The Debit Card Fee Debacle: More Totally Foreseeable Unintended Consequences

In today's Wall Street Journal, more tales of the totally foreseeable unintended consequences of regulating debit card and banking fees:

Just two months after one of the most controversial parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law was enacted, some merchants and consumers are starting to pay the price.

Many business owners who sell low-priced goods like coffee and candy bars now are paying higher rates—not lower—when their customers use debit cards for transactions that are less than roughly $10.

That is because credit-card companies used to give merchants discounts on debit-card fees they pay on small transactions. But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts.

Coffee shop owner Jason Scherr "is weighing whether the expense of an ATM would justify its installation. If he gets one, he says he plans to 'stick a sign on top of it, calling it a "Durbin ATM."'" in honor of the main proponent of the amendment that capped debit card fees, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Reason hates to say it, but we told you so.

Comments

[P Brooks]

Meanwhile, the President was just whining petulantly about evil Republicans blocking his nominee for Consumer Protection Czar.

[Paul]

There are those...

[WTF]

Alt text fail. It should have said 'Dick'.

[sarcasmic]

Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

[protefeed]

If the people causing the consequences are economically illiterate enough to not be able to foresee the consequences, they ARE unintended consequences for them -- but not for those who can figure out the likely outcomes.

Intentions are a state of mind -- objective reality is not.

[anonymous commenter some guy]

So the trick is to just be willfully ignorant and then claim you didn't know any better. I'll be a politician in no time, now that I know their secret!

[Brandon]

They are plausibly deniable. And blamable on "corporate greed."

[Juice]

This is the reply I get in other comments sections and message boards about this. It's not the fault of the law maker if a company doesn't just eat the cost of the law, it's the company's fault.

[R C Dean]

This was all predicted at the time. No one, no matter how stupid, can say they weren't foreseeable.

And if someone tells you "Hey, if you do X, then Y will happen" and you go ahead and do X, then you intended Y to happen.

[sarcasmic]

Consequences of shitty legislation create an opportunity to pass more shitty legislation, the consequences of which create an opportunity to pass more shitty legislation, repeat ad nauseam.

[Tulpa]

And if someone tells you "Hey, if you do X, then Y will happen" and you go ahead and do X, then you intended Y to happen.

So unless Bush and all war supporters were totally ignorant about the "collateral damage" nearly certain to be produced by air strikes, that means he and they intended to kill innocent civilians.

[Juice]

They certainly didn't have many qualms about it.

[robc]

Yes.

It is an "accepted" part of war.

They hoped they got out of the way, but they intended to kill everyone in the way of the air strikes, men, women, children.

[Anna Keppa]

Do you have any idea how much higher "collateral damage" was during WWII, when we sent hundreds, even thousands, of planes to bomb military targets, knowing that only a small percentage would actually hit them because of the inaccuracy of bombsights and gravity bombs?

If you have any examples where fewer civilians were killed by collateral damage in a major war such as Iraq, please do so.

[Winston]

The irrelevance of this comment is staggering.

[Tulpa]

We also had an actual threat to our national security in WW2.

It is unjustifiable for the state to take an action that is likely to kill even one innocent person, unless there is a threat to the rights of its citizens or the integrity of its territory and shipping.

[Tulpa]

I'm not fond of arguing over semantics, but intent relates to the purpose of an action, not its consequences. A consequence that is foreseen as a likely side-effect of an act that has an entirely different purpose is unintended. Of course, just because a consequence is unintended doesn't mean it deserves no moral consideration; if the positive intended consequences are small compared to the negative unintended ones, then the action shouldn't be taken.

I don't for a minute think that Bush et al actually intended to kill innocent people. However, the positive outcomes were meager compared to the negative unintended outcomes.

[Invisible Finger]

Sorry, but that's just not true.

When someone puts a flame to their face, they can't argue that they expected the outcome to be different this time. Claims be damned.

They were told this would happen and they did it. The intent was to prevent banks from segmenting their customers and that is the exact outcome. At best they can claim that they don't like the fact that SOME customers aren't getting segmented, but removing the segmentation was indeed the intent.

[John Thacker]

Yes.

Of course, it's also completely fair to say that antiwar advocated intended for Saddam and Gaddafi and Assad to kill innocents as well, they just thought it would be better than the alternative.

[Tulpa]

So the US intended to kill all those innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians in air strikes?

Not every saying that tickles libertarian ears is actually valid.

