
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
Of course in his case it wouldn't matter because there would be a trail.
willshak
> <mkir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:6477693c-ccff-4318...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 19, 12:23 pm, DerbyDad03 <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
>> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
>> to report to the IRS?
>>
>
> << Are you mentally deficient?
>
> Why would you have to report YOUR OWN money, that you ALREADY PAID
> TAXES on, to the IRS?>>
>
> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
>
> Filing Requirements:
> 1.. Who must file Form 8300?
> Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or
> business must file a Form 8300. The $10,000 may occur in a single
> transaction, or a series of related transactions.
>
He is not receiving $10,000 as payment in a business transaction, he is
being given a refund of $10,000 in a business transaction..
Are you implying that he would have to pay taxes on the $10,000 twice?
> 2.. What payments must be reported?
> A business must file Form 8300 to report cash paid to it if the cash
> payment is:
> a.. Over $10,000,
> b.. Received as:
> 1.. One lump sum of over $10,000,
> 2.. Two or more related payments that total in excess of $10,000, or
> 3.. Payments received as part of a single transaction (or two or more
> related transactions) that cause the total cash received within a 12-month
> period to total more than $10,000.
> c.. Received in the course of trade or business,
> d.. Received from the same buyer (or agent), and
> e.. Received in a single transaction or in two or more related
> transactions
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
>
>
George
> Robert Green wrote the following:
>> <mkir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:6477693c-ccff-4318...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 19, 12:23 pm, DerbyDad03 <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
>>> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
>>> to report to the IRS?
>>
>> << Are you mentally deficient?
>>
>> Why would you have to report YOUR OWN money, that you ALREADY PAID
>> TAXES on, to the IRS?>>
>>
>> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
>>
>> Filing Requirements:
>> 1.. Who must file Form 8300?
>> Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or
>> business must file a Form 8300. The $10,000 may occur in a single
>> transaction, or a series of related transactions.
>
>
> He is not receiving $10,000 as payment in a business transaction, he is
> being given a refund of $10,000 in a business transaction..
> Are you implying that he would have to pay taxes on the $10,000 twice?
Not Robert, The reporting requirement has nothing to do with his tax
liability.
tra...@optonline.net
Exactly. It has nothing to do with taxes being owed on the amount in
question just because you received it. It's about the Feds trying to
catch
people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Think drug money
and money laundering. Hence they require it to be reported so there
is a trail.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Not anything to do with taxes, rather the fees the bank (and network) charges
to ding, or un-ding, a card. They paid once and they don't want to lose twice
on the same transaction.
EXT
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:36bc279tenjq7srcm...@4ax.com...
ALSO, banks charge a fee to deposit cash, and the armored car charges to
pick it up, so they want to get rid of the cash back to the customer. In
this area Costco does the same thing.
DerbyDad03
I believe that I should be asking the "mentally deficient" question of you.
Look up IRS Form 8300.
It has nothing to do with taxes or income.
DerbyDad03
Lots of the responses have mentioned the "fee" for the refund transaction.
If that is indeed the case, then why is HD one of the very, very few
(and the only one that I know of) that makes it's their standard
practice to avoid the fee?
Obviously, all of the other thousands of businesses know about the fee,
so why aren't they refunding cash?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Yep! The same reason they allow you to get cash back from the transaction.
Grocery stores used to allow one to write checks for an amount above the
purchase, too. Some had quite a high limit ($50 or even $100). People bitch
about credit card fees (or the lack of a discount for cash) but handling cash
isn't free either.
Robert Green
news:e4edncfi-q-7krvT...@supernews.com...
> Robert Green wrote the following:
> > <mkir...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> >
news:6477693c-ccff-4318...@y16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 19, 12:23 pm, DerbyDad03 <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
> >> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
> >> to report to the IRS?
> >>
> >
> > << Are you mentally deficient?
> >
> > Why would you have to report YOUR OWN money, that you ALREADY PAID
> > TAXES on, to the IRS?>>
> >
> > http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html
> >
> > Filing Requirements:
> > 1.. Who must file Form 8300?
> > Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade
or
> > business must file a Form 8300. The $10,000 may occur in a single
> > transaction, or a series of related transactions.
> >
>
>
> He is not receiving $10,000 as payment in a business transaction, he is
> being given a refund of $10,000 in a business transaction..
> Are you implying that he would have to pay taxes on the $10,000 twice?
No, I am not. The IRS is looking for drug dealers, etc. and thus requires
the *reporting* of any transactions that is over $10,000. Reporting is NOT
the same as "being taxed." The IRS says:
a.. What is the definition of a transaction?
A transaction is the underlying event resulting in the transfer of cash.
It sounds to me as if both the purchase and the refund needed to be
recorded. I don't see Home Depot ever giving anyone a $10,000+ refund.
However, to answer your question, double taxation occurs all the time. The
money that I paid taxes on is taxed again whenever I pay it to a doctor or
groundskeeper and it becomes part of their income stream. I don't think
that's fair, but I didn't write the tax code. If the groundskeeper pays his
assistant, that money is taxed once again.
The Feds go so far as to demand a form be filled out even when cash is
exchanged for other cash (in excess of $10,000).
--
Bobby G.
Red Green
news:j05e3n$a3j$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
I have no clue. You put a ho le in my guess.
Larry W
Not sure if the IRS is the right agency or if HD is subject to the pertinent
law or regulation but financial institutions are required to report
all transactions over $10,000 to the federal government (again, not sure
If it's the IRS or some other agency)
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
DerbyDad03
The reporting of a $10K transaction has nothing to do with taxes or income.
Research IRS Form 8300
DerbyDad03
What gave you the impression that I'm "paranoid" about carrying $200?
