Skip to main content

POST The government is completely and utterly wrong about surcharging

When I was in sunnier climes earlier this month, I was asked a couple of times about a particularly bonkers British government policy announcement concerning card payments. More than one person from overseas regulators asked me about it, in fact. They asked me if I could explain our government’s reasoning behind their policy announcement about card payment surcharges. Which was:

From January next year, businesses will not be allowed to add any surcharges for card payments. The worst offenders currently are airlines and food delivery apps, and small businesses which typically add a fee for cards. In 2010 alone consumers spent £473m on such charges, according to estimates by the Treasury.

From Credit and debit card surcharges to be banned - BBC News

Unfortunately, I cannot. This is just plain dumb. If you are going to interfere in a market and start price-fixing, then you should do it to increase the net welfare, not to provide a hidden subsidy to the well-off. I imagine what happened is that the partner of a government minister went online to book a mini-break to Dubrovnik, searched for the cheapest flights, went to pay with their black Amex card and got upset about being charged a surcharge that they could well afford to pay. Next thing you know, it’s government policy that rich users of rewards cards must be subsidised by everyone else. Baffling.

The move will save British consumers hundreds of millions of dollars

From U.K. Bans Credit Card Surcharges, Calling Them A 'Rip-Off' : The Two-Way : NPR

Really? How? The credit card system (and all the legal protections that come with it) do not suddenly become free. British Airways still has to pay a merchant service charge (MSC) to their acquirer and the acquirer still has to pay an interchange fee (already capped by the EU). If British Airways can’t charge me an extra £2.50 for using my credit card so that I can get extra Avios, then they will simply add £1 “booking fee” or whatever to all tickets. Now, people who pay with their debit cards (who used to pay nothing extra) are paying an extra £1 and I’m paying £1.50 less and still getting my Avios.

There are two issues here: should merchants be allowed to surcharge (hint: yes) and should the government interfere in the surcharging (more on this later).

 Surcharging in Melbourne

xxx 

xxx 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Financial Cryptography: Corda Day - a new force

Forum friend Ian Grigg, who I always take very seriously indeed on any such topic, wrote about Corda on his blog and concluded with a powerful statement. Bitcoin told the users it wanted an unstoppable currency - sure, works for a small group but not for the mass market. Ethereum told their users they need an unstoppable machine - which worked how spectacularly with the DAO? Not. What. We. Wanted. Corda is the only game in town because it's the only one that asked the users. It's that simple. From Financial Cryptography: Corda Day - a new force xxx It seems to me, however, what Ian is pointing to as the greatest strength of their approach is also the greatest weakness. A staple feature of unimaginative management consultants presentations about innovation is some variation on the statement by Henry Ford that if you had asked users what they wanted, they would have asked for faster horses coupled with some variation on the statement by Steve jobs that it was pointless ask...
Post a Comment
Read more

There is no excuse for not taking cards

So we went to the pub. For lunch. Seven of us. Say £20 per head. £100+ quid. Say £50 quid gross for the pub. Colleague goes to order food and drinks and pay at the bar. Apologetic barmaid comes over to explain that their “card machine” is down, so she can only accept cash. Under normal circumstances I would have simply walked out, feeling it wholly inappropriate to reward such a poorly managed establishment and, as a functioning actor in a capitalist economy, done my duty to depress their lunchtime takings. Here’s what we wanted to say: This is absurd. This is 2016 not 1916. Your card machine is down? Well, so what! Are you seriously telling me that mein host has no mobile phone number capable of registering for PingIt or PayM? That none of the staff or the pub itself have a PayPal account that I can send the money to? That neither the owners nor managers not contingency planners thought to tuck an iZettle behind the bar to use when the clunky and expensive GPRS terminal fails for o...
Post a Comment
Read more

We could fix mobile security, you know. We don't, but we could

Earlier in the week I blogged about mobile banking security , and I said that in design terms it is best to assume that the internet is in the hands of your enemies. In case you think I was exaggerating… The thieves also provided “free” wireless connections in public places to secretly mine users’ personal information. From Gone in minutes: Chinese cybertheft gangs mine smartphones for bank card data | South China Morning Post Personally, I always use an SSL VPN when connected by wifi (even at home!) but I doubt that most people would ever go to this trouble or take the time to configure a VPN and such like. Anyway, the point is that the internet isn’t secure. And actually SMS isn’t much better, which is why it shouldn’t really be used for securing anything as important as home banking. The report also described how gangs stole mobile security codes – which banks automatically send to card holders’ registered mobile phones to verify online transactions – by using either a Trojan...
Post a Comment
Read more