[xp84]

(Frame of reference: US only) That's a shame, given 18-25 is just the age where a credit card skimmer or online card fraud causing a big fraudulent withdrawal from your checking account, and weeks of waiting to get it back, could be devastating. This has happened to people in my family (likely from gas stations) but we only use credit cards except to pull cash from ATMs, so we only suffer a temporary dip in our available credit line while they investigate and do not have to pay the disputed charges in the meantime.

I know people with terrible credit may have problems getting a credit card, and others may have trouble not treating a credit line as spendable beyond their means, but everyone else should keep the 'debit card' at home or at least confined to their wallet.

[reaperducer]

fraudulent withdrawal from your checking account, and weeks of waiting to get it back

I've had this happen to me twice in about 25 years. Neither bank made me wait weeks.

The most recent one (with a giant megabank) issued a provisional credit in under an hour.

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never actually been through this and are just apeing what other people say online.

U.S. banks largely give debit cards the same protections as credit cards for at least the last 15 years.

[phil21]

> There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who have never actually been through this and are just apeing what other people say online.

I've been through it personally and with friends.

My experience was basically yours. I am a relatively highly paid professional with a large amount of assets with my bank. I get pretty good service, even at my giant national retail bank. I call, make a demand, they tend to just do it without too many questions.

My more low income friends have also gone through it, and I've assisted with them since they were panic'ing. Their experience is absolutely nothing like mine. Every single one spent days to weeks being sandbagged by sometimes the same bank I dealt with on my issue.

Your experience will very greatly depending on how "valuable" of a customer your bank feels you are to them.

> U.S. banks largely give debit cards the same protections as credit cards for at least the last 15 years.

On paper, sure. In practice, no. Funds frozen during an "investigation" matter a whole lot more when it's your money vs. a made up credit limit number that wasn't real to begin with.

[yonaguska]

I have a friend that got a call/notification that her card was being used suspiciously. It may not have been from the bank. I'm not sure what exactly happened, but then very shortly after, someone else got her newly issued debit card and then used it at an atm in her area. The bank didn't believe that she wasn't involved. And despite filing a police report and giving them all the information that she could, she was out 2.5 grand, which was a big deal for her. BofA if anyone is wondering.

[hvb2]

Every atm has a camera... So they could just check that.

Also, that means the person had the PIN too? That becomes harder to defend

[yonaguska]

They got her new card and activated it, so they set the pin. I wish I had details because it seemed very sophisticated. So she couldn't have been the only one hit by the scam.

[hvb2]

Yikes... That's an interesting angle. Not sure how you would intercept both, I would assume/hope they would be sent separately preferably using different methods

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

The key with debit cards is the incentive misalignment. With credit, it’s the bank that loses out, not you. With debit, it’s you. Until the consequences are equaled by legislation, there’s no world where they get equal treatment by the bank

[maest]

With credit, it's the merchant who loses out. They get bullied by the credit card provider to eat losses.

Relatedly, the credit card system is truly a tragedy of the commons situation.

It's a ~2% drag on the economy for what? For some silly points with constrained value and an excuse to not build better financial infrastructure.

The frustrating thing is that, given the current equilibrium, you're a sucker for not using a credit card - you end up subsidising those who do.

[testaccount28]

it's transaction fraud insurance. like any insurance, you pay a small amount regularly, and in return get protection in case of large sporadic loss.

points are just premiums: some insurance consumers are a greater risk, and so pay more.

any convenience features are built on top of the insurance product: _because_ all players are covered, _therefore_ i can make online purchases. _since_ (i have a justified expectation that) i am not liable for fraudulent use of my account number, _therefore_ i can read it to a customer service rep over the phone.

we can of course debate whether 2% is a good price for this coverage! but there must be some price paid here -- if the insurance broker doesn't collect it, the scammers will. this, after all, is the real tragedy.

[vl]

What 2% drag? Aren't you using credit card with 2% bonus? Just see it as 2% reduction in prices.

[hvb2]

My friend, as a rule of thumb, every additional player im a transaction takes a cut.