That has nothing to do with it.
George
>>
>> Personally I'd prefer the refund in duct tape. Value is more stable than
>> cash.
>
> Lots of the responses have mentioned the "fee" for the refund transaction.
>
> If that is indeed the case, then why is HD one of the very, very few
> (and the only one that I know of) that makes it's their standard
> practice to avoid the fee?
>
> Obviously, all of the other thousands of businesses know about the fee,
> so why aren't they refunding cash?
Maybe they dislike banks inserting themselves into every possible
transaction as much as I do?
Stormin Mormon
store and asking?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"DerbyDad03" <teama...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:7d7db668-8127-4915...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Jim Yanik
>
>
maybe the others are not that cost-conscious? or just willing to eat it.
Maybe it doesn't occur often enough for those other businesses to worry
about it.
George
Likely you will see more of it and similar things to remove banks from
every transaction. For some reason folks assume credit and debit cards
don't cost anything and even if they do it must sure cost a lot to
handle cash anyway.
I know an enterprise that has 400+ locations. In modern competitive
times you look at everything and today have much better tools to do it.
They have determined that handling credit cards is significantly more
expensive than handling cash.
mkir...@rochester.rr.com
wrote:
> Exactly. Â It has nothing to do with taxes being owed on the amount in
> question just because you received it. Â It's about the Feds trying to
> catch
> Â people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Â Think drug money
> Â and money laundering. Â Hence they require it to be reported so there
> is a trail.
Bull$hit. It's about collecting taxes.
No drug dealer or money launderer with any self-respect at all is
going to report all transactions over $10,000 to the IRS, and if he
doesn't the IRS is NEVER going to know about it.
These guys are dealing with cash that trickles in in individual $20's,
$50's, or $100's from people on the street. It's not like they go to
the ATM and pull a briefcase full of cash out of their checking
accounts. It's not like they take briefcases full of cash down to the
local Chase Manhattan and deposit it. This is totally off the radar,
no way for the IRS to pick up on any of it. The money is in closets,
mattresses, warehouses, guarded by armed thugs 24/7. Much of it has
been "out of circulation" for decades.
mkir...@rochester.rr.com
> What gave you the impression that I'm "paranoid" about carrying $200?
>
> That has nothing to do with it.
What else could it be? The principle of the thing???
Surely you take cash out of your bank account on a regular basis.
Hell, I go through $100 in cash each week just for incidentals. What
you perceive as a major inconvenience is at worst a minor
inconvenience and at best a major time-saver because now you don't
have to stop at the bank to take out cash for a couple of weeks.
Larry Fishel
> On Jul 19, 7:53Â pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > catch
> > Â people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Â Think drug money
> > Â and money laundering. Â Hence they require it to be reported so there
> > is a trail.
>
> Bull$hit. It's about collecting taxes.
That sounds suspiciously like what he said...
> No drug dealer or money launderer with any self-respect at all is
> going to report all transactions over $10,000 to the IRS, and if he
> doesn't the IRS is NEVER going to know about it.
No, but that means they can't easily deal with legitimate financial
institutions since they are the ones who have to file the report. It
doesn't stop them, but makes life more difficult, which is about the
best the feds can hope for.
> It's not like they take briefcases full of cash down to the
> local Chase Manhattan and deposit it.
Yes, but that is largely because of this requirement. They used to do
it all the time when the banks were not specifically required to
report it.
If nothing else, it's one more violation to throw at them when (if)
they do get caught...
The Henchman
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
news:7d7db668-8127-4915...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Just venting...
If you purchase something at home Depot on a debit card and then
return it, they will only give you a cash refund.
Even when you don't have the receipt, their system is able to find
your purchase if you give them the debit card, so they are obviously
linked up in the bowels of their computers.
Every other store I know puts the refund back on the debit card, most
times without even having to show them the card.
I'm now walking around with close to $200 in cash because of some
returns I processed yesterday.
I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
to report to the IRS?
-------------------
Walmarts in My part of Canada refund in cash only if you used debit cards.
Home Depots here refund debit purchases to your debit card.
tra...@optonline.net
> On Jul 20, 10:45Â am, mkirs...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 7:53Â pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > ... It's about the Feds trying to
> > > catch
> > > Â people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Â Think drug money
> > > Â and money laundering. Â Hence they require it to be reported so there
> > > is a trail.
>
> > Bull$hit. It's about collecting taxes.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like what he said...
>
> > No drug dealer or money launderer with any self-respect at all is
> > going to report all transactions over $10,000 to the IRS, and if he
> > doesn't the IRS is NEVER going to know about it.
>
> No, but that means they can't easily deal with legitimate financial
> institutions since they are the ones who have to file the report. It
> doesn't stop them, but makes life more difficult, which is about the
> best the feds can hope for.
Yes, exactly. Without the reporting rules, a drug dealer could
walk in to any bank with $100K in cash every week and it would
be handled as a routine transaction. It's about making it harder
to avoid laws, both regarding income and other illegal activities.
>
> > It's not like they take briefcases full of cash down to the
> > local Chase Manhattan and deposit it.
>
> Yes, but that is largely because of this requirement. They used to do
> it all the time when the banks were not specifically required to
> report it.
>
> If nothing else, it's one more violation to throw at them when (if)
> they do get caught...
