8 ms·

> “Certain products are more guilt-inducing because they feel more like impulsive purchases, like a foam hand for the sports game,” Huang says. “Some are more r

> “Certain products are more guilt-inducing because they feel more like impulsive purchases, like a foam hand for the sports game,” Huang says. “Some are more rational purchases, such as books or stationery products for class.” Sure enough, they found that customers were more likely to pay in cash for harder-to-justify items like stuffed plush mascots and Christmas ornaments. Or perhaps the group of people buying harder-to-justify items tend to be people who don't bother to learn the perqs of credit cards or don't have enough credit, so they'd use cash regardless of what they're purchasing, but they purchase junk, so they end up painting this author's picture either way.

TheRealPomax 3y ago
When I first moved to North America, the idea that a credit card company was allowed to give people cash back, offer insurance, etc. for using their cards seemed like some bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept. Having lived here for decades, it still is. It's like an alcohol shop rewarding its most alcoholic customers by giving them free booze. And then if you sign up for a new card, or you cancel a card, some random private company decides to rate you and then banks look at that private company's data to decide whether or not you're a good little consumer worthy of their business? Credit cards might have been a reasonable idea, but give me direct, free, immediate digital banking and debit cards any day of the week please. The US went "what if we took the worst way to do banking, and made that the default?" and that's why banks don't even handle affordable EFTs themselves. It's the creditcard companies again.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  I feel like it'd be totally normal for any restaurant or store to give a discount to its best customers
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    "You're taking a lot of drugs, we're going to make sure you keep taking them by giving you free drugs" is extremely different from "you're buying a lot of bras, we're going to give you a free bra". This should not even require pointing out, but apparently it does.
    - saltcured 3y ago
      But, you are begging the moral question in assuming that credit cards are obviously like "drugs". For me, a credit card and a debit card are just different accounting systems for the same thing. Either one has zero interest when I manage my expenditures properly and do not carry a debt. Either one could trigger penalties and/or interest if I outspend my budget. I still prefer the credit card because of the frequently mentioned difference in consumer fraud protection. My fear is that the credit card providers will eventually erode their protections to match the debit card rather than the converse. I do NOT want to participate in a system where a chip-secured/card-present transaction is now presumed to be valid and I have a difficult battle to contest a charge. If the card is made that valuable, I would then withdraw from the casual retail marketplace and keep my card locked up in a safe as others have mentioned in other threads.
      - TheRealPomax 3y ago
        Except this isn't about you. There are plenty of folks who can responsible take drugs, too, doesn't make trying to keep folks hooked any less destructive and predatory. All you're being is an outlier in the highly lucrative debt trap that credit cards offer the average credit card owner. Congrats on not falling for it; for you, a thousand people who do.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I agree, you haven't convincingly made the case that credit is more akin to drugs than a restaurant or a bra store (the 1:1000 statistic in particular is suspect), and it seems your entire point depends on that case being true. Restaurants and bra stores, for example, also want to keep customers hooked. Does that make restaurants & bra stores predatory? Neither they nor credit card companies are forcing their customers to spend more than they can afford.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  I've lived in the USA my whole life, and I still think it's bizarre and ought to be illegal. It's basically a bribe. The worst part is, as long as it is legal, it just makes sense use it - because most things are the same price either way, so it's essentially a small discount on everything. So, I simultaneously use it regularly and hope it becomes illegal.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    I definitely favor using CC, and paying off if only for the 2-5% "cash back" program(s). If I pay cash, I'm effectively paying extra, same for debit. It kind of sucks, and definitely should be better managed. Also, if you let the debt accumulate on a CC (very easy to do), then the interest definitely comes out to more than the rewards in that case.
    - nfriedly 3y ago
      Oh, yeah, CC companies love it when people carry a balance and pay interest. But they're still making money off of someone like me who pays the full balance off each month, because when they give me 2% back, they're charging the merchant 5% or more. It's kind of a heads-they-win, tails-you-loose situation.