[robc]

yes.

Truman also intended to kill all the innocents when he nuked Japan and firebombed Dresden (or was that while FDR was still alive?).

[robc]

It is a "probabilistic intent" to coin a phrase.

[anonymous commenter some guy]

FDR was still alive for Dresden. Also for the worst of the Tokyo firebombings.

[Johnny Clamboat]

Considering the likelihood of killing civilians was 100%, the answer is yes.

[Tulpa]

But that's not intentional. It's not the purpose of the act.

I don't like arguing over words, but RC is playing dirty pool with that saying. He's trying to get the strong moral opprobrium that comes with an "intentional" bad act, without actually showing intent.

If you want to condemn them for ignoring foreseeable negative consequences, do that. Don't try to steal semantic bases.

[Invisible Finger]

Again, the intent of the lawmakers was very clear. The unintended consequence was getting called on their shit.

Don't apply foreseeable negative consequences ignored BY OTHERS to also have been ignored by the decision makers.

[Endlessmike]

It seems that the honest responses to your initial inquiry have caused you to stumble backwards over your Socratic method.

I get the analogy you are trying to make; but a more appropriate analogy would be if bombing the enemy not only served no discernible military purpose, but it killed the people it was "intended" to protect. (For which Dresden might fit the bill.)

[o3]

small transactions? spend cash. duh

[o3]

derp de derpity derp derp

[Velcro Bootstraps]

I think it wouldn't be too outrageous for merchants to charge an extra fee to use a Credit Card or Debit Card. Too many potential customers use cards now for merchants to get away with accepting cash only, but I think the card companies should be able to charge whatever they want for their service.

[sarcasmic]

I will often purchase something that costs only a couple bucks with my debit card at the grocery store so I can get cash back.
Why pay an ATM fee when I can buy something for the same amount of money?

[Velcro Bootstraps]

Oh, I do it, too.
Just saying I can understand that if the store is losing money on that transaction, it's more than fair for them to charge you an extra fee.

[sarcasmic]

I agree. However it is also just as fair for me to take my business to a store that doesn't charge fees on small transactions in hopes that I will also do larger money making transactions there as well. Now the store that charges fees just lost a customer.

[John Thacker]

Sure, and it's hard to know what's the right policy without the preferences of millions of consumers and thousands of businesses working in the free market to figure that out.

But if you're Dick Durbin, you think you know better than everybody else what they want. Arrogance.

[wareagle]

the country freaks out about $5 a month for using a convenience but cares not a whit about 15T in debt. I'll say it again - liberalism depends on a massively uninformed populace for its survival.

[o3]

stick w what you actually know, cause "teh lub-rahlz" obviously aint it

[o3]

derp ded derpity derp derp

[wareagle]

liberals are eminently predictable. This the same Durbin who compared US troops to Pol Pot, the same Durbin who - in a fit of remarkable honesty - called Obama's jobs bill bullshit, the same Durbin more worried about $5 a month than a choking debt.

[o3]

so durbin is the template for liberals?

[John Thacker]

so durbin is the template for liberals?

He's Senate Majority Whip and the leader of the liberal wing in the Senate, so, yes.

[o3]

the leader of the party is obama

[o3]

obama is the leader of the dems

[Winston]

eminently predictable

in a fit of remarkable honesty

Was the fit of honesty predictable or was it remarkable? Or was it remarkably predictable? Or do you just say things?

[wareagle]

can you not read? The honesty was remarkable, because one so rarely gets it from the left. And, liberals ARE predictable; they'll say whatever is necessary to fool the foolish, even bundling in a nugget of truth hoping no one will catch it.

[DesigNate]

Don't be an obtuse ass. Predictable was in direct reference to liberals as it was the adjective in the sentence. Remarkable was in direct reference to the statement made by Durbin himself.

[Colonel_Angus]

Debit or credit cards turn going out for the night, spending all your paper, and needing to buy tacos from an "Oh, fuck" moment to an "Oh well" moment. And I really prefer to use cash, but, oh well.

[Turbid]

I think it wouldn't be too outrageous for merchants to charge an extra fee to use a Credit Card or Debit Card.

The CC companies won't allow it. It's in your contract as a vendor when you sign up to start accepting VISA, MC, etc.

(looking for a cite now...)

[Turbid]

Here is a balanced view that explains that I'm not exactly correct. But kinda.