Exactly. And money laundering carries some very heavy
penalties. Even if you can't prove drug dealing or another
crime, you could put them away for a very long time just
on the money laundering, conspiracy to commit money
laundering, etc. You can even prosecute someone
under the RICO statutes if they were a big time money
launderer.
tra...@optonline.net
> On 7/20/2011 9:14 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> news:7d7db668-8127-4915-b7b7-
> >>> 8aa7226a9...@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another interesting aspect to all this. I was talking to a guy that
runs a local glass business. He said that when someone uses
a credit card he doesn't even know what the fee is that he will
be charged. The amount depends not only on the card, VISA
for example, but also how VISA rates that particular customer's
card. For example, if it's a VISA card that accrues airline miles
with each purchase the glass guy gets hit with a higher fee
than another guy with a different VISA. Even worse, he said
there is no way for him to know exactly what the fee he's going
to pay will be on any given customer's card.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apparently true. My brother was a veterinarian. He hated cash-back cards (so
I showed him mine ;-). He hated bounced checks more, though.
George
> On Jul 19, 7:53 pm, "trad...@optonline.net"<trad...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>> Exactly. It has nothing to do with taxes being owed on the amount in
>> question just because you received it. It's about the Feds trying to
>> catch
>> people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Think drug money
>> and money laundering. Hence they require it to be reported so there
>> is a trail.
>
> Bull$hit. It's about collecting taxes.
I thought he said that (the collecting taxes part)?
>
> No drug dealer or money launderer with any self-respect at all is
> going to report all transactions over $10,000 to the IRS, and if he
> doesn't the IRS is NEVER going to know about it.
Give it some more thought than that. Lets say you operate a business and
you decide to cater to folks who pay with large sums of cash (they might
be say a drug dealer). How exactly would you launder the money (lets say
you did only say $100k to launder)?
>
> These guys are dealing with cash that trickles in in individual $20's,
> $50's, or $100's from people on the street. It's not like they go to
> the ATM and pull a briefcase full of cash out of their checking
> accounts. It's not like they take briefcases full of cash down to the
> local Chase Manhattan and deposit it. This is totally off the radar,
> no way for the IRS to pick up on any of it. The money is in closets,
> mattresses, warehouses, guarded by armed thugs 24/7. Much of it has
> been "out of circulation" for decades.
Actually they used to take suitcases of money to the bank just as you
described. But since the banks are required to report it that laundering
method is gone.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I regularly have $500-$1000 in my wallet. I'm a bit low now ($300) because we
went to the big city over the weekend. As noted here, as long as you don't
flash it around, no one knows you have it so it's not a big deal.
Home Guy
> If you purchase something at home Depot on a debit card and then
> return it, they will only give you a cash refund.
Any purchase made by cash will be refunded in cash;
any purchase made by debit card will be refunded to
the original debit card.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/20/2011 10:45 AM, mkir...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 7:53 pm, "trad...@optonline.net"<trad...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Exactly. It has nothing to do with taxes being owed on the amount in
>>> question just because you received it. It's about the Feds trying to
>>> catch
>>> people avoiding taxes by doing crash transactions. Think drug money
>>> and money laundering. Hence they require it to be reported so there
>>> is a trail.
>>
>> Bull$hit. It's about collecting taxes.
>
>I thought he said that (the collecting taxes part)?
>
>>
>> No drug dealer or money launderer with any self-respect at all is
>> going to report all transactions over $10,000 to the IRS, and if he
>> doesn't the IRS is NEVER going to know about it.
>
>Give it some more thought than that. Lets say you operate a business and
>you decide to cater to folks who pay with large sums of cash (they might
>be say a drug dealer). How exactly would you launder the money (lets say
>you did only say $100k to launder)?
A laundromat or three (not kidding). Any cash business. An acquaintance had
a sandwich truck. His home safe was crammed full of Franklins. The burgers
and dogs business was all above board. He bought the soda and cold cuts
across the counter at a grocery store. All that income went South.
>> These guys are dealing with cash that trickles in in individual $20's,
>> $50's, or $100's from people on the street. It's not like they go to
>> the ATM and pull a briefcase full of cash out of their checking
>> accounts. It's not like they take briefcases full of cash down to the
>> local Chase Manhattan and deposit it. This is totally off the radar,
>> no way for the IRS to pick up on any of it. The money is in closets,
>> mattresses, warehouses, guarded by armed thugs 24/7. Much of it has
>> been "out of circulation" for decades.
>
>Actually they used to take suitcases of money to the bank just as you
>described. But since the banks are required to report it that laundering
>method is gone.
Vegas.
Ed Pawlowski
"Home Guy" <Ho...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4E276E6...@Guy.com...
That's what is says, but I've been given cash in return, not on my card as
expected.
tra...@optonline.net
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:52:40 -0400, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
How exactly does one launder money in Vegas? The casinos are
subject to the same $10,000 cash reporting as a bank.
Shaun Eli
it's winnings. Or do it with $9000 and ask for a check.
aemeijers
> You come in with $10,000 in cash, buy chips, cash them in and claim
> it's winnings. Or do it with $9000 and ask for a check.
Or if the casino is in on it (probably less likely than in the bad old
days), buy chips, and play badly. Even if casino has to pay taxes on it,
the money now has a legitimate source.
Any business that does lots of small deals for cash is ideal for money
laundering. Just inflate the totals slightly, and the money now has a
pedigree.
Down south, real estate deals with briefcases full of cash used to be
common, and it was considered impolite to ask questions.
--
aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
The *CASINO* launders money. Any cash business can easily do it. Casinos are
nothing but a pile of cash.
aemeijers
Not as much as they used to be- they are switching to virtual cash
wherever possible. Here in flyover country, almost all the machines and
table games are are chip/player card, not coins or paper. All that cash
handling is expensive. And without the implied protection of mob
ownership (for the 'indian' casinos), having cash anywhere except
cashier/chip/in-house player (debit) card office is a security risk.
