Ansett Nostalgic
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
- Posts
- 489
We should start a political movement to fight these proposals. Something similar was done to stop a similar proposal in the US not long ago.
Best to have the price that is marked on the goods purchased is the price charged by the merchant to the consumer. Silly to have surcharges on the advertised prices (e.g. cc-surcharges, weekend surcharges - in the latter case, the business simply should have a different menu for the weekend if it wants to have higher prices then).Whilst I have benefitted from SUBs myself, I'm not surprised they will get less. I would personally prefer no surcharges at the expense of large SUBs!
There is a legal exemption in the law for weekend and public holiday surcharges.Best to have the price that is marked on the goods purchased is the price charged by the merchant to the consumer. Silly to have surcharges on the advertised prices (e.g. cc-surcharges, weekend surcharges - in the latter case, the business simply should have a different menu for the weekend if it wants to have higher prices then).
Maybe the opposition party would call itself the "stop sneaky surcharges party" and would perhaps be in coalition with the "prevent payment processing fees party"We should start a political movement to fight these proposals. Something similar was done to stop a similar proposal in the US not long ago.
Agree, when surcharges were first allowed the argument was that the banks had to invest a considerable amount in the infrastructure to support cards and it was fair to recoup some of that expenditure.That's true, although when the made that move in 2003, cash was the main form of payment. That has change in the last 20 years, to the extent that many people don't even carry cash now (and thus can't avoid a surcharge).
While I don't agree with what they did, it seems reasonable to reconsider the situation given the way in which most payments are now made by card.
The ACCC probably had a pretty big say in this decision as well. There was a feeling that no surcharging was preventing consumers from 'seeing' the true costs of using different card schemes. It was hoped that allowing surcharging would mean that businesses passes on the costs to the consumer, so they would choose the cheapest form of payment, or pay a fee for the convenience or rewards of a more expensive card. However, much has been done in the area since then. One is that surcharging rates were often uniform, so it ended up just being a blanket 1.5% charge for any card, rather than say being most expensive for AMEX and then very cheap for Eftpos for example. Obviously, that doesn't incentivise much, but just punishes the use of cards. Then, RBA did some work with capping interchange fees and least cost routing, so the actual cost of accepting card on the business side is much lower than in 2003.Agree, when surcharges were first allowed the argument was that the banks had to invest a considerable amount in the infrastructure to support cards and it was fair to recoup some of that expenditure.
The RBA did consider allowing the continuation of differential surcharges for different card types, however simplifying the system was considered a higher priority. (page 23)If someone only has a credit card because they need it to make ends meet, extend payment terms, etc., then they are probably not overly concerned with rewards and such, and ideally the RBA or whoever else needs to will do what they can to minimize or remove any surcharges for these folks and/or for basic card products.
- Removing surcharging would substantially simplify enforcement and lessen the cost of compliance in the card payments system as merchants would not need to engage with the potential complexities of calculating their costs of acceptance. Identifying the presence of surcharges would be much easier than assessing excessive surcharging under the current surcharging framework that requires knowledge of each merchant’s cost of acceptance. By contrast, retaining the surcharging framework in some form via Options 1 or 2 would require higher costs of compliance and enforcement of the framework.
- Removing surcharging would be less costly for PSPs to implement and less disruptive to existing business models than only removing debit surcharges, which would otherwise increase costs in the card payments system.
The potential illegality of surcharges for credit cards in Australia might have strong implications for FF points. In the event retailers look to other payment systems which have cheaper transaction fees there may be pressure on credit cards to drop fees. This will have an immediate effect of either reducing the amount of points they allocate per transaction or (I think more likely) a pretty sharp devaluation of CC points. For those already with points, fewer earned per transaction would be by far the better outcome but I feel far less likely.This strikes me as potentially quite significant for the points space in Australia.
It is going to put pressure on points issuers to justify the surcharges that credit card transactions will attract if debit cards become fee free.
I'm curious to know how AFF and parent companies feel about this topic considering it would surely take a large hit to their revenue steams if credit card sign up bonuses are reduced due to a reduction in interchange fees and money floating around the system to pay for reward points etc.
Whilst I have benefitted from SUBs myself, I'm not surprised they will get less. I would personally prefer no surcharges at the expense of large SUBs!Rewards can be devalued a whole lot more.
These are currently what are considered the best credit card sign-up bonuses in the UK:
View attachment 457943
Behind a paywall unfortunately, and the 12 ft ladder is broken
![]()
Warning to Australians who use credit cards to earn airline points
The generosity of rewards schemes could be scaled back if a proposal to ban surcharges for card transactions goes ahead.www.smh.com.au
I agree completely. IMO, frequent flyer benefits should mostly come from frequent flying. This credit card sign up bonus thing has got completely out of control. Just look at the USA.Whilst I have benefitted from SUBs myself, I'm not surprised they will get less. I would personally prefer no surcharges at the expense of large SUBs!
That is true. The easier you make it for people to earn points the harder it is to find a reward seat (even economy).I agree completely. IMO, frequent flyer benefits should mostly come from frequent flying. This credit card sign up bonus thing has got completely out of control