      - CuriouslyC 3y ago
        5% processing fees are predatory, and the only people that pay them are mom and pop shops that don't have leverage. Larger merchants are going to be closer to ~1.5%.
        tracker1 3y ago
        Well, I know I'm getting 5% back on Amazon purchases, so there's some there, there so to speak.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Without some other changes to the system, like direct consumer banking and fraud protection through the fed, making points illegal would just be a big windfall for credit card companies, as they would remain the most convenient way to pay for things, while being able to keep like 2% more of what they charge merchants.
- kldavis4 3y ago
  Furthermore, everyone, regardless of whether they are using a credit card, is paying for this in the form of higher prices (unless the vendor has separate cash prices...)
  - AlanSE 3y ago
    Higher cash prices are a violation of the card-holder agreement.
    - kldavis4 3y ago
      I think you mean the merchant agreement. There are many gas stations in the area where I live that have different cash prices and still take credit cards, so I'm not sure if this is still a thing. And honestly the fact that they would have that lends support to the fact that all of these credit card "benefits" are subsidized by cash payers.
      - AlanSE 3y ago
        Yes, I should have Googled that before using the wrong word. I am also operating on old information, perhaps the law changed and this it varies by state now.
        HWR_14 3y ago
        AFAIK, this changed in 2010 at a federal level.
    - schnable 3y ago
      This hasn't been true since Dodd-Frank in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment "included provisions which allow retailers to refuse to use credit cards for small purchases and offer incentives for using cash or another type of card."
    - dspillett 3y ago
      kldavis4 was meaning that everyone pays the same higher price to account for the fees present in card payment processing, regardless of whether they are paying in cash, be debit card, or by credit card. > Higher cash prices are a violation of the card-holder agreement. I think what you are meaning is “higher card prices are a violation of the merchant agreement” – so a merchant can't offer different prices for cash payments to account for differences in processing costs or they risk losing their merchant account with the card/payment processing company. In some places this is no longer legal¹, you'd have to check your local legislation to know what applies in that regard where you are. Also the reverse, offering discounts for card use rather than cash², is illegal in some places because it is unfair to those without cards⁴. -- [1] so card processing companies can't (legally) punish merchants for offering a discount for cash [2] usually because the merchant gets a kick-back from the card payment processor, though sometimes these days it is because cash has become the minority payment method³ and vendors would rather only deal with one so want to further discourage cash [3] it is worth noting while discussing potential costs or kick-backs for card payment processing, that for businesses the act of dealing with cash has associated admin and/or costs too [4] which is disproportionately the disadvantaged, because they find it harder to qualify for any card, or can only qualify for one with a monthly charge that they can ill afford
- inconceivable 3y ago
  no, absolutely no debit cards for me. i protect my cash with multiple layers of protection. if i lose my wallet or my phone the person who ends up with these things will have no clue where most of my money is at. amex takes most if not all the risk in my financial life when it comes to day to day spending. one time i had my wallet stolen and the only thing they could muster was a failed gas station transaction. they didn't even try the ATM card. i use the free points/perks that the irresponsible idiots subsidize to my own advantage. it's linked directly to my amazon account and shows up as a positive cash balance.
  - claytonjy 3y ago
    Is your ATM card not also a debit card? Mine have always been both.
    - croutonwagon 3y ago
      mine is but I have a system very similar to the OP you responded to. I do not carry my debit card unless under specific circumstances (ie: When i traveled to Vietnam I carried it). Also that specific debit card is tied to a limited account with a minimum balance. Enough to take cash out but not the main account i pay bills out of etc. Its used specifically as a medium for transactions to services (ie: Venmo, CashApp or ATM withdraws) with a limited balance in case its comprimised. My primary bank account debit card never leaves the safe unless for a specific trip to the ATM etc, even then most of the time i got to a branch directly. Vendors (ie: Stores, Restaurants etc) will not ever swipe even my debit card first discussed. That goes through Amex or a backup Visa card. Those balances are paid in full monthly via bill pay from the main bank account. My wife also has a similar auxilliary bank account+debit card with minimum balances but generally also uses Amex or the Visa CC on that account. So we structure our finances this way 1. Primary Joint Account + Savings - Pay bills out of only. No ETF allowed or ATM allowed in general. 2. Secondary Joint Account + Savings (both his and hers) - use for special uses, ie: Venmo, CashApp ETF, ATM 3. Primary CC accounts - Amex, Visa (his and hers) - used for day to day purchasing. Paid in full monthly via #1.