Emptying all those machines and under-table cash drip boxes, is
expensive. The cash office staff would pretty much be the only place to
pull it off.
--
aem sends...
tra...@optonline.net
wrote:
> You come in with $10,000 in cash, buy chips, cash them in and claim
> it's winnings. Or do it with $9000 and ask for a check.
If it's over $10,000 it's required to be reported by the
casino just as any other cash transaction. And if you
claim any money is winnings it's subject to income tax.
For example, if someone is living the lifestyle of the
rich and the IRS comes a calling, you can't just say
"I won 2 million in Las Vegas". They will simply ask
for proof, verification from the casino, where were
the withholdings, etc.
In other words, I don't see Las Vegas being much
more useful at laundering money than banks.
Unless you have a crooked casino in on it, in which
case there are more banks in the country for that
possibility than casinos.
HeyBub
There was one example on "Breaking Bad." The lawyer tried to get the dope
maker/dealer to buy a (crappy) beauty salon. The cash from the dope could be
deposited as revenue from the hair dresser and disguised as legitimate
income.
George
> it's winnings. Or do it with $9000 and ask for a check.
All businesses have the same reporting requirements.
George
A local bank got shut down for money laundering a few years back (they
were simply forgetting to report large cash transactions for selected
"clients") who were actually using handtrucks to bring the money in.
I think folks are forgetting the $10k rule isn't aimed at small time
folks. Drug dealers and folks of their ilk deal with lots of cash and
they need a way to launder it.
George
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Another interesting aspect to all this. I was talking to a guy that
>> runs a local glass business. He said that when someone uses
>> a credit card he doesn't even know what the fee is that he will
>> be charged. The amount depends not only on the card, VISA
>> for example, but also how VISA rates that particular customer's
>> card. For example, if it's a VISA card that accrues airline miles
>> with each purchase the glass guy gets hit with a higher fee
>> than another guy with a different VISA. Even worse, he said
>> there is no way for him to know exactly what the fee he's going
>> to pay will be on any given customer's card.
>
> Apparently true. My brother was a veterinarian. He hated cash-back cards (so
> I showed him mine ;-). He hated bounced checks more, though.
But bounced checks are nowhere near the issue they used to be. I always
thought the most reasonable way to deal with "rewards" cards was to
simply require the user to pay for their own "rewards" in the form of a
surcharge.
Shaun Eli
the IRS. But the point of money-laundering isn't to avoid taxes, it's
to get the cash into the financial system so it can be transferred
elsewhere, or at least saved so you don't have piles of currency.
Taxes are a small price to pay for that- that's why some money-
laundering is run through legitimate businesses, which also pay taxes.
Furthermore, gambling income is only taxable to the extent it exceeds
gambling losses. So if you launder money through a casino and they
report it, you could probably claim a deduction for gambling losses
another time (although you might be asked for some evidence).
tra...@optonline.net
A few gas stations here give a discount of a few cents a gallon for
cash.
They post prices per gallon for cash and for credit
tra...@optonline.net
I saw that too. Unfortunately, it made little sense. I believe Mr.
White and
his sidekick were being paid $1mil a month. I don't know about the
beauty
salons in your area, but around here any one of them reporting that
kind
of money would set off all kinds of red flags. It would take quite a
chain
of salons to have that much money blend into and not be noticed.
tra...@optonline.net
> Yes, if you take away $10,000+ to the casino they might report it to
> the IRS.
There isn't any might about it. Any cash transaction over $10,000
has to be reported to the IRS by law. And with the constant
oversight
the casinos are under, I'd expect them to be among the last to
violate that law. And if you win a substantial amount, they must
withold tax.
>But the point of money-laundering isn't to avoid taxes, it's
> to get the cash into the financial system so it can be transferred
> elsewhere, or at least saved so you don't have piles of currency.
> Taxes are a small price to pay for that- that's why some money-
> laundering is run through legitimate businesses, which also pay taxes.
I don't think you're going to find any drug dealers happy to give
40 or 50% of his earnings to the IRS. They are already breaking
laws that could sent them to jail for 20 year to life. Getting nailed
for avoiding income tax isn't going to phase them one bit. And I
assure you that the money that is being laundered via legtitimate
businesses most taxation somehow, eg by coming up with
phoney business losses to offset it.
>
> Furthermore, gambling income is only taxable to the extent it exceeds
> gambling losses. So if you launder money through a casino and they
> report it, you could probably claim a deduction for gambling losses
> another time (although you might be asked for some evidence).
The point to the reporting system is that it's perfectly normal for a
person to win $50,000 at a casino. It's not normal for that same
person to be winning $50,000 every week, or every month, which
is what is required for money laundering to be successful on a
large scale. If you just have $50,000 in cash one time, no need
to really launder it at all even if it's from an illegal stream.
HeyBub
>>
>> There was one example on "Breaking Bad." The lawyer tried to get the
>> dope maker/dealer to buy a (crappy) beauty salon. The cash from the
>> dope could be deposited as revenue from the hair dresser and
>> disguised as legitimate income.
>
> I saw that too. Unfortunately, it made little sense. I believe Mr.
> White and
> his sidekick were being paid $1mil a month. I don't know about the
> beauty
> salons in your area, but around here any one of them reporting that
> kind
> of money would set off all kinds of red flags. It would take quite a
> chain
> of salons to have that much money blend into and not be noticed.
Hmm. You're right.
Maybe an HVAC service company?
Smitty Two
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
> Down south, real estate deals with briefcases full of cash used to be
> common, and it was considered impolite to ask questions.
True in Humboldt County, California also, where the primary industry is
marijuana. Can't do it anymore AIUI, but was very common.