So assuming the rest is all the same, you just paid exactly what you would've paid with a debit card. Because the merchant had to raise prices to accommodate the fee. And that's with the credit card company not taking a cut and we all know that's not true.

[lotsofpulp]

The merchant chose to not offer a lower debit card / cash price because the merchant bets that people will pay a higher price if they use credit cards, so the merchant incentivizes credit card usage by asking for the same price for credit card and non credit card payment.

There are merchants that do not do this, such as Target, which charges 5% to use a credit card. Insurers/tutors/daycares/schools/healthcare providers/contractors/gas stations/restaurants/governments/utilities are also known to frequently charge more for credit card payments.

Any seller can choose to offer a lower price for debit card / ACH / Zelle payments if they want to.

[BenjiWiebe]

Unfortunately a 2% rewards card usually costs the merchant more then 2%.

High tier cards are more expensive to accept, unless your merchant rate is a high enough flat rate that it covers the average and then some.

[maest]

Even ignoring the cut taken by the credit card issuer, why do I have to go through some random card to get a 2% discount, when prices could just be 2% lower across the board by default?

[anonymars]

To add on to that: if someone fraudulently uses your credit card, it's the issuer's money that's now missing and they need to get it back. If someone fraudulently uses your debit card, it's your money that's now missing that you need to get back. Hopefully things don't start overdrawing your account in the meantime.

[hvb2]

My experience with disputes isn't that....

Yes we'll open a dispute. Yes we'll give you a credit immediately. But then we just take the sellers word for it that they're trying to make it right and charge you anyway.

This is my one singular experience with a dispute but that's with a big bank getting almost all of my transactions over the course of years....

[maest]

How come this is not a problem in Europe? Credit cards make same promises there, but usage is greatly diminished.

[hibikir]

A very big percentage of credit card expenses in the US come from cards with rewards programs, so you get money/gift cards/travel discounts in exchange for using the credit card instead of the debit card. A lot of this is funded from much higher interchange fees: It's ultimately the merchant you buy from funding most of the rewards. Since those very high fees are nowadays illegal in the EU, European credit cards cannot have this kind of generosity, and incentives are very different.

[prattmic]

How does this work when using a US credit card in the EU? I assume the merchant still pays the lower interchange fee, so are the banks just betting that customers won’t do a large proportion of spending abroad?

[pc86]

They might, and it's good they do, but they're not legally required to in quite the same way that they are with credit cards. If someone pulls $10k out of your BofA account, they're completely within their rights to do basically nothing about it.

[vel0city]

I had a friend who had their checking wiped out by debit card fraud. Their bank issued them a provisional credit of $150. So nice. Too bad rent was due in two days and was considerably more than $150.

Slowly over the next three months the charges were slowly reversed. In the end the bank didn't reverse all of them, but my friend did get most of her money back.

[thegrim000]

It's extremely common advice to not keep large sums of cash sitting in your checking account. With capital one (and others) you can just open a free savings account, keep the bulk in there (if you don't want to invest it instead), which earns an actual interest, and then there's never a "big" amount of vulnerable cash sitting in your checking account. There's free/instant transfers between savings and checking when you need to move more into your checking.

[pants2]

Not a great solution to constantly have to top up your checking account with some amount between "I need this much to pay my bills" and "losing this amount would devastating" which for many people has quite some overlap

[vel0city]

If most of your income comes from salary/wages, just have the paycheck first hit your normal checking account first and then have scheduled deposits from there into savings accounts someplace else. You generally have enough money in the account to cover your monthly stuff plus a bit of buffer, but have the pile of cash elsewhere in case something happens.

This way you're not actively having to top off your normal spending account, but at the same time have a backstop in case that active account gets hit by fraud or whatever.

I'd suggest protecting yourself even further and having those accounts be split across two different banks. This way if one of your bank credentials gets hacked or you have some issue with the bank you at least have a chance of still having an account with cash someplace else to cover the short term.

[xp84]

Highly recommend this approach. My personal approach has been, for almost 20 years, to have one checking account as Schwab, and the other at a credit union. Schwab has superior offerings for most things, refunds all ATM fees worldwide, and is easy to get on the phone if I have any issue, and the credit union can handle those once-in-5-years (for me) kind of in-person situations like getting a cashier's check, or if I wanted $500 in $100 bills for a gift, etc.

