Should "Cash Only" or "Minimum EFTPOS" be banned?

mashedpotato on 15/06/2015 - 18:39

Every now and then you bump into a shop or restaurant
and find that there is a minimum amount you need to pay in order to pay by card.
There's even shops that do not accept EFTPOS at all.

One day, I went to the station to buy a ticket, but I did not have any cash on me
I tried to pay by card to buy a single ticket, but the station staff told me in an unpleasant look,
"Why do you pay by card for a small amount? Don't do that next time"

I am aware of the fact that minimum EFTPOS amount of cash only policy is due to the fees
that the retailers have to pay when the customers pay by card.

As a person who have worked in retail stores,
I sometimes had to confront customers who had an unpleasant look when I told them there is a minimum EFTPOS.

Should "Cash Only" or "Minimum EFTPOS amount" be banned?

Please tell us what you think.

Poll Options

  • 174
    Yes, it should be banned. Why pay cash when paying by card is so much convenient!
  • 270
    No, it should not be banned. That's how it is in the world of business.
  • 8
    It depends on the cases. Yes in some areas and no in other areas.
Financial

Comments

        • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 21:23

          The retailer does have the choice. They don't have to take card.

          30c on a $10 sale is bad, its even worst when its a $1 sale and lots of people do little sales like that!

          Now tap to pay is a different thing (and has different fees as well).

        • adante on 18/06/2015 - 08:49

          The retailer does have the choice. They don't have to take card

          I realise this. The OP question is basically asking if that choice should be removed. All I'm doing is saying no and providing justification as to why.

          Why is tap to pay a different thing? (genuine question - I'm not that familiar with EFT schemes)

  • retiredfeline on 16/06/2015 - 10:28
    +9

    Nobody is forcing you to patronise those shops so why should you force them to do business your way? Even assuming you have grounds to, which you simply don't. Just vote with your feet!

  • ilikeradiohead on 16/06/2015 - 10:44
    +2

    I tend to avoid shops that are cash only, too much of a PITA to always have cash on me. Also, businesses must know that there is also a cost associated with holding cash? Security, having to go down to the bank etc. I had a friend whose house got broken into because the thieves knew that her family kept their restaurant's takings in a safe in their house. Wrecked the house but didn't open the safe.

    • iridiumstem on 16/06/2015 - 11:03
      +2

      Ditto. I hate carrying around cash, especially coins. :S

      • POWERevolution on 16/06/2015 - 12:59

        I tend to avoid shops that are cash only, too much of a PITA to always have cash on me.

        +1

  • rompastompa on 16/06/2015 - 10:48
    +2

    I have a $10 minimum fee. If someone wants to pay by Eftpos - I state the minimum, and ask if they want to pay an extra 50c instead. That covers the 30c fee (and the extra time it takes to add info to the invoice etc). (Usually it's a network cable for $2, so they pay $2.50 instead). I could put the stock price higher, and anyone paying cash, or buying multiple items will have to pay more).

    Edit: Additionally, anyone that has 'Cash Only' and no Eftpos machine can easily modify how much income/tax they pay. So it's in their 'benefit' if there is no paper trace.

    • NBAD25 on 16/06/2015 - 11:02

      What if nobody used Eftpos, do you then extract the cost of running the machine from your cash paying customers?

      • rompastompa on 16/06/2015 - 11:07
        +1

        I'm in a service industry and the small things like cables aren't our 'bread', it's more a benefit for our clients rather than having to go elsewhere. The cost of the machine pm is factored into our outgoing costs along with rent, electricity etc. It's a standard business cost. With parts, I charge 1% on credit card purchases over $100. With labour, I waive the fee.

  • NBAD25 on 16/06/2015 - 11:00
    +9

    If they have a sign on their shopfront that clearly says 'No eftpos, sorry' I am ok with this.

    If they are a small shop or restaurant not in a major consumer suburb, I am ok with this.

    But if you're a major bar or restaurant in the CBD or surrounds, I'll piss on your counter.