[Turbid]

VISA states that "you may not impose any surcharges on VISA transactions. You may, however, offer a discount for cash or another form of payment (e.g., proprietary card or gift certificate) provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment"1

MasterCard states that "A Merchant must not directly or indirectly require any Cardholder to pay a surcharge or any part of any Merchant discount or any contemporaneous finance charge in connection with a Transaction. A Merchant may provide a discount to its customers for cash payments."2

Discover states that "You may assess a surcharge on a Card Sale conducted using a Credit Card provided that (i) the amount of the surcharge may not exceed the Merchant Fee payable by you to us for the Card Sale, and (ii) you assess surcharges on card sales conducted using other credit cards accepted by you."3

American Express states that "You must not accept the Card for costs or fees over the normal price of your goods or services (plus applicable taxes) or Charges that Cardmembers have not specifically approved."4

Discover is the outlier. Blocked link as spam.

[Velcro Bootstraps]

So, merchants have no choice but to raise prices of everything they sell....

Or to stop accepting cards...

[Velcro Bootstraps]

Or I suppose the most obvious is to raise the price of everything and offer a discount of X percent for cash. I'd be ok with that. More money stays in the hand of the business and the customer..

[John Thacker]

When I was at Duke, we had money on a smart card/ID card. The university made deals with off campus vendors to allow people to use their dining points.

Except that the university charged a hefty fee (seriously, over 14%) to the merchants. So the merchants would typically charge more money than off the regular menu.

Idiot students and the university actually complained about this. Some students actually said that the restaurants should raise prices for everyone else in Durham to be "fair."

[wareagle]

once you wrote "Duke", everything else became totally plausible. Spent nearly two decades around the Triangle. Hard to imagine a state that has done less with more than NC.

[JW]

There's no shortage of merchants who won't accept CC for purchases under a certain amount.

[T]

Technically, that's a violation of your merchant agreement.

[Turbid]

Technically, that's a violation of your merchant agreement.

If you're responding to JW's comment, you are incorrect.

[T]

So I see. I have not kept up with the agreements. I know minimu purchases used to be a violation, but apparently no longer. Thanks for the update.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Uhh, so it's not even really forbidden. I did not know that. I always figured places that were offering cash discounts were technically in violation of their agreement.

[John Thacker]

Yeah, but how different is a "discount for cash" from a "surcharge for credit?" The psychology can be important to customers, I suppose.

[Turbid]

It means all your pricetags throughout the store have to be initially higher (or show both prices), which is a pain and affects shoppers.

Definitely not a business-killer, but it's an awful lot of hoops to jump through just to circumvent the affects of a law and bring everyone back to square one.

[Turbid]

effects

[Colonel_Angus]

There is overhead associated with handling cash as well. Time, counting, safes, armored service, banking. Electronic transaction fees don't necessarily cost merchants more money than cash transactions, even for small purchases.

[Velcro Bootstraps]

This is actually a valid point I didn't even think of. but they still have to go through most of that process unless the decide to ONLY accept cash. I wonder if the money saved evens out?

[Endlessmike]

I'd be happier with this if there were a LOT more credit card companies out there. I wonder what protectionist lobbyist-inspired regulations keep the VISA/MASTERCARD domination intact?

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

If it's a store policy to only accept cash, I'm fine with that.

If it's the consequence of a stupid law designed to extract more tax money from banks, then I'm not fine with it, because even a 7 year old is smart enough to know that will simply get passed on.*

*Note that piss facktory is not smarter than a 7 year old, so should be given a pass.

[Velcro Bootstraps]

Right, but so many people use cards, and many people don't carry cash, so for a store to accept cash only excludes a large base of customers, from the merchants perspective.

There's a pizza place near me that accepts cash only, but they have an ATM next to the register that charges a $5 ATM fee to withdraw. I find that a little gross, and I don't go there for pizza anymore. Customers and merchants should both be free to choose is what I'm saying, making laws against this or that isn't really the answer in this situation.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Right. It's the store's policy that drives your pizza purchases to other vendors. When they lose enough customers, they will either modify their policy to increase business or they will fail.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

And, in the same vein, if the pizza is good enough that people don't mind using cash-only, then it won't matter whether the place accepts credit cards.

For example, the barber shop I go to is cash only, but 1) it's cheaper than the hack-and-whacks, even after the tip; and 2) they do a damn good job cutting my hair. Even use the old-school straight razor for my neck and everything.