[pitaj]

You can pay bills from your savings account with ACH in the US.

[xp84]

Interesting perspective. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the pitch here would be:

1. Paycheck DD → straight to savings

2. "Spending money" for in-person transactions → transfer periodically to checking

3. Use debit card to spend from checking.

That's an interesting idea. Actually what is intriguing to me is another angle: I'd still never consider spending with debit. But my problem is that it's essentially impossible to get an ATM card that isn't a debit card anymore, meaning if I want to be able to use an ATM, I have to carry this stupid card around that would be easy to use to drain my checking account. With your approach, if I can get a savings account that is not linked to a checking account, I could use that as my default place where I pay my rent and credit card bills from. But it's a big if, because a lot of savings accounts have limits on how many withdrawals they can have per month, probably a residue of that regulation that someone else said was recently repealed.

[vel0city]

While Regulation D was lifted a few years ago, there are often still restrictions to the number of withdrawals one can do from a lot of savings accounts.

[silisili]

I wish I could scream this from the rooftops. People should keep their debit cards locked/frozen, and only use them to get money from ATMs when needed.

All other spending should go onto credit cards, for numerous reasons that have been bought up throughout this thread.

[stackskipton]

Most banks/CU will issue you ATM only card that cannot be used a credit card. Might require some wrangling with the bank.

[rsingel]

These are increasingly harder to get, sadly. My credit union won't anymore. I have to keep a debit card locked

[hvb2]

Stay on your own rooftop please. That is a very US only view.

There's nothing wrong with debit cards being used.

If I can shout one thing back up to your rooftop:

Why on earth do your transactions cost 2 or 3 percent. For what? For basically verifying an RFID chip and adding a single entry to a ledger?

Don't say you're getting it back with points or whatever because we all know that the credit card company won't be going broke so that cut is coming from somewhere. And in the end that's always the consumer

[silisili]

Of course it's a US view. It's a US site and the OP even prefaced it as such. Does every reply need to do the same?

Retailers(in the US) typically eat the cost. Some industries(in the US), like gun shops, are up front about charging more for credit card payments. Most companies(in the US) just see it as cost of doing business.

Points have next to nothing to do with why you should always use credit cards(in the US). There are legal consumer protection reasons. The points are just an optional perk.

[hvb2]

> Retailers(in the US) typically eat the cost

This is what I really have a problem with. It feels so incomprehensible to me that, assuming you're an adult, you can think this.

It's just a cost, if that cost didn't exist then either the price would be lower or the margin would be higher. In the end you're paying for it. You're the one exchanging money for a good/service.

This is proven by your other comment about how some sectors give you the option. I would rather have that option because those legal protections are useless for the majority of purchases. Good luck disputing that burrito you bought or those groceries. In such transactions you're basically just inviting a company to take a cut for 0 added benefit (aside from points).

[vel0city]

> those legal protections are useless for the majority of purchases

I think you're misunderstanding the protections we're talking about.

When someone steals my credit card and spends $10k on it, I just dispute it. The charges don't show up on my bill until after the investigation happens, and chances are it will be found in my favor. I continue having my cash in my bank account. Life continues with no changes.

When someone steals my debit card and spends all my cash, I dispute it. They begin their investigation. This means I'm without all my cash for days, maybe weeks, while they do their investigation. Now I can't pay rent. Now I can't buy groceries. My life is pretty messed up at this point.

I've seen it happen to several people personally. It happens all the time.

[hvb2]

> When someone steals my debit card and spends all my cash, I dispute it.

You gave them your PIN too? Yes, then you have something you explain.

Without it no one is spending anything beyond the tap to pay amount which would typically be low amount (double digits)

[xp84]

You're confusing costs with pricing. Retailers set the price they show customers to what the market will bear and not a penny less, regardless of their costs. Sometimes they make money. Sometimes they even lose money on an item for strategic reasons. It's only competition that forces prices down though.

So, someone could open up a cash-only chain store and have lower costs that could allow them to price things a couple percent lower, but the absence of that business suggests that they know nobody wants to go to the trouble of paying cash anymore for a savings of a few bucks a month.