  • rockman117 on 16/06/2015 - 11:43
    +1

    This is why you should get ING orange everyday account with access to EVERY ATM in Australia for FREE. If a shop is cash only, I find the nearest ATM no worries.
    And if they happen to have paypass, you get 2% back ☺

    • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2015 - 16:17
      +1

      I also like the fact that the 2% rebate also usually more than covers any surcharge, such as the 0.5% one that Aldi levies. So if you do use pay wave and they haven't told you about the surcharge beforehand (still thinking of Aldi) then you are still ahead.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:11
      +1

      You know how they can give you 2% back? BY RAPING THE RETAILER WITH FEES. Thats how….

      So that 2% isn't really 'free', the retailer is charged, so in turn puts up their prices to cover it. So no one wins. You pay more, but get 2% back…. woohoo..

      • rockman117 on 17/06/2015 - 11:15

        i knew that. but out of all the banks, but ING is the only bank (and ME bank, but their interest rate is a joke so i don't bother with them) that even gives a bit back to the customer, while the other banks rake in everything.

        • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:27
          -1

          True they give back, but means they have higher fees for retailers. These guys would be charging closer to 3% I'm guessing. As the bank needs to make something.

          its a short term win.

        • FutureTech on 17/06/2015 - 11:45

          @Level380: I don't think the fees charged to the merchant for Australian issues visas and MasterCards will be different depending on the issue bank of the card. It's more likely that ING just give their profits back, even making a loss when they were offering 5%, rather than charging a higher fee to the merchant.

        • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:58
          -1

          @maolin95: The 5% was a promo running at a loss to get new customers.

          They need to cover costs on the daily 2% rebate now. Businesses can't run at a loss for ever, ever loss needs to be off set by profit somewhere else. I'm guessing by charging 2.5% fees

          ie the 5% promo loss is now being offset by the new customers spends and profits they make on it.

  • POWERevolution on 16/06/2015 - 13:03
    +2

    There is a petition regarding Jetstar rip-off fee…now let OzBargainers army make it work :)
    Jetstar: drop your deceitful, rip-off $8.50 credit card surcharge for booking online

  • SlartiBartFozz on 16/06/2015 - 14:21
    -1

    The merchant fees are a trivial cost in the scale of things. The EFTPOS equipment can be purchased, (some units for under a hundred dollars now), which is a tiny cost for most businesses setting up.
    The real reason most businesses run this way is that the minority of customers will accept the surcharge or inconvenience, while the business can avoid paying any GST and can use that cash to (under)pay employees or subcontractors for small jobs. The cash business is a small part of the economy but it is truly thriving even today.

    My response to these unsavoury practices is to make my food/drink order / bring my purchases to the checkout, then leave it there with the cashier — in many cases, the inconvenience gives them a sudden change of policy and accept my card sans-surcharge, if not I go to the next shop.

  • wkd on 16/06/2015 - 16:11
    +1

    if its banned then banks should have to waive the fees

  • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2015 - 16:25
    +3

    Most of the small businesses that I can think of that have a minimum eftpos of $10 or so are running on tight margins and struggling to survive. Heck, our local fruit shop is so upfront about it they put signs out the front practically begging people to shop local to keep them alive. So no, it doesn't bother me that they are trying to minimise their costs.

    What bothers me more is companies like Woolies running huge guilt campaigns under the guise of 'saving the planet' in order to cut their costs (of plastic bags) and up their sales (of those shitty reusable bags and bin liners). Or companies like Aldi, charging 0.5% for paywave when it probably doesn't cost them any much more than eftpos, and then not telling you about the fee before you choose to paywave.

  • twig on 16/06/2015 - 16:27
    -2

    Going cashless and payment gateways might be great for stores but when it's down, you lose all business.

    The business also pays a surcharge on top of all transactions, on top of the other expenses they need to pay to run a business.

    • fruit on 17/06/2015 - 12:19
      +1

      You can do offline transactions. Since, like, forever.

  • Schezwon on 16/06/2015 - 17:18
    +2

    Our greedy banks needs to stop double and triple dipping on both ends.

  • porsche26c on 16/06/2015 - 17:34

    i think at restaurants where the bill is average over $50 them they should have eftpos. A seafood shop in drummoyne (obviously for tax dogging purposes) accept cash only. Instead of just getting an eftpos machine they actually put a hole EFTPOS outlet for cash withdraw so you have no excuse. pull the cash out and pay them lol.

