The NDP has got something right

[Smallc]

Yes, the fees are much higher on MC/VISA debit cards than on Interac. .

Simply put, you're wrong. The cards use the interac network when used as an interac card within Canada. They become visa debit cards when used outside of that network or in non traditional ways for debit cards.

[Army Guy]

Must be a slow day in parliment if this is creating so much traction, for any party. I mean is this the best they can come up with what ever happened to the major problems or issues this nation faces, like health care, lack of health care workers, deficit reduction, or indian land claims, shit the list goes on and on....don't get me wrong it sounds like a great idea for all classes of consumers, but should it not be a filler attached to something bigger....on the same scale as uncoupling cable/sat tv programing...i guess my question is are we being distracted from the bigger issues with the small stuff?

[overthere]

Simply put, you're wrong. The cards use the interac network when used as an interac card within Canada. They become visa debit cards when used outside of that network or in non traditional ways for debit cards.

No, I'm not. They are VISA chipped cards. The POS pad notes that. Simply runnin g them through Interac does not mean the low Interac transaction fee is the end of it. Far from it.

"Fees for accepting a debit card are substantially lower. In order to accept debit cards, a merchant must be a member of the Interac Association, currently a not-for-profit organization. It manages the network that links members together in order to deliver direct payment services across the country. Merchants pay an annual membership fee based on the number of transactions they process. The current fee per transaction is $0.008253 — or $82.53 for 10,000 transactions.

There's also a fee that goes to the acquirer. You can tell which company that is by checking the top of the pad the cashier hands you when you make a debit card purchase — the pad you use to enter your PIN. The merchant normally pays a flat fee, negotiated with the acquirer."

And there is the rub.... Merchants have no leverage with the CC companies and are more or less at their mercy: if they want a CC/debit card terminal, they obey and pay the specified fees or their customers cannot pay with debit or credit.

Consumers are unaware of what is coming, they don't see any fees at the terminal, but sure as shit they will see them in the prices.

[Smallc]

I know what fees I pay. You're wrong.

[TimG]

I know what fees I pay. You're wrong.

Are you a merchant who rents the terminals that accept CC/debit cards? That is only way you could know he is wrong. Edited February 4, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Must be a slow day in parliment if this is creating so much traction, for any party. I mean is this the best they can come up with what ever happened to the major problems or issues this nation faces, like health care, lack of health care workers, deficit reduction, or indian land claims, shit the list goes on and on....don't get me wrong it sounds like a great idea for all classes of consumers, but should it not be a filler attached to something bigger....on the same scale as uncoupling cable/sat tv programing...i guess my question is are we being distracted from the bigger issues with the small stuff?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. This has always been my biggest problem with the NDP. At their heart, they're a populist party. Frankly, I don't care for populism.

[Smallc]

Are you a merchant who rents the terminals that accept CC/debit cards? That is only way you could know he is wrong.

Yes. I do several thousand worth of business a day on them.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

I know what fees I pay. You're wrong.

Sort of. You know what the terminal operator charges, but it's not readily apparent what your bank will charge you. Most people have packages where they don't pay, but if you're over your limit then your bank doesn't notify you that you'll be charged by them. They just add it to your monthly bill. The whole ATM thing has been a bit misleading for awhile, but it's not that big of a deal.

In fact, I think this is a terrible policy and on top of disagreeing with the Senate, I believe the NDP and I may be parting ways here. The problem with the ATM thing was written about by a journalist in the National Post. I can't remember the author's name and don't feel like going to look for it again. In any case, essentially his argument was that low service areas would stop having big banks there. This would leave the ATMs that you see in bars and corner stores which charge upwards of $3 or $4 dollars for a transaction. The NDP plan does nothing to curb those privately owned ATMs with fees. Essentially, people who work or live in more affluent areas will save money, while those in less affluent areas will be relegated to using ATMs that cost even more. I'm not explaining it as clearly as he did, but his argument was persuasive enough that I believe he may be right. In other words, the ATM legislation will do more harm than good to working class Canadians.

In my opinion, if the NDP really wanted to make a difference for low income families, they would go after banking fees more generally. The more money you have, the lower your fees. Most institutions waive your banking fees if you carry a balance of greater than $2500-3000. People living pay check to pay check likely don't have this kind of money stored away, since they have little if anything left over at the end of the day. The way these banking fees work is the exact opposite of most advanced nations' tax codes. While someone who has very little money is paying upwards of $15/month for a bank account, the same account is free for someone that has thousands tucked away. If the NDP wanted to make a difference they would go after this.

