[acabrahams]

"Also, the sooner "pull" payments become a rare exception, the better."

Credit card charges that are pull-based are generally a bad thing, but not all pull-based payments are bad for consumers. For example, the Direct Debit scheme in the UK requires the consumer to be notified 5 working days before payment is taken, and the consumer has the right to get a refund from the bank without dispute; it is then the bank's job to go and get the money bank from the merchant. This latter feature in particular is important, and should be implemented for credit card pre-authorisations as well.

[icebraining]

I don't see how is that direct debit system better for consumers than what we have here in Portugal, where the consumer is the one initiating the debit authorization (using a code provided by the merchant).

[mnw21cam]

Because it would be unfortunate if one were to accidentally forget to authorise one's mortgage payment to be paid for a few months, only to find oneself repossessed. Direct debit allows a regular bill payment to be forgotten about, but with the protection that you are informed well in advance of any changes (for instance if the mortgage interest rate goes up).

[icebraining]

If your house gets repossessed after missing a payment, you have something very wrong with your legal system. Not even my $5 VPS gets repossessed after missing a payment.

[ubercow13]

The point is it gives you all the same powers with the added convenience of being able to passively approve payments. Active direct debit agreements can be viewed through banks' online banking services and you can cancel them with one click. I don't really see how your system is better for consumers.