Smitty Two
"Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
> However, to answer your question, double taxation occurs all the time. The
> money that I paid taxes on is taxed again whenever I pay it to a doctor or
> groundskeeper and it becomes part of their income stream. I don't think
> that's fair, but I didn't write the tax code. If the groundskeeper pays his
> assistant, that money is taxed once again.
Is that really the definition of double taxation? What would the
alternative be? All we do with money is get it from someone and give it
to someone else. It goes around in circles. Are you suggesting it get
taxed only once in the life of the money? Aside from the fact that tax
revenue would decrease my several orders of magnitude, how would that
even be possible?
Shaun Eli
> to get the cash into the financial system so it can be transferred
> elsewhere, or at least saved so you don't have piles of currency.
> Taxes are a small price to pay for that- that's why some money-
> laundering is run through legitimate businesses, which also pay
taxes.
I don't think you're going to find any drug dealers happy to give
40 or 50% of his earnings to the IRS. They are already breaking
laws that could sent them to jail for 20 year to life. Getting
nailed
for avoiding income tax isn't going to phase them one bit. And I
assure you that the money that is being laundered via legtitimate
businesses most taxation somehow, eg by coming up with
phoney business losses to offset it.
Happy? Of course not. But if there's no other alternative... anyway
sometimes it's easier to catch them for tax evasion than drug dealing,
and everybody spending money needs to show some taxable income anyway,
if they want to buy nice cars, etc. Otherwise the IRS can ask them to
prove a source of the income...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Since you have no idea whether their card is a "rewards" card, how do you
propose implementing your "solution". How much is a lost customer worth?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Jul 21, 8:33�ｿｽam, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2011 7:49 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> Another interesting aspect to all this. �ｿｽI was talking to a guy that
>> >> runs a local glass business. �ｿｽHe said that when someone uses
>> >> a credit card he doesn't even know what the fee is that he will
>> >> be charged. �ｿｽThe amount depends not only on the card, VISA
>> >> for example, but also how VISA rates that particular customer's
>> >> card. �ｿｽFor example, if it's a VISA card that accrues airline miles
>> >> with each purchase the glass guy gets hit with a higher fee
>> >> than another guy with a different VISA. �ｿｽEven worse, he said
>> >> there is no way for him to know exactly what the fee he's going
>> >> to pay will be on any given customer's card.
>>
>> > Apparently true. �ｿｽMy brother was a veterinarian. �ｿｽHe hated cash-back cards (so
>> > I showed him mine ;-). �ｿｽHe hated bounced checks more, though.
>>
>> But bounced checks are nowhere near the issue they used to be. I always
>> thought the most reasonable way to deal with "rewards" cards was to
>> simply require the user to pay for their own "rewards" in the form of a
>> surcharge.
>
>A few gas stations here give a discount of a few cents a gallon for
>cash.
>They post prices per gallon for cash and for credit
But they can't tell the difference between a normal card and a "rewards" card.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On Jul 21, 9:53�am, Shaun Eli <missingch...@BrainChampagne.com> wrote:
>> Yes, if you take away $10,000+ to the casino they might report it to
>> the IRS.
>
>There isn't any might about it. Any cash transaction over $10,000
>has to be reported to the IRS by law. And with the constant
>oversight
>the casinos are under, I'd expect them to be among the last to
>violate that law. And if you win a substantial amount, they must
>withold tax.
Not only is it any transaction over $10K, but any group of transactions
totaling $10K, or *ANY* suspicious transactions of *ANY* amount. If you bring
in $5000 every day, it's going to get reported.
>>But the point of money-laundering isn't to avoid taxes, it's
>> to get the cash into the financial system so it can be transferred
>> elsewhere, or at least saved so you don't have piles of currency.
>> Taxes are a small price to pay for that- that's why some money-
>> laundering is run through legitimate businesses, which also pay taxes.
>
>I don't think you're going to find any drug dealers happy to give
> 40 or 50% of his earnings to the IRS. They are already breaking
>laws that could sent them to jail for 20 year to life. Getting nailed
>for avoiding income tax isn't going to phase them one bit. And I
>assure you that the money that is being laundered via legtitimate
>businesses most taxation somehow, eg by coming up with
>phoney business losses to offset it.
>
Happy isn't the point. They will to "clean" the money. After the taxes are
paid it can be used for legitimate purposes (or not).
>> Furthermore, gambling income is only taxable to the extent it exceeds
>> gambling losses. So if you launder money through a casino and they
>> report it, you could probably claim a deduction for gambling losses
>> another time (although you might be asked for some evidence).
>
>The point to the reporting system is that it's perfectly normal for a
>person to win $50,000 at a casino. It's not normal for that same
>person to be winning $50,000 every week, or every month, which
>is what is required for money laundering to be successful on a
>large scale. If you just have $50,000 in cash one time, no need
>to really launder it at all even if it's from an illegal stream.
That's why you buy the casino. Million$ will disappear into the profits.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
LOL!
How about a Presidential campaign?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Sure, what's the problem. If you *own* the casino...
George
Typically every rewards card has that wording printed on it. And since
the great majority of these transactions are electronic I can't imagine
it would be that involved to determine how to process them.
Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
promotes the following:
We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
added only to those transactions.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Not mine. It's not in the card issuer's interest to make that information
easily known. This is especially true if retailers start penalizing users.
>Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
>promotes the following:
>
>We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
>also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
>applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
>added only to those transactions.
Would you patronize "Fair Mart" if they sold merchandise that didn't perform
as agreed?
George
How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
in the purchase?
Do you think that folks should pay for what they get?
>
>> Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
>> promotes the following:
>>
>> We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
>> also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
>> applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
>> added only to those transactions.
