[OT] Credit card fees Re: [plug] Where to buy computer bits in Perth

[James Devenish]

In message <20030222112634.173198f6.harrymc at decisions-and-designs.com.au>
on Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 11:26:34AM +0800, Harry McNally wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2003 08:40:36 +0800 William Kenworthy <billk at iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > And if anyone from Austins is listening: if I can find a supplier that
> > that does not charge too much extra (advertised price + visa fee) I take
> > that - there seems something "slimy" about the practice.
> 
> As a customer, I don't find anything slimy about the practice at all, Bill.
[...]
> Now, if I pay cash, I'm not subsidising a credit card user. If I use a 
> credit card, I'm being charged a surcharge which means I pay the bank
> for the credit card "convenience" or service.
[...]
> Suppose you are adding 10% to your cost of goods as a profit margin and
> you lose 5% in credit card transaction fees. If you can _halve_ the
> merchant fees you have just increased your profitability by 30%.
> That is money straight to the bottom line; money that feeds you.

Agreed. I'm surprised that people on this list are so surprised by the
"surcharge" for credit transactions. For years and years hardware stores
and engineering parts suppliers have been giving unadvertised
"discounts" for cash-in-hand purchases, encouraging customers to reduce
the retailer's direct merchant costs when possible. This was not slimy,
because you were paying *less* than the advertised price that you had
tacitly accepted. So it was (still is?) a pretty fair system. I don't
know if the new law requires this to be expressed as a surcharge or
whether it can be expressed as a discount. With the former, I can see
that it is possible for the practice to be "slimy" when the surcharge is
much higher than the merchant fees (perhaps that was your point). But
other than that...