3 ms·
It's the wording that confuses me. It would make sense if the card company were responsible for paying a fee to Mastercard on each purpose. That way they could
by eatonphil 6y ago
It's the wording that confuses me. It would make sense if the card company were responsible for paying a fee to Mastercard on each purpose. That way they could increase that fee and take the difference.
But the way this is worded (and I suppose it must be how it works) it means that Mastercard charges a fee and you have an agreement to take some of that fee from Mastercard on each transaction. Just seems a little backwards.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> But the way this is worded (and I suppose it must be how it works) it means that Mastercard charges a fee and you have an agreement to take some of that fee from Mastercard on each transaction. Just seems a little backwards. I don't really see why that's backwards? The mechant pays for a service (accepting card payments) from Mastercard. Mastercard take some of that fee and give it to the card provider so they can cover the costs of running your card, such as their website and phone lines, or in this case planting trees as well. Where's the backwards bit?
- eatonphil 6y agoWell just historically speaking the easiest way to be a middleman is to charge a fee on top of what you're middleman-ing. And this doesn't work like that. But who am I to say what's backwards? :D
- avianlyric 6y agoDon’t try applying logic to Mastercard fees. The PDF the lists out all the fees and how they’re calculated is hundreds of pages long. Even the banks who pay some of these fee don’t understand them all.