>
> Would you patronize "Fair Mart" if they sold merchandise that didn't perform
> as agreed?
Not sure what if anything that has to do with CC transactions.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>
>How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>in the purchase?
The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with. No one
is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
>Do you think that folks should pay for what they get?
>
Sure, they do when the bill comes. Everone follows the terms of their
contract.
>>
>>> Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
>>> promotes the following:
>>>
>>> We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
>>> also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
>>> applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
>>> added only to those transactions.
>>
>> Would you patronize "Fair Mart" if they sold merchandise that didn't perform
>> as agreed?
>
>Not sure what if anything that has to do with CC transactions.
The merchant contracted to accept CCs. No one forced him to. Think about it
some more.
DerbyDad03
On 07/20/11 10:52 AM, mkir...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 1:02 am, DerbyDad03<DerbyDa...@eznet.net> wrote:
>> What gave you the impression that I'm "paranoid" about carrying $200?
>>
>> That has nothing to do with it.
>
> What else could it be? The principle of the thing???
Well, it could be that I pay for just about everything with my debit
card so I don't have to deal with getting change, waiting while they
count it out, jingle the coins around in my pocket, etc.
I slide my debit card, push a few buttons and I'm done. It's quick and
easy...I'm impatient.
I've got no problem carrying cash when there's a need for it and I
usually have $40 - $50 in my pocket at any given time, but rarely do I
need to have $200+.
>
> Surely you take cash out of your bank account on a regular basis.
Indirectly, yes. When I think I want a little cash, I use the cash back
feature of my debit card and get $40 or $50 back from the cashier.
Grabbing 2 twenties out of the register is pretty easy for most cashiers.
Even if they offered it, I'd never ask for $200.
> Hell, I go through $100 in cash each week just for incidentals.
Incidentals can be bought with a debit card, you know.
> What you perceive as a major inconvenience is at worst a minor
> inconvenience and at best a major time-saver because now you don't
> have to stop at the bank to take out cash for a couple of weeks.
I don't have to stop at the bank *ever* to take out cash. I get my cash
at the same place I pay for my purchases - the store's cashier or self
check out registers. So having $200 in my pocket saves the minuscule
amount of time required to have the cashier hand it to me. There's no
"stop at the bank" saved.
Besides, it isn't about the current $200 anyway. If I buy something for
$16.57 on my debit card and return it, that's coins in my pocket that I
don't need. In fact, when I returned the $200+ items, it was on multiple
receipts and the cashier processed each return as a separate
transaction. I had well over a dollar's worth of coins in my pocket and
a bunch of singles when I was done. Who needs that?
DerbyDad03
On 07/20/11 8:10 PM, Home Guy wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>> If you purchase something at home Depot on a debit card and then
>> return it, they will only give you a cash refund.
>
> http://www.homedepot.ca/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/DisplayTemplate?storeId=10051&display=cust_supp_return_faq&langId=-15
>
> Any purchase made by cash will be refunded in cash;
> any purchase made by debit card will be refunded to
> the original debit card.
You posted a link for Home Depot in Canada. I live in the US.
Returns within 90 days of purchase and with a valid sales
receipt will be exchanged, refunded in cash, credited to your
account or refunded via The Home Depot store credit.
and
Receipts for purchases made with credit, debit or check within
the last 90 days may be located in our system. Ask a store
associate about receipt look up.
So, even without a receipt, a receipt for a debit card purchase can be
"looked up", making it subject to the first policy, where it states that
returns can be "refunded in cash". They do say "credited to your
account" but it's never happened to me. I'm guessing they mean an
account that a business might have, not the account that my debit card
is attached to.
DerbyDad03
On 07/20/11 8:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Why does Derby Dad post to usenet, instead of calling the
> store and asking?
>
Didja notice the "just venting..." line at the beginning of my post?
That's why I posted to usenet.
George
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:43:18 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>
>> How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>> someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>> in the purchase?
>
> The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
> they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
> clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with. No one
> is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
Who knew? I thought the CC company was getting the money from the merchant?
I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
Currently if you use a "rewards" card you only pay for part of your
rewards. My thoughts were that it is fair and reasonable to pay the
total cost.
>
>> Do you think that folks should pay for what they get?
>>
> Sure, they do when the bill comes. Everone follows the terms of their
> contract.
>
>>>
>>>> Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
>>>> promotes the following:
>>>>
>>>> We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
>>>> also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
>>>> applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
>>>> added only to those transactions.
>>>
>>> Would you patronize "Fair Mart" if they sold merchandise that didn't perform
>>> as agreed?
>>
>> Not sure what if anything that has to do with CC transactions.
>
> The merchant contracted to accept CCs. No one forced him to. Think about it
> some more.
Yes, but times change. Lots of people like me don't like banks and don't
want to pay extra to help them out.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/23/2011 10:43 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:43:18 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>>> someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>>> in the purchase?
>>
>> The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
>> they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
>> clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with. No one
>> is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
>
>Who knew? I thought the CC company was getting the money from the merchant?
You don't think there is a contract in place?
>I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>Currently if you use a "rewards" card you only pay for part of your
>rewards. My thoughts were that it is fair and reasonable to pay the
>total cost.
The merchant pays *all* of it. It's part of his COGS. His choice.
>>> Do you think that folks should pay for what they get?
>>>
>> Sure, they do when the bill comes. Everone follows the terms of their
>> contract.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Would you patronize a store named say "Fair-Mart" that posted and
>>>>> promotes the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't expect you to pay for items in the other persons cart so we
>>>>> also don't expect you to pay bank fees and "rewards" that are not
>>>>> applicable to your transaction so those additional costs are directly
>>>>> added only to those transactions.