I expect that if credit card fees went to 0 tomorrow, no prices would change (though I'd lose thousands in value I get from points each year). Many retailers like grocery operate on thin margins already, so they'd be especially eager to keep the block of cheese at $2.69 instead of dropping it by a few cents.

And even if you could prove that eventually some retailer would give pass on that savings to customers, I still would rather use a card than deal with cash. And stores know that they sell more than they would if (1) everyone had to carry cash everywhere they go and also (2) if people couldn't spend on credit. That's what the retailers are spending 3% on.

[phil21]

> In such transactions you're basically just inviting a company to take a cut for 0 added benefit

Simply not true. Every transaction with a card carries some risk of those cards details being leaked or even an innocent error being made by a cashier or clerk fat-fingering things. Some more than others, and you could maybe argue the risk is minimal - but it's there. Especially in the US where card transactions are less secure on average regardless of debit or credit.

Credit carries significantly more consumer protection in the US. Debit in theory has all sorts of legal protection, but as the other commenter states - in practice it's really spotty.

Even in your scenario of a burrito or grocery purchase credit is going to be much better. So long as you don't make a habit of chargebacks they are typically pretty automatic for most card issuers so long as you present a compelling case. If you're a "valued customer" you tend to get a few freebies before they start to really demand evidence of fraud for such things.

[hvb2]

> If you're a "valued customer" you tend to get a few freebies before they start to really demand evidence of fraud for such things.

Just saying, your 'few freebies' is where you rip off a merchant. That's pretty much theft at that point

[silisili]

That's a fair argument, and if all companies decided to pass the costs directly on to the user at checkout time, the conversation/advice would probably be a lot different.

For whatever reason most do not, so it's advantageous to use the one with better legal protections. It's not only about purchase protection/disputes, but liability and timelines when/if someone steals your card info and makes a bunch of fraudulent charges. The more places you use a card, the higher the chance that info will get skimmed or stolen.

Luckily, while behind, most places in the US have moved to tap to pay which helps a lot with POS skimming. But it only takes one bad employee to photo or copy your card info, or one poorly configured webstore, to leak your information and use it for online purchases. My most recent credit card doesn't even have numbers or an expiration printed on it, for that reason.

[hvb2]

But most debit cards cannot be used with just the numbers. So I can give you my debit card and you can't do anything with it.

You typically need a PIN for any decent purchase. Sure you can tap to pay but that wouldn't be a lot of money fast as it asks for a PIN above a certain amount. That problem of copying the card data is only because it's a credit card and that's all you need to make a purchase.

As to skimming, in Europe there was some active skimming going on in the early 2000s which is why I can't even recall seeing a terminal here that still issues the magnetic strip.

[aprilthird2021]

Most 18-22 year olds are living alone for the first time and have just set up their first bank account and are spending all their time focused on studies and trying to get an internship, so they aren't focused on the difference between credit card and debit card, plus they don't spend a lot out anyways

[elzbardico]

Really, this is a non-existing problem in most places outside the US. Are you still using magnetic stripes?????

[lotsofpulp]

It's a non existent problem in the US, too. The internet likes to blow things out of proportion, but not only are pretty much all payments made with tap to pay for many years now, even when it was magnetic strip, the incidence rate was miniscule.

[vel0city]

> It's a non existent problem in the US

Dead wrong. Its still a big problem in the US.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/payments-system-resea...

> In 2023, 21 percent of U.S. consumers experienced financial fraud: 17 percent of all consumers (or 18 percent of consumers who own credit cards) experienced credit card fraud, and 8 percent of all consumers experienced non-credit card fraud (with some consumers experiencing both types of fraud).

Sure, we've now moved to do tap to pay and chipped cards for a lot of transactions. However, this is useless for online orders which just requires knowledge of the magic numbers which all are helpfully printed on the face of the card you hand to people, tell over the phone, or type into websites.

We need to move towards actually secure online payment systems.

[elzbardico]

Wireless POS card terminals are incredibly cheap, why people need to hand their cards to someone?