[Hank]

In college, I went to a place like that twice a month. After the neck shave, the ancient barber strapped a vibrating contraption onto his hand -- stay with me! -- and massaged the shoulders.

Gay hadn't been invented back then, so it was great.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Every man should have a shave and a haircut in an actual barbershop at least once a year.

And my barber (before I went bald and started cutting my own) would have his pretty attractive daughter do the shoulders for him. And he actually gave a razor cut, which I hear is pretty rare these days.

[DesigNate]

I go to Floyd's 99 Barbershop here in Dallas. Razor cut with warm shaving cream is SOP. It's a little more expensive than other places, but I hate going anywhere else now.

[o3]

"But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts"

_

please explain how Dodd-Frank mandated banks to raise fees.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

They didn't mandate it, but it was a survival mechanism for the banks.
EX:
Bank has $2,000,000 in profit annually
Bank brings in $10,000,000 in fees annually, with low-end fees being discounted.
Govt regulation cuts top end fees resulting in reduction of $3,000,000 in fees collected.
Bank has option of raising fees or losing $1,000,000 annually.

It's not rocket science, shithead.

[romulus augustus]

"Mandated" no, "incentivized" yes.
Surely you can see that?

[sarcasmic]

"Mandated" no, "incentivized" yes.
Surely you can see that?

Those who only understand force do not understand incentives, unless that incentive is a guy holding a club.

[o3]

so bartenders actually do cause drunks & NOT the person drinking? >sum randian world u got urself there

[Juice]

A better analogy would be:

A bartender cuts off a drinker after a certain amount of drinks so that the drinker goes to a different bar to get drunk, therefore the bartender who cut the drinker off has incentivized the drinker to go to another bar.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Here's the way it should work: Guy cuts off drinker after a certain amount of drinks. Guy walks out of bar. Bartender minds own business. Guy outside minds own business.

[o3]

precisely. the guy chose to continue drinking or leave : the banks chose to raise fees or not.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

The guy could continue drinking or leave, yes. But the banks cannot keep processing fees for less than their cost of doing business. Your stupid-ass hypothetical is in no way like the situation the banks are faced with.

Also, if the guy has to buy his booze at a rate set by the state, his drinking options will be limited...just like the bank's will IRT ATM fees.

[o3]

analogy fail poet. the banking sector was profitable BEFORE these new fees.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

And with the reduced revenue due to the fee cap, the banks needed to find another source of revenue to keep that stream profitable. Unless you just wanted their profits to arbitrarily be cut because of a new government regulation.

So, congratulations!!! You just proved our point. You can exit through that door. Your prize is waiting just outside.

[o3]

holy fuck im a giant bag of stoopid derpity derp

[John Thacker]

The same reason that banning overdraft fees has caused banks to increase monthly fees for savers with only a small amount in their accounts. Accounts that don't have a lot of money aren't profitable for banks, because the fixed costs of servicing the account outweigh the carry.

Banning the fees might be good for people who kept overdrafting, but it's bad for the responsible poor.

And then people like to point out that credit unions aren't doing as much of this-- but credit unions and small enough banks were specifically exempted from the new regulations.

[#]

"And then people like to point out that credit unions aren't doing as much of this-- but credit unions and small enough banks were specifically exempted from the new regulations."

Which is also bull shit because the rules are different for different people - so much for equality under the law.

[Sevo]

o3|12.8.11 @ 12:38PM|#
"please explain how Dodd-Frank mandated banks to raise fees."
First, dipshit, quit lying; no one "mandated" anything.

But here's the answer of why they raised rates:
"But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts"
Right in you own post, bozo.

[o3]

that's not mandating; ie - requiring by statute or reg. >the banks CHOSE to seek more profit AFTER customers revolted against their debit card fees

[Sevo]

Reading is a skill even bozos should learn:
"First, dipshit, quit lying; no one "mandated" anything."
Right there in the post.

[o3]

oops - i quoted katherine - "But the Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts" >it tries moar harders

[Old Mexican]

Re: Triple Asshole,

the banks CHOSE to seek more profit AFTER customers revolted against their debit card fees

Now you will have to expain WHEN and HOW did customers revolt against debit card fees. Oh, within the context of the Dodd-Frank clusterfuck, if you please - it's not like we're talking about the most brilliant individuals to have ever dignified the world with their presence.

[#]

do you not have any clue how economics works?