>>>>
>>>> Would you patronize "Fair Mart" if they sold merchandise that didn't perform
>>>> as agreed?
>>>
>>> Not sure what if anything that has to do with CC transactions.
>>
>> The merchant contracted to accept CCs. No one forced him to. Think about it
>> some more.
>
>Yes, but times change. Lots of people like me don't like banks and don't
>want to pay extra to help them out.
Then don't use credit cards. No one is forcing them on you. Meanwhile I'll
take the 1%, thank you.
aemeijers
> On 7/23/2011 10:43 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:43:18 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>>> someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>>> in the purchase?
>>
>> The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
>> they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
>> clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with.
>> No one
>> is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
>
> Who knew? I thought the CC company was getting the money from the merchant?
>
> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>
If you are a Walmart or even a Sears, you can negotiate. If you are a
ma'n'pa local store, it is take it or leave it.
--
aem sends...
George
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:11:02 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/2011 10:43 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:43:18 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>>>> someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>>>> in the purchase?
>>>
>>> The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
>>> they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
>>> clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with. No one
>>> is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
>>
>> Who knew? I thought the CC company was getting the money from the merchant?
>
> You don't think there is a contract in place?
Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
>
>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>
> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
>
>> Currently if you use a "rewards" card you only pay for part of your
>> rewards. My thoughts were that it is fair and reasonable to pay the
>> total cost.
>
> The merchant pays *all* of it. It's part of his COGS. His choice.
I don't think so. Ultimately the purchaser is the one who pays for the
goods and all overhead and expenses related to selling them.
Currently if two folks walk in to purchase something and customer "A"
has a rewards card and customer "B" pays cash both are paying towards
the cost of the transaction. Since the cost of "rewards" and the costs
of handling cash are all rolled together customer "A" is only paying for
part of their rewards while customer "B" is helping to pay for customer
"A"s rewards.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"DerbyDad03" <Derby...@eznet.net> wrote in message
news:j0fgsk$k39$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
George
I noticed many of them are not interested in paying a tribute to timmy
geitners "too big to fail" buddies so they will talk regarding price if
you offer cash/check as payment. So you end up with a better final price.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/23/2011 8:25 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:11:02 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/23/2011 10:43 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:43:18 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/22/2011 8:01 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would it be a penalty if customers had to pay for what they get? If
>>>>> someone has a "rewards" card the merchant is providing additional value
>>>>> in the purchase?
>>>>
>>>> The CC company is. The CC user has a contract with the CC issuer, which
>>>> they're both in compliance with. The merchant has a contract with the CC
>>>> clearance house, which they're both (presumably) in compliance with. No one
>>>> is being forced to do anything. What's not to like?
>>>
>>> Who knew? I thought the CC company was getting the money from the merchant?
>>
>> You don't think there is a contract in place?
>
>Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
Clearly clueless.
>>
>>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>>
>> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>
>Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
Demand from whom?
>>> Currently if you use a "rewards" card you only pay for part of your
>>> rewards. My thoughts were that it is fair and reasonable to pay the
>>> total cost.
>>
>> The merchant pays *all* of it. It's part of his COGS. His choice.
>
>I don't think so. Ultimately the purchaser is the one who pays for the
>goods and all overhead and expenses related to selling them.
Clearly you have a lot to learn about capitalism.
>Currently if two folks walk in to purchase something and customer "A"
>has a rewards card and customer "B" pays cash both are paying towards
>the cost of the transaction. Since the cost of "rewards" and the costs
>of handling cash are all rolled together customer "A" is only paying for
>part of their rewards while customer "B" is helping to pay for customer
>"A"s rewards.
No, you're forgetting the seller down the street.
<...>
George
>
>>
>> Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
>
> Clearly clueless.
You lost by going for the ad hominem attack. I get it that you like to
imagine there is no cost to anyone for your "rewards" since it is just
"overhead". But do you really think the tooth fairy is paying for your
"rewards"?
>
>>>
>>>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>>>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>>>
>>> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>>
>> Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
>
> Demand from whom?
Remember that contract thing you mentioned?
>
> Clearly you have a lot to learn about capitalism.
Sorry most knowledgeable one, please explain in detail how someone
besides the customer ultimately pays for the goods and the cost of
selling them that they purchase?
DerbyDad03
re: "What is the sound of one man venting, grasshopper?"
The sound of over 80 usenet replies.
aemeijers
Yeah, but cash discounts violate the CC agreement, don't they? (Since it
amounts to a surcharge to use CCs)
--
aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/24/2011 11:01 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
>>
>> Clearly clueless.
>
>
>You lost by going for the ad hominem attack.
Sorry, but facts are facts.
>I get it that you like to
>imagine there is no cost to anyone for your "rewards" since it is just
>"overhead". But do you really think the tooth fairy is paying for your
>"rewards"?
I'm not a Democrat. I know money doesn't grow on trees. Costs are paid out
of the seller's profits. He can't raise the price because someone down the
street can then sell at a lower price. Simple economics.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>>>>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>
>>>> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>>>
>>> Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
>>
>> Demand from whom?
>
>Remember that contract thing you mentioned?
Fine. Go for it. Since they don't, you're SOL. Sorry, the only vote you get
is to take your business elsewhere. Stop whining.
>> Clearly you have a lot to learn about capitalism.
>
>Sorry most knowledgeable one, please explain in detail how someone
>besides the customer ultimately pays for the goods and the cost of
>selling them that they purchase?
One word: competition. Now, go back and take a rudimentary economics course.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I believe that's wrong. Many businesses do offer cash discounts (e.g. gas
stations). They are *not* allowed to pass-on costs but they can discount from
advertised prices.