    I think everyone should accept card however minimum amount like $20 is absolutely fine due to the fees.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:13

      Well they are smart! They are getting PAID to have that ATM there, and still getting cash. Its a win win for them!

  • itbargainhunter on 16/06/2015 - 18:09

    I don't quite get it.

    So is it more or less expensive for SMB owner if I pay by paywave instead of inserting the card and key in pin?

    If putting the card in can save my favour cafe a bit I am glad to do that.

    Also. I intented to pay by AE (if possible)when I am forced to go to those cafe I don't like (i.e by peer pressure).

  • urzu on 16/06/2015 - 18:19

    I'll vote with my wallet on that one.

    If the business doesn't take eftpos, they don't get my business. I won't force them to bend to fit my habits though, they'll just have to realize by themselves that not accepting all forms of payment is bad for business.

  • cloudy on 16/06/2015 - 20:54

    The cycle of payment methods is insidious. Take Amex, their business model is to gorge business in fees, and force them to accept the card coz customers want to pay with it, why? Coz they get superior rewards. In turn business get slugged with higher fees, and thus pass it on to consumers (usually those who pay with Amex) but those who don't charge a surcharge, usually imbed the cost in their price, meaning those who pay with cash or a cheaper form of cash subsidies Amex users.

    It's all a downward spiral if u ask me.

    So retailers should charge the cost of payment to customers. It's fairer on everyone as a user pays system.

    • Serapis on 17/06/2015 - 03:06

      No wonder I rarely ever see Amex being accepted

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:14

      I wish amex would just die…. They are the worst for fees.

  • paloverde88 on 16/06/2015 - 21:22

    Many dogeies take cash instead of card so no meed to declare all income to ATO.

    It can happen. And it does.

  • chillybags on 16/06/2015 - 22:17

    I believe that the shops just have to put up with it. Times are changing and if the business wants to compete they will need to offer card payments. Its a cost that is associated with a business just like rent, wages, a website or advertising. If the business is going to go broke from margins being decreased by a couple percent then they have a few more problems on their hands than just card payments.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:15
      +1

      Times are changing and customers will just have to put up with it too. Want to use your card, pay the fees or meet the minimum amount.

      See… works both ways. If all retailers stick to a common 'standard' then what will you do?

  • youbeokay on 17/06/2015 - 00:13

    Many restaurants require a minimum spending of $20 for payment made by card, I'm okay with that, what I'm not okay is that they even charge for some percentage of surcharges like 1.5% to 3%. are they legally okay for that sort of fee charged to customers?

    I think they are doing that for 2 main reasons, 1: avoid bank transaction fee, 2: tax evasion purposes
    doggy

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:18

      Yes the law was changed a few years ago. The retailer is ALLOWED to pass on the credit card processing fees.

      The main reason for a EFTPOS minimum is so you buy enough to cover the 'fees' normally 30-50c for this type of transaction. The reason for a % on credit card, is this is what they get charged. Slap $100 on the card and they get charged between $2-3

  • taser on 17/06/2015 - 02:15

    I was in the IKEA restaurant a while ago and bought some food that was $4.95 went to pay and was told there is a $5 minimum did not see any sign anywhere saying this, so i said just charge me $5 then but could she could not do that said i had to get something else to take it over the $5 mark.

    I just said okay and left the tray of food at the checkout, the wife wasn't to happy mind as she was hungry, I know i could have spent 20c on some sauce but I did not want any, plus I had already spent the best part of a $1000 on furniture i did not need

    I can understand the fees for the small businesses and little shops (still don't like it) but for a company the size of IKEA i think its wrong

    I for one never carry cash on me i eftpos a 30c cone at McDonalds :)

    • FutureTech on 17/06/2015 - 09:46

      +1 for the cone. i do that all the time

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:21

      Some EFTPOS system have a hardcoded EFTPOS minimum limit. So they can't put it through! The one we use controls the EFTPOS machine and I can't put a sale for payment to it under $10.

      As for charging you extra, I'm guessing IKEA doesn't have a random priced product to charge you.

      Really, you made a scene over 20c? Just buy the sauce, take it home with you if you didn't use it.