Banks or any business for that matter are not in the business of charity work. If you put in a law that prevents them from makign money they either find another way to make up for it or they stop offering the service.

Theres a competative minimal profit margin required for a business to stay operating or else its better for them just to take their capital and invest it elsewhere.

I bank isnt going to give you a debit card and free checking unless its making money off of it somehow.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Triple Asshole,

please explain how Dodd-Frank mandated banks to raise fees.

The interesting thing about your disease is that you, yourself, quoted the article where it says that "Dodd-Frank Act placed an overall cap on the fees, and the banking industry has responded by eliminating the discounts" and then go fly off a tangent by asking where does the law mandate the fees.

You really need to jack up the Thorazine, O.

[o3]

because frank-dobb did NOT mandate increased bank fees period.

[CameronM]

I think this is the same case as Australia. I just moved from New Zealand where you can pay for anything with a debit card. In Aussie, you either have to pay with cash or have a minimum purchase of $10 before you can use a debit card.

[sarcasmic]

Is that by law or store policy?
Here in the states many stores set a lower limit for debit transactions, but it is up to the store.

[Austrian Pastry]

If it is a Visa or MasterCard branded debit card, setting a minimum transaction amount violates the contract between the vendor and the card issuer. Many stores post signs anyway, but if they refuse your card and Visa/MC get wind of it, they could lose their payment processing contract.

[sarcasmic]

So if I wanted to be a dick I could report a store with such a sign and get them in trouble?

*rubs hands together and cackles Montgomery Burns style*

[Destrudo]

"U.S retailers may require a minimum purchase amount. The minimum purchase amount must not exceed $10" - from visa's website. Bummer.

[sarcasmic]

drat

[Velcro Bootstraps]

Would you happen to have the source for this? I'd heard this before but could never find proof of it.

[robc]

Destrudo posted the proof. Its a lie.

I would say myth, but, you know, websites are easy to check.

[#]

Australia did this same thing a number of years ago - thats where the Dems got the idea. Their market repsonded by not accepting low payments. I'm sure the rules were also a little different.

[Appalachian Australian]

Hotels and and some restaurants now have a 1.5% surcharge on paying with a credit card. Given Sydney business hotels can be as high as $600/night during peak season, your options are to pay the surcharge or bring in a wheelbarrow of cash.

Thanks, government.

[Poet Laureate sloopyinca]

Most merchants have already started passing the cost on to the consumer regardless of transaction size. Excluding grocery stores and restaurants, most charge a fee for using debit cards. At convenience stores, gas is usually $.10 more per gallon or they charge you a flat fee for using your card.

I'm shocked one of these Team Blue assholes haven't made a run at outlawing vendors from charging additional fees.

[Sevo]

"Reason hates to say it, but we told you so."

No, you don't.

[Mr. Mark]

The whole intrusion of government into debit card fees is a symptom of allowing stupid people to vote.

If stupid people were banned from voting, then the quality of life in America would be vastly higher than it currently is.

[Mr. Mark]

I forgot to ask myself if there was any truth to the rumor that Thai king Bhumibol Adulyadej likes to get frisky with water buffaloes?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you expect to happen when you give the Federal Reserve the power to set interchange fees? They were given the power to set monetary policy in America and look at the value of our money now.

[Turbid]

VISA states that "you may not impose any surcharges on VISA transactions. You may, however, offer a discount for cash or another form of payment (e.g., proprietary card or gift certificate) provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment"

Since my link was marked as spam...

[Wholly Holy Cow]

Of course just about every Dem on the planet supports such banking laws, while nearly all R's are against it, but let me froth a bit about TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE. They're both the same!

Wheeee! I'm a true libertarian. Whheeeee! Look at me, I hate cops.
Wheeee! I'm a true libertarian. I was even against the Revolutionary War!

Wheeee! I'm a true libertarian. I'm only against the abortions that Ron Paul is against! Wheeee! I'm a true libertarian!

Team Red/Team Blue! I read Hayek! No difference between the two parties! Wheeee! I'm a true libertarian!

[Maj Gen Strawman]

Dear God! Where's that airstrike?!? My men are dropping like flies out here!! Get me my goddamn airstrike!!!

[Sevo]

Wholly Holy Cow,
Outside of proving you're not real bright, did you have a point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the poor, mentally ill creature is mooing about libertarians being a "team" (Team, in sense of being partisan hacks).