    - toast0 3y ago
- cube2222 3y ago
  This is not US-specific, you get the same thing (insurance on purchases, perks for spending money, credit rating) in the EU, just to a much smaller degree. Credit cards also have some benefits in the case of theft over debit cards, because of how they work.
- croutonwagon 3y ago
  I straight use credit cards as insurance, especially against scams. I specifically dont use a debit card at all and dont carry it. I only have it to pull money out and it stays locked in a safe at home. CC's allow me to ensure things like Amazon sellers arent scamming you, or worse, random websites with awful return policies. With a CC merchant that have a motivation to work on your behalf (ie: to get you to pay them for the charges). With a debit card that money is gone and its your responsibility to recoup it or convince your bank to credit you that money back..no thanks.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    Yes, with a debit card in North America that is certainly true. Because banks are shit here.
    - gruez 3y ago
      Not really, because most banks have zero liability policies even though the law doesn't mandate it[1]. That said, the susceptibility to fraud is a fundamental problem with debit cards. When the card gets charged, it's your money that's taken out (or at least put on hold). On a credit card, it's the bank's money. That's an important difference, because even if you get reimbursed for it at the end, you're still without money during the time it takes for your bank to reimburse you. With a credit card you have a few weeks from when the statement is issued to pay. [1] https://usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/visa-chip-technology-consumers/zero-liability-policy.html https://usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/visa-chip-technology-cons...
      - TheRealPomax 3y ago
        > most banks have zero liability policies even though the law doesn't mandate it how is that "not really"? That's "yeah, because"
        hunter2_ 3y ago
        Saying "banks are shit here because they have zero liability policies" isn't too sensical. Saying "banks are not really shit here because they have zero liability policies" makes decent sense.
- mindslight 3y ago
  You haven't taken into account the US ideal of a bifurcated society, and are probably imagining some singular credit card user archtype who relies on the credit and also benefits from the rewards. I personally am able to set my credit cards to autopay in full every month, so CC rewards are just a straightforward discount [0]. And I'd guess anybody that talks about rewards as prudent financial advice is in a similar boat. Whereas for the disempowered person who can only pay part of their balance, rewards are just another cognitive hazard to avoid being swayed by, lest they get milked even harder. As for the original topic, I personally hate seeing the echo of my spending in a monthly statement. It's like making the decision to buy everything twice, even for things that are straightforwardly necessary or prudent. [0] with the tradeoff of the transaction going in more surveillance databases and being solidly connected to my government-issued nym, of course
- gruez 3y ago
  > When I first moved to North America, the idea that a credit card company was allowed to give people cash back, offer insurance, etc. for using their cards seemed like some bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept. Having lived here for decades, it still is. It's like an alcohol shop rewarding its most alcoholic customers by giving them free booze. Should businesses not be allowed to offer perks to their customers in order to get an edge over their competitors? Your example involving an alcohol shop only seems weird because it involves an addictive substance. I doubt people would describe hotel or supermarket loyalty programs as some "bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept".
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    Presumably the analogy is between an addictive substance (alcohol) and an addictive behavior (overspending on credit). Each can be used responsibly or not.
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  There's a liquor store near me that gives out a poker chip for every $25 you spend. You can trade 4 poker chips for a pint in their bar. Is this bad?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  > some random private company decides to rate you Where did you move from that didn't have a private company assess your creditworthiness before issuing you a loan? If each bank/credit card company did so separately, what is the issue with outsourcing it to a specialist?
GravelRocks 3y ago
From the article: "Another study explored shoppers’ preference for untraceable payment methods besides cash. Half the participants were informed they had a $20 bill and a debit card linked to their bank account; the other half were told they had a $20 bill and a prepaid debit card. The researchers found that people with the debit card were more likely to use cash to make a harder-to justify purchase (in this case, a party-sized bag of M&M’s). However, those with a prepaid card used it as often as cash to buy the candy." Doesn't that study control for specifically that counter claim?
