[jdiez17]

> what's not to like?

Well, the predatory business model, for one. The reason your credit card company can offer you "better consumer protection" and other benefits is because they count on a percentage of people not paying off their debt in time (and thus making more money out of them).

Also, I personally wouldn't want "better consumer protection" to be mediated by a private company. That should just be the default.

[fredoralive]

In a UK context, the "better consumer protection" comes from the Consumer Credit Act 1974, not the banks goodwill.

(Although the time my debit card did get stolen somehow, my bank did refund out of goodwill presmably becuase they didn't want to lose a customer).

[rkangel]

You actually get much better payment protection from a debit card than people are generally aware of. In the UK, the difference between a debit card and credit card is actually not very big due to legal protections (although you might have an easier time claiming off your credit card).

[HatchedLake721]

You sure? Section 75 is not equivalent to requesting a chargeback.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-7...

[PeterisP]

" the time my debit card did get stolen somehow, my bank did refund out of goodwill" - IMHO not, depending on when that happened, the bank would not have a choice because of EU payment service directive which extends similar (but not exactly the same) protections to all payment instruments including debit cards.

[chrisseaton]

> Also, I personally wouldn't want "better consumer protection" to be mediated by a private company. That should just be the default.

You’re confused - in the UK the better consumer protection with a credit card is the law. On debit cards it’s at their discretion.

[stillicidious]

Visa debit also has transaction fees, often fixed to the same as credit for small vendors. Avoiding credit cards does not fix that.

[ericd]

It's not necessarily predatory, so much as they take a couple percent of everything that flows through them. Also, they don't take the hit on chargebacks, the merchant does. Those two things cover purchase protection just fine without relying on people getting hit with high interest rates.

[iampims]

And merchant add 2% to their base price which amounts to everyone not using a credit card “subsidizing” the benefits to all credit card users.

[robjan]

The cost of handling cash is similar to handling a credit card transaction

[Symbiote]

And the cost of handling a debit card transaction is less than either of these.

In bits of Europe where it's allowed (like here in Denmark), it's not unusual for shops to add a percentage to the total for payments by local credit card, business credit card and/or foreign credit card. I haven't yet seen a shop with a different price for cash vs debit cards.

[refurb]

No, it’s not like at some point merchants said “oh yeah, let’s add 2% to account for credit card processing fees”.

The appeal of credit cards is higher volume - more purchases because people can put it on credit, it’s more convenient, etc. That’s why you’ll see even roadside fruit stands offer credit card payments.

Plus stores are in competition with each other (to varying degrees). Some will choose to absorb the entire 2% or a part of it since, in their mind, it’s a net positive trade off.

It’s like saying a 5% increase in property taxes are just passed through as a rent increase. It all depends on the market. The right answer is something between 0-100% is passed through.