      Your wife must feel really 'special' to be with you.

      • FutureTech on 17/06/2015 - 11:53
        +2

        I think he was just trying to make a point

        • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 12:02

          His point that he made was that he made a scene, his wife wasn't happy and thought, god I'm married to a dick and I didn't get any FOOD!? All over basically 15c. (he was already happy to have 5c extra charged to bring it up to $5). He could have taken the sauce home if not used.

          My point was the cashier who doesn't make the rules might not have been able to do what he asked, due to rules in the POS software etc. But had to put up with the childish scene.

          Rather than make a scene, write a complaint in.

        • taser on 17/06/2015 - 22:27
          +2

          @Level380:
          His point that he made was that he did not make a scene, his wife was happy and thought, god I'm married to a guy with a —- dick and I didn't get any FOOD!? All over basically 15c. (he was already happy to have 5c extra charged to bring it up to $5). He could have taken the sauce home if not used.
          Fixed that for you :)

          I did not say anywhere I made a big scene about it I just said charge me $5 she said she could not do that I said okay and walked away, Did not raise my voice, shout throw arms in the air or anything just walked away as I had no cash on me.

          As for the wife please don't pretend to know what she was thinking, yes she was upset because she was hungry but she was also pleased I stood by my guns and did not pay for something none of us wanted.

        • JimmyF on 18/06/2015 - 10:32

          @taser:

          Its a scene. You might not have flapped your arms around, You may have said ok and walked away, but you left the tray there. The cashier would have had to get it removed and this would have stopped the line for a while.

          Really you let your wife go hungry over 15c. Man I bet shes glad you didn't buy that 20c sauce packet so you could eat food there and then. I mean you just dropped $1000 at ikea, that 20c sauce would have been the breaking point and the pillar of wastefulness for things you didn't need!

          PS Most guys have dicks, so don't feel too special for meeting that requirement in your corrected version ;)

        • richox on 19/06/2015 - 10:45
          +1

          @Level380:
          his wife wasn't happy and thought, god I'm married to a dick and I didn't get any FOOD!? All over basically 15c.

          my partner would kill me if i took a meal off her for 15cents when she was hungry. she would force me to pay a $50 surcharge kek

  • Falchoon on 17/06/2015 - 05:31

    So if the EFTPOS fees charged to the retailers are so high and sending them broke how come it is only some retailers that have minimum spends? Why are restaurants and cafes (who seem to be the main people with EFTPOS restrictions) different to supermarkets or other shops that don't have minimum EFTPOS amount restrictions (example above of taser buying 30 cent soft serve at Maccas)? I reckon there would be more profit margin in a cup of coffee and a muffin over a packet of cornflakes and a loaf of bread.

    I think shop owners need to shop around (NPI) with the banks they use and look to do business with the one that offers cheaper fees instead of just picking one at random and getting gouged (and then passing fees on to customers (or have minimum EFTPOS limits) who then decide it is too expensive or inconvenient and go elsewhere.

    Don't get me started on public holiday or weekend surcharges…or restaurants and cafes not splitting bills…

    • FutureTech on 17/06/2015 - 09:54

      Small supermarkets, even Aldi, also have surcharges from my experiences. Generally large corporations don't feel the need to charge you extra because firstly they have high barging power to negotiate a lower fee with the bank and secondly it's not likely that they are going to care about the profit margin of your purchase being reduced by a few cents as they can easily afford that.

      • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 21:24

        Correct, Coles and Woolies have set themselves up as a 'bank' to save on these fees.

  • neonlight on 17/06/2015 - 07:01
    +1

    Unfortunately that's how things work. Small business need to pay for EFTPOS facilities and can't compensate on small purchases.

    However customers don't like the minimum charge to use card.

    So what happens now is no one buys bus ticket or top up Opal at newsagencies before Woolies is big enough to not charge anything on top taking EFTPOS. Plus with all these deals when they are also accepted as a purchase for spending $30

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:24

      "customers don't like the minimum charge to use card."

      Carry cash…. They have these wonderful machines that you put the card in and it spits out cash for you.