George
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:35:50 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 7/24/2011 11:01 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
>>>
>>> Clearly clueless.
>>
>>
>> You lost by going for the ad hominem attack.
>
> Sorry, but facts are facts.
Not really, just your interpretation. But you do discredit yourself when
you choose to insult people.
>
>> I get it that you like to
>> imagine there is no cost to anyone for your "rewards" since it is just
>> "overhead". But do you really think the tooth fairy is paying for your
>> "rewards"?
>
> I'm not a Democrat. I know money doesn't grow on trees. Costs are paid out
> of the seller's profits. He can't raise the price because someone down the
> street can then sell at a lower price. Simple economics.
You do know there are two ways to adjust prices to achieve the same
results right?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>>>>>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
>>>
>>> Demand from whom?
>>
>> Remember that contract thing you mentioned?
>
> Fine. Go for it. Since they don't, you're SOL. Sorry, the only vote you get
> is to take your business elsewhere. Stop whining.
I will mention that to some folks I know who are part of a 400 store
co-op who recently negotiated a deal with a new credit card processor
that specifically allows for them to offer cash discounts. It also
allows for them to issue their own gift cards which the CC will not get
a cut of.
So much for your self proclaimed expert status.
>
>>> Clearly you have a lot to learn about capitalism.
>>
>> Sorry most knowledgeable one, please explain in detail how someone
>> besides the customer ultimately pays for the goods and the cost of
>> selling them that they purchase?
>
> One word: competition. Now, go back and take a rudimentary economics course.
Why the need to make yourself look silly with the constant personal
attacks?
George
There was a local case like you describe. A local family has some local
stores and they decided to offer a cash discount at the register. It
went to an upper level court who affirmed the decision against them.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>On 7/24/2011 12:53 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:35:50 -0400, George<geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/24/2011 11:01 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said there wasn't? Look at the big picture.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly clueless.
>>>
>>>
>>> You lost by going for the ad hominem attack.
>>
>> Sorry, but facts are facts.
>
>Not really, just your interpretation. But you do discredit yourself when
>you choose to insult people.
No, you *are* clueless. You demonstrate it daily.
>>> I get it that you like to
>>> imagine there is no cost to anyone for your "rewards" since it is just
>>> "overhead". But do you really think the tooth fairy is paying for your
>>> "rewards"?
>>
>> I'm not a Democrat. I know money doesn't grow on trees. Costs are paid out
>> of the seller's profits. He can't raise the price because someone down the
>> street can then sell at a lower price. Simple economics.
>
>
>You do know there are two ways to adjust prices to achieve the same
>results right?
Another demonstration of cluelessness.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not saying the merchant should go against the agreed term but
>>>>>>> contracts are renew and changed/renegotiated all of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He can refuse to sign the contract and refuse credit cards, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely, or he can demand a fairer system.
>>>>
>>>> Demand from whom?
>>>
>>> Remember that contract thing you mentioned?
>>
>> Fine. Go for it. Since they don't, you're SOL. Sorry, the only vote you get
>> is to take your business elsewhere. Stop whining.
>
>I will mention that to some folks I know who are part of a 400 store
>co-op who recently negotiated a deal with a new credit card processor
>that specifically allows for them to offer cash discounts. It also
>allows for them to issue their own gift cards which the CC will not get
>a cut of.
Perhaps true, but in any case irrelevant. Buy from them and stop whining!
...pretty simple!
>So much for your self proclaimed expert status.
Yet another demonstration of cluelessness.
>>>> Clearly you have a lot to learn about capitalism.
>>>
>>> Sorry most knowledgeable one, please explain in detail how someone
>>> besides the customer ultimately pays for the goods and the cost of
>>> selling them that they purchase?
>>
>> One word: competition. Now, go back and take a rudimentary economics course.
>
>Why the need to make yourself look silly with the constant personal
>attacks?
You stop with the clueless drivel and I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?
George
> No, you *are* clueless. You demonstrate it daily.
>
You might want to read about Ad hominem attacks. If you can't defend
your position you only discredit yourself by delivering personal attacks:
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0jn9p$ded$1...@dont-email.me...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, you demonstrate your cluelessness. Keep it up, there's probably
someone out there who missed it this time too.
h3mcg...@gmail.com
DerbyDad03
> Home Depot offers to put back on debit as long as you have your card on
> you. Otherwise cash is the only other option. Don't get it twisted.
in cash. I often say "Whatever is easier for you." The result varies.
Ed Pawlowski
> Home Depot offers to put back on debit as long as you have your card on you. Otherwise cash is the only other option. Don't get it twisted.
>
Chip C
> I wonder what their rules are if I buy $10K worth of lumber and then
> returned it. Would they give me $10K in cash which I would then have
> to report to the IRS?
You can do 10 large on your *debit* card?
Tony Hwang
Merchants pay service fee to use credit card or Interac per x-action.
Maybe they don't want to pay it twice one for sales, one for refund.
trader_4
Tony Hwang
Maybe 'coz they don't want debit service fee twice? Also processing
refund takes more time than giving cash.
EXT
"Tony Hwang" <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:nTFlv.80593$RT5....@fx02.iad...
counting, this way giving refunds in cash reduces the amount of the deposit
and the resulting bank fee. This method has two pluses for the merchant.
They save on the debit card fee and on the deposit fee. Any method to reduce
the banking fees to help the bottom line.
sms
Discover you could get $30 cash back, treated as a purchase rather than
a cash advance, when you used Discover. It helped Costco reduce the
amount of cash that they had to deal with.