[Smallc]

Sort of. You know what the terminal operator charges,

Banks don't charge for transactions, unless they happen to be the POS provider.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Smallc

[Boges]

In my opinion, if the NDP really wanted to make a difference for low income families, they would go after banking fees more generally. The more money you have, the lower your fees. Most institutions waive your banking fees if you carry a balance of greater than $2500-3000. People living pay check to pay check likely don't have this kind of money stored away, since they have little if anything left over at the end of the day. The way these banking fees work is the exact opposite of most advanced nations' tax codes. While someone who has very little money is paying upwards of $15/month for a bank account, the same account is free for someone that has thousands tucked away. If the NDP wanted to make a difference they would go after this.

You want the government to force banks to charge good customers more fees to be equitable to customers that are perpetually in overdraft? That won't work.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Banks don't charge for transactions, unless they happen to be the POS provider.

Most of them in fact do. Read the rest of what I wrote. Edited February 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

You want the government to force banks to charge good customers more fees to be equitable to customers that are perpetually in overdraft? That won't work.

I never suggested getting rid of overdraft fees. I'm talking about your general account fees, which typically include a bunch of stuff. The fact that those with less money pay more, keeps them in debt and makes it harder for them to crawl out, while those who have money essentially have even more money as a result of fees being waived.

Oh and I don't think it will EVER happen, but it is problematic for the reasons I say. The people who have money actually get more stuff for free than the people who actually need a break to better themselves.

Edited February 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Most of them in fact do. Read the rest of what I wrote.

That's a different thing entirely, and has nothing to do with who charges what for Interac/VISA Debit cards in Canada.

[cybercoma]

That's a different thing entirely, and has nothing to do with who charges what for Interac/VISA Debit cards in Canada.

In Canada, there's a charge from the ATM provider, as well as your bank for using a machine that does not belong to your bank. Sometimes your own bank fees are waived, but not always and not for everyone. That's what I'm saying.

[cybercoma]

In other words, you're actually charged twice.

[Smallc]

In Canada, there's a charge from the ATM provider, as well as your bank for using a machine that does not belong to your bank. Sometimes your own bank fees are waived, but not always and not for everyone. That's what I'm saying.

I understand that. That's separate from the issue that I was responding too.

I personally don't pay banking fees at my bank or any fees, as I can keep a balance over $5000 and have a TD All Inclusive Account, as well as a TD Unlimited Business account (though I pay fees for that, as maintaining a zero balance is out of the question, never mind a $60000 one).

[Boges]

In Canada, there's a charge from the ATM provider, as well as your bank for using a machine that does not belong to your bank. Sometimes your own bank fees are waived, but not always and not for everyone. That's what I'm saying.

Which is why someone who uses an independent ATM regularly is completely Daft.

They're meant for emergency situations when you need cash now.

I can't remember the last time I used an independent ATM.

[cybercoma]

Which is why someone who uses an independent ATM regularly is completely Daft.

They're meant for emergency situations when you need cash now.

I can't remember the last time I used an independent ATM.

Perhaps, or maybe some people have transportation limitations and little time working several jobs and taking care of their kids or whatever. If it's the closest ATM to them and they need money, then it is what it is. Just because neither you nor I use them, doesn't mean that there aren't any situations where it's difficult for people to use other ATMs.

Regardless, that's not the purpose of this legislation anyway. Most people can find a big institution ATM. However, the argument from the article is that those stand-alone ATMs that the big banks put in places like gas stations might go away if they're restricted to a smaller service fee. If that happens, then many people in low-service neighbourhoods will be left with only independent ATMs to go to, unless they go out of their way to get to a bank (which could end up costing them more money in transportation fees instead). Essentially the argument is that it will save you and I money because we have reliable transportation and can get to a bank regularly to take money out. The people that the legislation seeks to protect, however, may end up losing easy access to machines from big banks and end up spending more as a result.

[Boges]

I just took some cash out from my bank's machine in a Convenience Store, the reason I stay with my bank is partly because that ATM is where it is.

If fees are killing people they need to take steps to minimize the fees. For example if you ever watch the show "Debt do us Part", the lady makes the couple take out money each week or month and stick to a budget. That's 1-4 transactions max, but you have to stick to a budget.

Usually these people that have big financial troubles don't do a good job keeping track of how they spend their money.

Also, It's no mistake you see these Pay-Day loan places in low income neighbourhoods. People will prey on the stupid and poor, it's hard for the government to stop that. I was in Canadian Tire yesterday and saw a pretty girl trying selling a really old lady a CT credit card. Like she needs that!

Edited February 5, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

These are different issues entirely. Like you said, your bank's machine is in the convenience store, presumably near your home where convenience stores are usually located. If the banks begin pulling their machines from these places, people that rely on bus transportation or cabs to get around may lose easy access to regular bank machines and be left with the independents. You're right, they should take out a lump sum of money at the beginning of the week and stick to the budget, but people don't. In any case, the only time I carry cash is when I'm travelling. I get unlimited debit transactions, so in that sense the ATM legislation is meaningless. I literally can't remember the last time I took money out of a bank machine.

[bleeding heart]

Surely the NDP can find some bigger fish to fry.