JohnFen 3y ago
I carry and use cash by default for general privacy reasons, but also use a card sometimes. In looking at the two purchases, it seems that I'll use a card when the amount of the purchase is high enough that I am not likely to have the cash in my pocket and in urgent (I wanted to say "emergency", but not just actual emergencies) situations. If it's a purchase of under $10 or so, I'm exceptionally unlikely to use a card -- and I suspect that most of my impulse/fun purchases (like a foam finger would be if that was my thing) would be in cash for that reason, not because I felt an guilt about them.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

When I first moved to North America, the idea that a credit card company was allowed to give people cash back, offer insurance, etc. for using their cards seemed like some bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept. Having lived here for decades, it still is. It's like an alcohol shop rewarding its most alcoholic customers by giving them free booze. And then if you sign up for a new card, or you cancel a card, some random private company decides to rate you and then banks look at that private company's data to decide whether or not you're a good little consumer worthy of their business? Credit cards might have been a reasonable idea, but give me direct, free, immediate digital banking and debit cards any day of the week please. The US went "what if we took the worst way to do banking, and made that the default?" and that's why banks don't even handle affordable EFTs themselves. It's the creditcard companies again.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
I feel like it'd be totally normal for any restaurant or store to give a discount to its best customers
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  "You're taking a lot of drugs, we're going to make sure you keep taking them by giving you free drugs" is extremely different from "you're buying a lot of bras, we're going to give you a free bra". This should not even require pointing out, but apparently it does.
  - saltcured 3y ago
    But, you are begging the moral question in assuming that credit cards are obviously like "drugs". For me, a credit card and a debit card are just different accounting systems for the same thing. Either one has zero interest when I manage my expenditures properly and do not carry a debt. Either one could trigger penalties and/or interest if I outspend my budget. I still prefer the credit card because of the frequently mentioned difference in consumer fraud protection. My fear is that the credit card providers will eventually erode their protections to match the debit card rather than the converse. I do NOT want to participate in a system where a chip-secured/card-present transaction is now presumed to be valid and I have a difficult battle to contest a charge. If the card is made that valuable, I would then withdraw from the casual retail marketplace and keep my card locked up in a safe as others have mentioned in other threads.
    - TheRealPomax 3y ago
      Except this isn't about you. There are plenty of folks who can responsible take drugs, too, doesn't make trying to keep folks hooked any less destructive and predatory. All you're being is an outlier in the highly lucrative debt trap that credit cards offer the average credit card owner. Congrats on not falling for it; for you, a thousand people who do.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        I agree, you haven't convincingly made the case that credit is more akin to drugs than a restaurant or a bra store (the 1:1000 statistic in particular is suspect), and it seems your entire point depends on that case being true. Restaurants and bra stores, for example, also want to keep customers hooked. Does that make restaurants & bra stores predatory? Neither they nor credit card companies are forcing their customers to spend more than they can afford.
nfriedly 3y ago
I've lived in the USA my whole life, and I still think it's bizarre and ought to be illegal. It's basically a bribe. The worst part is, as long as it is legal, it just makes sense use it - because most things are the same price either way, so it's essentially a small discount on everything. So, I simultaneously use it regularly and hope it becomes illegal.
- tracker1 3y ago
  I definitely favor using CC, and paying off if only for the 2-5% "cash back" program(s). If I pay cash, I'm effectively paying extra, same for debit. It kind of sucks, and definitely should be better managed. Also, if you let the debt accumulate on a CC (very easy to do), then the interest definitely comes out to more than the rewards in that case.
  - nfriedly 3y ago
    Oh, yeah, CC companies love it when people carry a balance and pay interest. But they're still making money off of someone like me who pays the full balance off each month, because when they give me 2% back, they're charging the merchant 5% or more. It's kind of a heads-they-win, tails-you-loose situation.
    - CuriouslyC 3y ago
      5% processing fees are predatory, and the only people that pay them are mom and pop shops that don't have leverage. Larger merchants are going to be closer to ~1.5%.
      - tracker1 3y ago
        Well, I know I'm getting 5% back on Amazon purchases, so there's some there, there so to speak.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  Without some other changes to the system, like direct consumer banking and fraud protection through the fed, making points illegal would just be a big windfall for credit card companies, as they would remain the most convenient way to pay for things, while being able to keep like 2% more of what they charge merchants.
kldavis4 3y ago
Furthermore, everyone, regardless of whether they are using a credit card, is paying for this in the form of higher prices (unless the vendor has separate cash prices...)