      "no one buys bus ticket or top up Opal at newsagencies"

      Depends on the margins… If they only get 5% of the ticket sales, its not worth them selling them and giving 3% away to banks in fees and making a massive 2% is it? ie 10c on a $5 ticket.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 11:24

      "customers don't like the minimum charge to use card."

      Carry cash…. They have these wonderful machines that you put the card in and it spits out cash for you.

      "no one buys bus ticket or top up Opal at newsagencies"

      Depends on the margins… If they only get 5% of the ticket sales, its not worth them selling them and giving 3% away to banks in fees and making a massive 2% is it? ie 10c on a $5 ticket.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/06/2015 - 12:20

    i have been stung by the fee of 50c as the min spend was 10 dollars and i was well under that.

    Now i this this should be bared as they are providing a payment method and should not have to deal with the min spend and or cash only.

  • bbourizk on 17/06/2015 - 12:21

    My merchant fees are between 500-600 a month. Over a year it's a nice little amount I'd rather be keeping.

    We have the 4 major banks within 40 meters of the business but people just want to pay by card. It's funny when the machine is broken or out of action for a day is like the world is going to end.

    Just last week we had a young lady that couldn't pay for a meal on her card and had no cash. We just told her to pay the next day. She ended up going home and getting the cash money.

  • Japius on 17/06/2015 - 13:25
    +1

    I am fine with a surcharge, BUT it must be reasonable and reflect the actual cost, and in a perfect world displayed prominently BEFORE you choose to take up the merchants service/goods. Taking into account the cost of cash handling/banking as well. IMO 1% should be about it for most businesses when they are realistic about the REAL cost DIFFERENCE to taking cash. They should also factor in the benefit of offering it and it attracting customers like me who prefer businesses who take cards. Surely that is worth afew points of a percent to allow them to charge a max surcharge of 1%?

    What I hate though is 'cash only', the option should be mine. I avoid any business that doesn't take cards even if I am paying cash.

  • mroarsome on 17/06/2015 - 13:48
    +3

    I'm all for banning "cash only" places!

    This was my biggest adjustment when moving from NZ to Melbourne. I couldn't believe there was so many "cash only" signs, especially in the CBD of a major city like Melbourne - which in itself has a higher population than NZ. A lot of aussies love to make jokes about how backwards NZ is e.g. "have you guys got the Internet over there yet?" etc but I can tell you technology adoption wise, NZ is far ahead of Australia. In NZ, almost everywhere has EFTPOS, even coffee carts on the street. I never carried cash… even Awaroa Lodge which runs off generator power and is a 3 day hike in the middle of a national park has EFTPOS… and they don't have a minimum purchase or surcharge either. There is zero excuses for a large restaurant in a CBD to not have an EFTPOS machine.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 21:28
      +1

      different bank fees maybe between NZ and AU?

      re mobile coffee carts. Banks are the main reason. Mobile EFTPOS machines here come with higher month fees and higher % costs per transaction. Hence these business go 'cash only'.

    • neonlight on 18/06/2015 - 08:13

      I also all for banning cash only and stores that refuses to take 5 cents

  • zealmax on 17/06/2015 - 18:27
    +4

    I don't really care whether they accept cards or not, however I care that they evade taxes. I work hard for my money and pay every cent of taxes due. I avoid places that have "Cash Only" signs. They should just have a sign up saying, "We Don't Pay Tax". At least that would be more honest.

    The government is talking about abolishing negative gearing to increase revenue, but majority of the people that claim negative gearing are doing it are people that pay tax from their hard earned money. You can't claim, without paying taxes in the first place. The government should be working on a solution to the tax evasion problem, that is probably costing them even more, and putting a bigger strain on the people that do pay taxes.

    I want my tax dollars to go to hospitals, roads, education, welfare but not to tax evading business owners who live in mansions and drive BMW, while claiming Centrelink benefits.

    • JimmyF on 17/06/2015 - 21:29
      +1

      yet large companies that take cards, cough cough Apple for example, pay little to no tax. So its not just CASH businesses that are evading taxes.

      • zealmax on 19/06/2015 - 11:51

        Tax avoidance is different to tax evasion.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2015 - 12:56
          +2

          Doesn't make it ok for corporations to create fake invoices in order to pull money out of the country.

