[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)

[vel0city]

Not all debit transactions require PIN inputs here in the US. Many can also just go through the credit card networks. For example, all my debit cards in my wallet right now have a VISA logo on them and can run through as if charging a VISA card. I've had other accounts and banks in the past which went through the Mastercard network. However, I do not get any of the extra protections, the money comes straight out of my checking accounts.

On top of that, I can use the card online using the same kind of credit card numbers. This does not require a PIN.

[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

[phil21]

By “freebies” I meant a chargeback with few questions asked. As in they trust my side of the story and immediately refund the money. I’ve done it maybe three times in my life for exceptional circumstances where vendors either made a billing mistake they refused to correct, or engaged in outright fraud.

Other folks might have just as legitimate reasons to make a chargeback, but due to a low internal “customer value score” they will need to jump through a bunch of hoops a more “valuable” customer would not for the exact same situation.

I tend to agree chargebacks are taken advantage of far more than they should be - but my point is that the chargeback experience is going to vary drastically by demographic.

I was originally interested in Bitcoin 15 years ago because of the fraudulent chargeback problem. It’s interesting how times have slowly changed and chargebacks are starting to shift towards a benefit for the privileged due to the sheer amount of abuse from so many people. Basically we decided to tie them to a hidden credit score.

[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.

[vel0city]

> But most debit cards cannot be used with just the numbers.

Every debit card I have in my wallet right now can be used anywhere a VISA is accepted using the same kind of number as a VISA card. I can go to any website that accepts VISA as payment, type in that same 16-digit number as any other kind of credit card, expiration, and CVV and essentially empty it out in a few minutes.

This has been true across many different banks. I have had ATM-only style cards issued in the past but I haven't encountered one of those in over 20 years.

[xp84]

Maybe the terminals don't use the strip, but the cards still have them, so they can still be skimmed, and at least used online, as well as in other parts of the world that do have the magnetic readers.

I think it's possible to write the number to the strip of your cloned card with the bits set to say this is NOT a chip card, so that a terminal won't say "Use chip" -- but clearly the issuer could have the opportunity to notice it odd that the transaction is using the stripe and hopefully subject it to harsher fraud heuristics.