- AlanSE 3y ago
  Higher cash prices are a violation of the card-holder agreement.
  - kldavis4 3y ago
    I think you mean the merchant agreement. There are many gas stations in the area where I live that have different cash prices and still take credit cards, so I'm not sure if this is still a thing. And honestly the fact that they would have that lends support to the fact that all of these credit card "benefits" are subsidized by cash payers.
    - AlanSE 3y ago
      Yes, I should have Googled that before using the wrong word. I am also operating on old information, perhaps the law changed and this it varies by state now.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        AFAIK, this changed in 2010 at a federal level.
  - schnable 3y ago
    This hasn't been true since Dodd-Frank in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durbin_amendment "included provisions which allow retailers to refuse to use credit cards for small purchases and offer incentives for using cash or another type of card."
  - dspillett 3y ago
    kldavis4 was meaning that everyone pays the same higher price to account for the fees present in card payment processing, regardless of whether they are paying in cash, be debit card, or by credit card. > Higher cash prices are a violation of the card-holder agreement. I think what you are meaning is “higher card prices are a violation of the merchant agreement” – so a merchant can't offer different prices for cash payments to account for differences in processing costs or they risk losing their merchant account with the card/payment processing company. In some places this is no longer legal¹, you'd have to check your local legislation to know what applies in that regard where you are. Also the reverse, offering discounts for card use rather than cash², is illegal in some places because it is unfair to those without cards⁴. -- [1] so card processing companies can't (legally) punish merchants for offering a discount for cash [2] usually because the merchant gets a kick-back from the card payment processor, though sometimes these days it is because cash has become the minority payment method³ and vendors would rather only deal with one so want to further discourage cash [3] it is worth noting while discussing potential costs or kick-backs for card payment processing, that for businesses the act of dealing with cash has associated admin and/or costs too [4] which is disproportionately the disadvantaged, because they find it harder to qualify for any card, or can only qualify for one with a monthly charge that they can ill afford
inconceivable 3y ago
no, absolutely no debit cards for me. i protect my cash with multiple layers of protection. if i lose my wallet or my phone the person who ends up with these things will have no clue where most of my money is at. amex takes most if not all the risk in my financial life when it comes to day to day spending. one time i had my wallet stolen and the only thing they could muster was a failed gas station transaction. they didn't even try the ATM card. i use the free points/perks that the irresponsible idiots subsidize to my own advantage. it's linked directly to my amazon account and shows up as a positive cash balance.
- claytonjy 3y ago
  Is your ATM card not also a debit card? Mine have always been both.
  - croutonwagon 3y ago
    mine is but I have a system very similar to the OP you responded to. I do not carry my debit card unless under specific circumstances (ie: When i traveled to Vietnam I carried it). Also that specific debit card is tied to a limited account with a minimum balance. Enough to take cash out but not the main account i pay bills out of etc. Its used specifically as a medium for transactions to services (ie: Venmo, CashApp or ATM withdraws) with a limited balance in case its comprimised. My primary bank account debit card never leaves the safe unless for a specific trip to the ATM etc, even then most of the time i got to a branch directly. Vendors (ie: Stores, Restaurants etc) will not ever swipe even my debit card first discussed. That goes through Amex or a backup Visa card. Those balances are paid in full monthly via bill pay from the main bank account. My wife also has a similar auxilliary bank account+debit card with minimum balances but generally also uses Amex or the Visa CC on that account. So we structure our finances this way 1. Primary Joint Account + Savings - Pay bills out of only. No ETF allowed or ATM allowed in general. 2. Secondary Joint Account + Savings (both his and hers) - use for special uses, ie: Venmo, CashApp ETF, ATM 3. Primary CC accounts - Amex, Visa (his and hers) - used for day to day purchasing. Paid in full monthly via #1.