        • zealmax on 19/06/2015 - 13:02

          @ssa02: That would be classified as tax evasion, and is wrong.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2015 - 13:04
          +1

          @zealmax:
          Yes if it can be proven, but im sure their expert accountants can justify these invoices anyway.
          Because in reality, these multi-million dollar companies would shut shop of they only made a few dollars profit in this country over time.

        • JimmyF on 19/06/2015 - 13:51
          +1

          At the end of the day, the outcome is the SAME. They both pay little to no tax.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/06/2015 - 22:43
    +2

    As someone from nz, where they don't have this bs…

    Ya it's bs.

  • mohan76 on 17/06/2015 - 23:31
    +1

    Simple solution to this problem bank should charge account holder instate of merchant :)

    • JimmyF on 18/06/2015 - 10:35

      You mean pay on TOP of the large yearly fees and crazy high interest rates already charged!? But how will banks continue to double and triple dip from both ends if they do this!?

      Users will move to 'cheaper' payment terms like GASP cash.

      • mohan76 on 18/06/2015 - 12:57

        well paper cash is the best solution rest of them will have higher fee soon or later

        • JimmyF on 18/06/2015 - 18:43

          *Plastic cash….. no paper cash here for decades now! :)

  • MrBillions on 18/06/2015 - 01:48

    Charging extra for card payments should be against the law.

    • JimmyF on 18/06/2015 - 10:35
      +1

      It use to be, but the banks ripped everyone off too much and the law was changed to allow it to be passed on the customer now.

  • Mysterious on 18/06/2015 - 04:54
    +1

    I say minimum transaction is fair enough because of the hefty fees. I was once charged $0.50 surcharge for a $175 purchase once as well…

    Cash only is annoying sometimes especially if they bait you with a "broken" machine. I think a lot of places do cash only to avoid tax.

  • shaiguy on 18/06/2015 - 10:29
    +1

    From someone who likes to use paywave and credit cards: Banned - definitely not. Cash is the only form of legal tender and forcing everyone to accept it means that you are giving these finance companies a massive boost in terms of our financial system. It would also give them significant bargaining power against businesses (particularly small businesses, etc.).

    At the moment it is fine - if it is not accepted then effectively the business is narrowing its market.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/06/2015 - 11:18

    The current EFTPOS/CC system (more specifically, the system of ripping of shopkeepers) should be banned.

  • rambutann on 18/06/2015 - 11:21

    I am 900% more likely to shop somewhere that accepts card.

    Its an extra revenue stream. Yes it costs money to have it but without it you will lose customers.

    • FutureTech on 18/06/2015 - 16:25

      Agreed. Yesterday I was in Newtown and there are two adjoining Thai restaurant both offering $7 lunch special, one is cash only but the other one not only accepts card but also has paypass facility. It's a no brainier.

  • tikei on 18/06/2015 - 17:43

    If these bans are in place, ALL shops will jack up their prices to pass the costs onto consumers. The reason it hasn't happened yet is because some shops still have a minimum requirement, and so shops that offer no minimum eftpos- they need to remain competitive against the aforementioned so they haven't jacked up their prices. But if it's become legislation and all have to follow, the one who loses is consumers.

  • dbun1 on 18/06/2015 - 18:48
    +1

    I've walked out of shops before when a minimum EFTPOS amount has been stated when I go to pay.
    I hate it when you buy a coffee at a cafe and go to pay and they say, "oh, $10 minimum on EFTPOS, I can add a bottle of water and a muffin to make up the difference".
    I just respond with, "no thanks" and walk out.

    I've had cafes say, "there's an ATM next door, you can go there and your coffee will be ready by the time you get back".
    Flap that, I don't have time.

    What I find rude is when they impose a minimum transaction for EFTPOS, but they charge the same amount as all the other cafes nearby.

    We are heading more and more towards a cashless society so retailers need to get with the times.

    The minimum fee is also in breach of their Merchant Agreement (depending on issuing bank); however, most banks won't care, so I vote with my feet and take my business elsewhere.

  • fishandchips on 18/06/2015 - 18:59
    -3

    I am in business I am making money using my business.
    I will charge what ever I want if you want to use my eftpos.
    I am making money by charging eftpos fee faster than I sell a can of coke.
    That how the bank make money, so I just following the bank, if you don't like it go to other shop that don't charge fee for using eftpos. As simple as that.