Waiter presents me the machine, I insert my card or wave it over the NFC reader of the machine, if I insert the card, machine always ask for pin, if I use NFC, it will ask sometimes based on some obscure criteria.

For really expensive transactions, eventually, I may get a notification on my bank app in the phone, asking me if I am really, really doing this, I authenticate with biometrics and click ok.

it is not that hard.

[vel0city]

> Wireless POS card terminals are incredibly cheap, why people need to hand their cards to someone?

Lots of restaurants and bars have been slow to adopt new systems. While many have moved towards waiters having portable machines and can process the payments table-side, probably half the restaurants and bars I go to expect the waiter/bartender to handle the card.

Few banks/merchants actually require a PIN for transactions most of the time. I couldn't even tell you what the PIN is on most of my credit cards, its never come up on a lot of them even with $1,000+ purchases.

[xp84]

We are moving towards it... if every site accepted both Apple Pay and Google Pay we'd be there. If we got there, you could make the case that we ought to all be able to file all the numbers off of our cards and never need to give them to anyone. But the problem is that even with 99% adoption, those secrets still have to be printed on the cards and used some percentage of the time to support the laggards -- and it only takes one hack or phish to defraud you.

[vel0city]

> if every site accepted both Apple Pay and Google Pay we'd be there.

So add another layer of duopoly and middlemen to the way I pay for things. No thanks!

What happens when Google permabans me because I failed to pay a $0.50 cloud bill a few months ago and I got forever locked out of my iCloud account? Guess I can't buy anything online again ever.

Don't get me wrong I've used these for payment processing before, but I'd really prefer some kind of more standardized way of doing payments directly instead of adding yet another middleman. I already have a secure token device with me (the credit card), I should just be able to pay directly with it through the website.

[elzbardico]

I use Apple Pay a lot, but because I am already carrying a phone and in my country my driver license can be government app in my phone, thus, I don't even carry a wallet most of the time.

But I would hate not to have the option of using my bank card by itself. When I travel, I always carry my wallet and a couple of card, because your phone can die, be stolen, you can be out of charge, etc...

[tecleandor]

That's way less common in Europe. Most places are chip and pin or NFC and that limits skimming quite a lot.

[BenjiWiebe]

Thankfully the US is very slowly catching up. We actually have NFC at most payment terminals already.

Even better, our small town (pop. 100) gas station upgraded their pumps a while back, and they have NFC! Finally my normal fill-up location is skimmer-resistant. Or is it skimmer-proof?

[consp]

> Or is it skimmer-proof?

Put a reader with a shield on the pad and a new pad on top and a small terminal in somewhere out of sight. You won't know the difference. Requires infrastructure though so it is a bit more complicated and a lot more noticeable. Likely used the non-pin entry limit which is always reset after you payed a large amount and had to enter your pin. Not like the strip readers of olden days.

Anecdote: We had a "chip charge" system where you put money in your card via a ATM like device and those sometimes had strange "extensions" in front of it which read your chip while you charged it and immediately took the money. People often don't know what too look for when it comes to skimming devices and with tech it may look like a strange but genuine device.

[BenjiWiebe]

Wouldn't that only be able to steal money one time though? Whereas a traditional skimmer captures the card number, and can charge the card indefinitely until the card is reported stolen and replaced.

[xp84]

You can still skim the magstripe with a skimmer over a chip reader, even if the original reader doesn't read the stripe. Then you can use that number online, probably to buy gaming currencies, giftcards to flip, etc.

[raverbashing]

Ah but you see, chip cards were a French invention so obviously the US is going to turn their head from it and pretend it doesn't exist for more than 20 yrs

[what]

How so? My card was skimmed and I had only tapped it in maybe a half dozen locations. Never swiped it or inserted it anywhere or used it online.

[vel0city]

You go to any restaurants where you handed the card to the waiter?

[margalabargala]

Maybe you waved it in front of a hidden camera?

[jms703]

Yes, in the US, if you are disciplined to not spend beyond your means, credit cards are much safer to use than debit. Sadly, the last I checked, financial discipline is not taught in our public schools.

[otabdeveloper4]

In the rest of the world (not the US), "credit card" == "debit card without zero overdraft limit".