3 ms·

As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make. I did not initiate the sale w

As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make. I did not initiate the sale with the merchant, I did not verify I was the rightful card holder, I did not authorize the funds to be transferred, and I will not send money to that bank to make up for any of that. Banks are in the business of encouraging transactions and my card number could be skimmed from a physical device, or from hacked website on the internet, or I used it at Target https://money.cnn.com/2013/12/18/news/companies/target-credit-card/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2013/12/18/news/companies/target-credi..., or someone physically stole my wallet. If they did try to collect then that sounds like a great reason to go back to cash because even if I get mugged, criminals can't spend me tens of thousands of dollars into debt by stealing my cash on hand. They are limited to what's in my wallet.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make. This applies to everyone involved, but someone's going to pay for the loss anyway, unless you can recover from the thief. There is no reason for the merchant to pay for the purchase either -- he is even less culpable than you are. But that's what everyone is advocating here.
- tptacek 5y ago
  There obviously is a reason for merchants to eat the losses, or else virtually every merchant in the modern world wouldn't accept credit cards. The reason is that merchants (on the whole) agree with credit card companies that it is better for customers to feel safe and comfortable shopping, and thus increase transaction volume, even if doing so means that merchants will occasionally eat losses from fraud.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    You are discussing a different level of "reasons" than frumper is. In your sense, there is a reason for merchants to take the losses, and there is also a reason for customers to take the losses. But in the sense that there is no reason why customers should take these losses: >>> I did not initiate the sale with the merchant, I did not verify I was the rightful card holder, I did not authorize the funds to be transferred there is also no reason why merchants should. The fact that the system currently operates in a certain way is not actually evidence that it cannot operate in a different way.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      It's pretty good evidence that there's no consensus that favors structurally irreversible transactions. But again, if you do, there's a Coin for that!

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> As the holder of the credit card I can't think of a good reason why I would/should pay the debt off for a purchase I didn't make. This applies to everyone involved, but someone's going to pay for the loss anyway, unless you can recover from the thief. There is no reason for the merchant to pay for the purchase either -- he is even less culpable than you are. But that's what everyone is advocating here.

tptacek 5y ago
There obviously is a reason for merchants to eat the losses, or else virtually every merchant in the modern world wouldn't accept credit cards. The reason is that merchants (on the whole) agree with credit card companies that it is better for customers to feel safe and comfortable shopping, and thus increase transaction volume, even if doing so means that merchants will occasionally eat losses from fraud.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  You are discussing a different level of "reasons" than frumper is. In your sense, there is a reason for merchants to take the losses, and there is also a reason for customers to take the losses. But in the sense that there is no reason why customers should take these losses: >>> I did not initiate the sale with the merchant, I did not verify I was the rightful card holder, I did not authorize the funds to be transferred there is also no reason why merchants should. The fact that the system currently operates in a certain way is not actually evidence that it cannot operate in a different way.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    It's pretty good evidence that there's no consensus that favors structurally irreversible transactions. But again, if you do, there's a Coin for that!