  • congo on 18/06/2015 - 22:46
    -1

    Small business aren't doing so well in Australia.
    We need to support them, so they can keep the large Multinational Corporations honest.

    • Falchoon on 19/06/2015 - 09:36
      +1

      That's why small business' need to get with the program. People are more and more buying stuff over the internet - a lot from overseas (admittedly this doesn't work with some things like a cup of coffee) - and more and more people are going to keep doing this, not less. Business' are there for us, the customers, they need to (within reason) do what we want them to do. Not dictate to us what we can and can't do or what we can or can't buy.

      They need to adapt their business practices and procedures instead of just throwing their hands in the air and saying "it's too hard". If Bank A is ripping them off with EFTPOS fees then shop around for another bank that has more reasonable charges. Don't just accept it, you (the business) are a customer too, of the banks. If enough shops decide that Bank A is charging too much and go to Bank B then perhaps Bank A might after time realise this and review their fees.

  • tdw on 19/06/2015 - 01:06

    while i don't tend to do business with shops that have such restrictions, i don't think they should be banned from doing so. provided that the signage is clear enough to avoid any counter awkwardness.

    as it is, many consumers are probably unaware of the transaction fees/costs involved in processing electronic payments. perhaps if we know, we'd be more understanding and the likelihood of a shop gouging on surcharges is kept to a minimum

  • geoffellis on 19/06/2015 - 02:56

    I've just been reading the Mastercard Merchant Agreement ( http://www.mastercard.com.au/merchant/_assets/docs/merchants… )

    Chapter 5 - Merchant Agreement

    Section 5.11 - Prohibited Practices

    Subsection 2 - Charges to cardholders

    States "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."

    Subsection 3 - Minimum/Maximum Transaction Amount Prohibited

    States "A Merchant must not require, or indicate that it requires, a minimum or
    maximum Transaction amount to accept a valid and properly presented Card"

    Exceptions: Exception Located in Asia Pacific Region:

    Chapter 10 - Asia Pacific Region

    Section 5.11 - Prohibited Practices

    Subsection 3 - Minimum/Maximum Transaction Amount Prohibited

    Now I could be reading this wrong - But it seems to be that Min/Max amounts are not permitted by merchants in the Asia Pacific Region, with the exception of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

    As such, it seems to me, that while not illegal, businesses that do this are actually breaking the terms of their merchant agreement with Mastercard. My understanding is Visa has similar provisions, but I havent gone to the trouble to verify. So I reckon you could potentially report a business to Mastercard for this practice of charging surcharges and setting minimums.

    • tikei on 19/06/2015 - 04:35

      No, read it again. Page 171. They can set a minimum limit if it's under usd $10.

      • geoffellis on 19/06/2015 - 04:47

        You need to read it again. Page 171:

        Rule 5.11.3 of Chapter 5, “Merchants and Sales Transactions” as it applies in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands is modified to include the following:

        The exception which sets that minimum limit if its under 10$ applies only to the above 3 regions. You can't just read the line that you want to apply, you need to take the whole context into consideration. It lists the exceptions for those 3 regions and not the entire asia-pacific region.

        • tikei on 19/06/2015 - 04:54

          I read the whole paragraph.
          It says modified to include the following

          I thought it means the clauses is the same as American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands BUT modified to include the next 3 clauses. One of the clause being on under $10 is OK.

          Confusing.

        • geoffellis on 19/06/2015 - 05:04

          Legal text can be confusing

          It says the same section in chapter 5, is modified for those 3 regions to include those extra clauses.

  • dbun1 on 19/06/2015 - 11:37

    From Commonwealth Bank Merchant Agreement:

    2.3.3 No Minimum Transaction Amount
    You must not impose any minimum transaction amount for card transactions

    Interesting because most terminals I see are Commbank.
    I have spoken to Commbank about it, but really, they don't care. If they penalised the Merchant they would just move to another bank, so Commbank lose out completely, so it's in their interest to just ignore the practice.