[A Serious Man]

Yeah, who would ever think that allowing morons that get suckered into credit card debt to vote for morons in Congress that want to take on the evil COrPorasuns and thus pass a moronic bill, would ever result in negative, unforseen consequences. Morons.

[P Brooks]

So the US intended to kill all those innocent Iraqi and Afghan civilians in air strikes?

When you bomb villages inhabited by civilian non-combatants, it's hard to credibly claim you did not intend to kill the people who live in them.

[R C Dean]

Thanks, P.

Too many people seem to think that "intent" is the same as "desire."

Its not.

[Colonel_Angus]

WEEEEEEEELLLLL
Dick Durbin is a dick.
He's a big fat dick.
He's the biggest dick in the whole wide world.
He's a stupid dick,
If their ever was a dick.

[o3]

so ur an expert on dicks?

[-]

"...a group of *** vending-machine operators, says that their interchange fees have jumped from roughly six or seven cents a transaction to the federally regulated 21 cents."---Though this quote is from another news outlet, it illustrates the law of unintended consequences quite nicely. Congress "intended" to push fees downward, but the unintended consquence was...fees were immediately raised right up to the cap, which has now become a new floor (meaning, there is already a push on legislators to raise the cap). If Congress had stayed the f*ck out of it, then the market would have kept fees reasonably (not perfectly, but reasonably) in check.

[Wholly Holy Cow]

Really, Sevo. Where am I not too bright? The point: Team Red is leaps and bounds better than Team Blue.

But anyway, inquiring minds wanna know: How did you get the OWS jizz stains off your dress?

[Pips]

I don't see the issue.

Average fee being charged per transaction before: 0.44 - Even on small purchases.

Average fee being charged after: 0.24

So what we are seeing is that some businesses got deals where they were maybe charged 0.10 on less than $10 transactions. Now they are being charged 0.24 on all transactions. A 0.14 increase on a cup of joe.

Simply tack it on to less than $10 items and be done with it. Buying your own ATM? Seriously? Hyperbole. Pure hyperbole.

The majority of businesses saw their fees drop in HALF over this. I don't see how businesses keeping more money is a bad thing in this scenario.

[Wendy]

Living with an addict taught me one thing: You cut off one source of the desired substance and they will find another. These companies exist for one reason, to make money. I am not saying they are evil. The fact is they are necessary. We are not evolved enough as a species to live without them. We have to live with them. We need commonsense regulation and BIG time prosecution when they cross the line, and they will cross that line. Most of all we need consumer education. They can't take our money if we don't give it to them. As far as I know only the government can do that.

[Nike Dunk Shoes]

thanks

[Jay]

A new report by The Financial Services Roundtable goes over the results of several studies of the Durbin Amendment and, unsurprisingly, concludes that its impact on consumers will be neutral at best and most likely negative.

The debit card fees tested by most big banks may have been getting the most attention, however they are just one aspect of the banks' strategies for coping with the Durbin Amendment's revenue-slashing effects. The end result is that banking is still becoming more expensive, debit card fees or not.

Yet, there is a positive side effect for consumers with high credit scores who are actually benefiting from the Durbin Amendment, because they now get bombarded with credit card offers featuring incredible rewards programs from issuers eager to drive customers away from debit and into the more profitable credit. http://blog.unibulmerchantserv.....al-at-best

[Bom]

This is good post.
Thanks for sharing.

[EdwardJohnson]

Debit card swipe fee reform was one of the biggest stories of the summer, with retailers and banks going head to head on an issue that was costing the retail industry and its customers billions of dollars each year.

After months of lobbying, the Federal Reserve issued a ruling to cap debit card swipe fees at 21 cents per transaction (plus 1 cent for fraud in most cases and 0.05 percent of the purchase price). Although the cap was nearly double the 12-cent limit originally proposed by the Fed, it was widely heralded as a victory for retailers and consumers alike.

[EdwardJohnson]

So, merchants have no choice but to raise prices of everything they sell!!!!

[Gibbs Connor]

Im excited that I am doing each and every one of these so far in 2012! One totally new thing I'm doing in
January is tracking everything I spend, I always use a certain amount when it comes to food and gas, but I have no idea if I'm meeting that target every month. I read The Richest Man In Babylon last year as well as a few other books, and this month I am reading The Millionaire Next Door and I Will Teach You to be Rich!
http://www.edocr.com/doc/40879.....cy-hedging