  - toast0 3y ago
cube2222 3y ago
This is not US-specific, you get the same thing (insurance on purchases, perks for spending money, credit rating) in the EU, just to a much smaller degree. Credit cards also have some benefits in the case of theft over debit cards, because of how they work.
croutonwagon 3y ago
I straight use credit cards as insurance, especially against scams. I specifically dont use a debit card at all and dont carry it. I only have it to pull money out and it stays locked in a safe at home. CC's allow me to ensure things like Amazon sellers arent scamming you, or worse, random websites with awful return policies. With a CC merchant that have a motivation to work on your behalf (ie: to get you to pay them for the charges). With a debit card that money is gone and its your responsibility to recoup it or convince your bank to credit you that money back..no thanks.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  Yes, with a debit card in North America that is certainly true. Because banks are shit here.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Not really, because most banks have zero liability policies even though the law doesn't mandate it[1]. That said, the susceptibility to fraud is a fundamental problem with debit cards. When the card gets charged, it's your money that's taken out (or at least put on hold). On a credit card, it's the bank's money. That's an important difference, because even if you get reimbursed for it at the end, you're still without money during the time it takes for your bank to reimburse you. With a credit card you have a few weeks from when the statement is issued to pay. [1] https://usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/visa-chip-technology-consumers/zero-liability-policy.html https://usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/visa-chip-technology-cons...
    - TheRealPomax 3y ago
      > most banks have zero liability policies even though the law doesn't mandate it how is that "not really"? That's "yeah, because"
      - hunter2_ 3y ago
        Saying "banks are shit here because they have zero liability policies" isn't too sensical. Saying "banks are not really shit here because they have zero liability policies" makes decent sense.
mindslight 3y ago
You haven't taken into account the US ideal of a bifurcated society, and are probably imagining some singular credit card user archtype who relies on the credit and also benefits from the rewards. I personally am able to set my credit cards to autopay in full every month, so CC rewards are just a straightforward discount [0]. And I'd guess anybody that talks about rewards as prudent financial advice is in a similar boat. Whereas for the disempowered person who can only pay part of their balance, rewards are just another cognitive hazard to avoid being swayed by, lest they get milked even harder. As for the original topic, I personally hate seeing the echo of my spending in a monthly statement. It's like making the decision to buy everything twice, even for things that are straightforwardly necessary or prudent. [0] with the tradeoff of the transaction going in more surveillance databases and being solidly connected to my government-issued nym, of course
gruez 3y ago
> When I first moved to North America, the idea that a credit card company was allowed to give people cash back, offer insurance, etc. for using their cards seemed like some bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept. Having lived here for decades, it still is. It's like an alcohol shop rewarding its most alcoholic customers by giving them free booze. Should businesses not be allowed to offer perks to their customers in order to get an edge over their competitors? Your example involving an alcohol shop only seems weird because it involves an addictive substance. I doubt people would describe hotel or supermarket loyalty programs as some "bizarroworld "how is this legal" concept".
- hunter2_ 3y ago
  Presumably the analogy is between an addictive substance (alcohol) and an addictive behavior (overspending on credit). Each can be used responsibly or not.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
There's a liquor store near me that gives out a poker chip for every $25 you spend. You can trade 4 poker chips for a pint in their bar. Is this bad?
HWR_14 3y ago
> some random private company decides to rate you Where did you move from that didn't have a private company assess your creditworthiness before issuing you a loan? If each bank/credit card company did so separately, what is the issue with outsourcing it to a specialist?

GravelRocks 3y ago

From the article: "Another study explored shoppers’ preference for untraceable payment methods besides cash. Half the participants were informed they had a $20 bill and a debit card linked to their bank account; the other half were told they had a $20 bill and a prepaid debit card. The researchers found that people with the debit card were more likely to use cash to make a harder-to justify purchase (in this case, a party-sized bag of M&M’s). However, those with a prepaid card used it as often as cash to buy the candy." Doesn't that study control for specifically that counter claim?

JohnFen 3y ago

I carry and use cash by default for general privacy reasons, but also use a card sometimes. In looking at the two purchases, it seems that I'll use a card when the amount of the purchase is high enough that I am not likely to have the cash in my pocket and in urgent (I wanted to say "emergency", but not just actual emergencies) situations. If it's a purchase of under $10 or so, I'm exceptionally unlikely to use a card -- and I suspect that most of my impulse/fun purchases (like a foam finger would be if that was my thing) would be in cash for that reason, not because I felt an guilt about them.