3 ms·

A tax by any other name... is still a tax. That it's levied by our financial elite and not by the government is the more concerning part.

by r00fus 3y ago

thedaly 3y ago
It isn't a tax if you can opt out of paying it. The part I find most concerning is the shift away from accepting cash at various retailers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 3y ago
  It's still a tax even if you don't incur it by avoiding the activity.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - refurb 3y ago
    I mean “free delivery” that you don’t use is baked into the price. “Buy now pay later”, “park and pick up”, etc, etc are all things you pay for even if you don’t use it. Those aren’t taxes.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    No, it's absolutely not. That's an insane definition that treats every platform or distributor's cut as a tax. Visa is taking a fee for the use of their service, which you are not compelled to use.
    - r00fus 3y ago
      Merchants sure as hell have very little choice to participate in the Visa/Mastercard payment networks since so many of their paying customers are cash-free these days. It’s not a tax on the end consumer. It’s a tax on businesses.
      - xnx 3y ago
        Consumer ultimately pays all costs.
chii 3y ago
which is why i prefer not to call it a tax, but a toll, or a levy. Or extortion money, if less charitable. I also always wonder what stops competition from encroaching on these credit card fees and reduce it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Because the sellers benefit from people using credit to purchase goods and services, because more people are willing to pay more when they use credit. If that were not true, then sellers have long had the option of refusing payment via credit card, or at least offering discounts for debit card. But they do not, because overall, they earn more money from the higher prices that their customers are willing to pay with credit cards than the cost of the credit card processing fees.

A tax by any other name... is still a tax. That it's levied by our financial elite and not by the government is the more concerning part.

by r00fus 3y ago

A tax by any other name... is still a tax. That it's levied by our financial elite and not by the government is the more concerning part.

thedaly 3y ago

It isn't a tax if you can opt out of paying it. The part I find most concerning is the shift away from accepting cash at various retailers.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 3y ago
It's still a tax even if you don't incur it by avoiding the activity.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 3y ago
  I mean “free delivery” that you don’t use is baked into the price. “Buy now pay later”, “park and pick up”, etc, etc are all things you pay for even if you don’t use it. Those aren’t taxes.
- throw10920 3y ago
  No, it's absolutely not. That's an insane definition that treats every platform or distributor's cut as a tax. Visa is taking a fee for the use of their service, which you are not compelled to use.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Merchants sure as hell have very little choice to participate in the Visa/Mastercard payment networks since so many of their paying customers are cash-free these days. It’s not a tax on the end consumer. It’s a tax on businesses.
    - xnx 3y ago
      Consumer ultimately pays all costs.

chii 3y ago

which is why i prefer not to call it a tax, but a toll, or a levy. Or extortion money, if less charitable. I also always wonder what stops competition from encroaching on these credit card fees and reduce it.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Because the sellers benefit from people using credit to purchase goods and services, because more people are willing to pay more when they use credit. If that were not true, then sellers have long had the option of refusing payment via credit card, or at least offering discounts for debit card. But they do not, because overall, they earn more money from the higher prices that their customers are willing to pay with credit cards than the cost of the credit card processing fees.