3% is 100% worth it to me to be able to do a chargeback when a vendor fails to deliver what they promised.

brandon272 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What connection does the 3% have to the ability to do a chargeback? The card company isn't absorbing the loss, they are just pushing it back on the merchant and collect it from them unless the merchant successfully disputes the chargeback.

▲

koyote an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have only once in my life had to request a chargeback for some random charge I had never initiated.

Where do you live or shop that you are happy to take what is effectively a 3% pay cut for the privilege of having a slightly easier option to get your money back if someone charges you the wrong amount?

	▲	carlosjobim 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Online purchases cross international borders, for example. Or even domestic online purchases. It's a whole lot easier for merchants to get sales if the customers feel safe that they can get their money back in case of fraud. Tourism is the world's largest industry.

▲

JoshTriplett 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To a first approximation, the 3% isn't paying for disputes; it's paying for rewards to the customer (essentially a built-in discounting mechanism that gets to discriminate on credit rating), and for profit margin to the payment processor. Disputes are paid for by the merchant, and if you get too many of them you potentially lose the ability to process credit cards.

▲

stevesimmons 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Credit cards in many regions outside the US can do chargebacks at 1/6th that cost or less.

▲

verst 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The vendor pays the 3% not you (through increasingly vendors try to charge this fee to you as well). If you as the consumer had to pay 3% extra every time, do you still agree?

▲

kuratkull 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Where do you think the vendor gets the 3% to pay the network?

If I bake cakes to sell them, and have to pay 3% to a network for each purchase, then that 3% is in the price of the cakes.

▲

DaSHacka 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's if they pass on the cost to the consumer. Some businesses charge the same amount whether paying cash or card, meaning paying with a card is ""free"", or at least not "penalized" over cash.

	▲	kuratkull 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It really means that the cash payers are subsidizing the card payers, b/c the cash payers don't get the cake for cheaper. I, as a cake seller have a cost i need to pay to the network every month, from my total revenue it's some percentage (depending on ratio of cash vs card). I obviously add that percentage to my cake prices to make up for that. Both cash and card payers pay the same amount for the cake, thus they share the price hike equally.
	▲	radiator 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But the cost still finds its way to the end price of the product.

▲

scoot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't reply to DaSHacka, but just to point outat least in this country, merchants have to pay to deposit cash. Not to mention the additional cost on their side of handling it, higher insurance cost, etc. etc. Cash isn't free of transaction fees/

▲

SomeUserName432 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The vendor pays the 3% not you

In Brazil, you'll typically get a "10% discount" when not paying by credit card.

Eg, it's very clearly pushed unto the consumer. I assume some law says they cannot charge more for it, so they got a default price, but always advertise a lower price with a small text "if paid via pix"

	▲	rowls66 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Wow, 10% is way more than any interchange. So I suppose it a 10% discount because the cash goes right into the owners pocket, and is never taxed. I do wonder to what extent small business complaining about card interchange, are just small businesses complaining that business was so much better when many cash sales were never reported as revenue and never taxed.

▲

1270018080 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All fees and taxes and tariffs end up being a direct cost to the consumer

▲

w29UiIm2Xz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

not every transaction is risky enough to need chargebacks. it should be unbundled.

	▲	Marsymars 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It kind of is, in an oblique way, for merchants with sufficient scale - e.g. grocery purchases don't need chargebacks, and I expect the bank that is partnered with my grocery store for 6% back in points on grocery purchases is unlikely to award chargebacks on purchases from that grocer.

▲

Glyptodon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If chargebacks were guaranteed, I might agree. But if you clickjacked with an instant checkout button, be ready for some scumbag to refuse to cancel your order, try to get you to agree to restocking fees, your card company to make you send them the same emails and complaints multiple times, and multiple phone calls...