    • jason101 on 19/06/2015 - 13:54
      -1

      What the CBA don't list in that paragraph is they charge (my small business for example):

      • Monthly equipment rental
      • Monthly surcharge for linking website transactions to merchant account
      • Account keeping fee on the account used to deposit the EFTPOS funds into
      • MINIMUM AGREED MONTHLY TRANSACTION FEES - i.e. If we as a retailer don't meet the minimum fee amount paid to them on transactions - we are billed this amount anyway.
      • Then you have to buy all the over priced consumables from them as well.

      That is on top of the fixed fee + % charged on each transaction.

      I always thought paypal was a scam (as an online seller) until I opened a merchant account with the CBA 3-4 years ago. Suddenly paypal is looking cheap.

      • dbun1 on 19/06/2015 - 14:56
        +1

        but that's your choice to use CBA. There are other merchants around to choose from who don't have the same clause.

        Also, the clause just above that one (2.3.2) states that it is fine to charge a surcharge, as long as the surcharge is clearly visible to the buyer and is not unreasonable. So CBA do not want merchants to use minimum amounts but rather a surcharge if they feel the need to recoup costs.

        Why not simply have a 30c, 50c or whatever surcharge? I find this a much more reasonable practice, as do many others.

  • shaybisc on 19/06/2015 - 12:36

    Saw an article in SMH recently where the owner of a car tyre shop said he was paying between $1000 and $2000 a month to banks for card fees.

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/card-fees…

  • cycleri3 on 19/06/2015 - 14:17
    +1

    This seems to be an Australia thing. In some EU countries (e.g. Germany) and also in NZ all places accept card even the corner florist, take away coffee shop or small vegetable shop. When I lived in NZ the only reason I used cash was for donations, sometimes vending machines or paying friends when I didn't have their bank accounts to do a bank transfer. Eftpos cards are accepted everywhere and I used them even on 50c purchases. Because all I carried in my pocket was my eftpos card and drivers license and keys.

    • isthisreallife22 on 20/06/2015 - 09:36

      On the contrary, Australia has WAY more retailers that accept card than most of the world - including America, Europe, and PARTICULARLY japan. In Japan cash is pretty much all the locals use, and cards are really for foreigners mainly

  • [Deactivated] on 19/06/2015 - 19:21
    +1

    No - why should we force businesses to pay fees to banks. We live in a competitive market and the consumer has a choice, however think that if minimums EFTPOS or cash only is required it needs to be clearly displayed so a customer has a choice before they commit to a purchase - been caught out a few times at a till where a postage sized stamp states the limitations. Agree with greenpossum, if people don't like it vote with your feet, however I often support places that are cash only - BTW disclosing I like using cash ;-)

  • Food on 19/06/2015 - 21:33
    +2

    I don't carry cash, only card so I enjoy paying by card for a $1 frozen coke ;)

  • mranderson978 on 19/06/2015 - 21:59

    It sounds like the OP wants to ban most of the Queen Victoria Market.
    There's lots of reasons for cash, and there's no reason to compel businesses to use merchant facilities.

  • isthisreallife22 on 20/06/2015 - 09:34
    +2

    This thread always makes me think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=44&v=YufMJyFFz-g

    I hate cash

  • chillin222 on 20/06/2015 - 13:43
    +1

    Things I've learnt from this thread:

    1. Small business owners do not shop around and are conequently being ripped off by banks
    2. Customers have no idea how much it -actually- costs to accept card
    3. Noone understands the difference between EFTPOS and Scheme transactions

    There are so many new players in payments:
    -PayPal Here is a flat 1.95% for all transactions. All you need is a $99 cardreader - absolutely no other costs
    -Many banks now offer 'capped' plans, like a phone plan. One simple fee for all your transactions, with no cost for the terminal.

    At 1.95%, a $4 coffee will cost $0.08 in merchant fees. How petty do people want to be?

  • froggym on 23/06/2015 - 16:54
    +1

    I went to a restaurant with $10 lunch deals. Got my food and ate, no one mentioned a minimum. When I got to the counter there was a $25 eftpos minimum which was ridiculous. Told them I didn't have any cash and surprise surprise they were quite happy to let me pay on card. Said to remember for next time, like I am going back to a place with a $25 eftpos minimum.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join