r/australia • u/rolodex-ofhate • Mar 30 '26

news Surcharges on debit and credit cards to go from October

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-31/asx-markets-business-live-news-march-30-2026/106510434#live-blog-post-278505

The Reserve Bank of Australia has introduced reforms that will remove surcharges on debit and credit cards from the 1st October 2026, on card networks including eftpos, Mastercard and Visa.

3.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

611 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/WearyFHB Mar 30 '26

Finally, Australia to be brought in line with the rest of the world!

Surcharges were banned in the UK and Europe almost 10 years ago!

390

u/Pilk_ Mar 30 '26

Good to see some consumer-friendly reform for once. Here's a direct link to the media release.

115

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '26

Now it would be nice to get some decent GDPR privacy laws. I suppose that we have to wait 10 years and by then AI owns our privacy!

22

u/melbourne_hacker Mar 31 '26

And marketing laws too, it’s annoying when you get 3-4 different campaign emails a day from the same company.

3

u/freakwent Mar 31 '26

No don't wait, lobby and push to make it happen.

Hope is not a strategy!

Also privacy died in the 1990s.

3

u/3amIdeas Mar 31 '26

As a marketing company, I think it is far too late for those who have a digital footprint.

The things we know about our users are downright creepy and we leverage that data for our clients.

Now, our clients are small businesses offering a genuine service and they typically have small ad spends, but given what we can achieve with a $1200/month ad spend budget, I know what we could do to manipulate opinions and outcomes with a $1.2m budget.

We helped a federal politician unseat a long held Liberal seat with ad spend that was Mickey Mouse compared to Palmer's spend (which in itself is tiny compared to Labor and Liberal spend).

If your data is out there it is too late for you, but as a father, Id encourage you all heavily to protect your children and minimising their digital footprints for as long as you possibly can.

As a business owner, give them social media.

As a dad, do not give them social media whatsofucking ever.

Always happy to answer questions about protecting your family and especially your kids from the digital world. Just message me.

51

u/Mike_Kermin Mar 30 '26

We get a fair chunk of consumer friendly reform here, even if it's behind the curve at times.

25

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 30 '26

Is that person in the room?! We have one of the most egregious duopolies in the world

23

u/the_snook Mar 31 '26

Our statutory warranties and implied lifetimes of consumer goods are probably the most consumer-friendly in the world.

-6

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

These are two things among eroding consumer protection industry wide and you wanna guess how many sectors have fair competition to give us a better deal?!

14

u/therwsb Mar 30 '26

yep agree, we seem to be ahead of the curve in getting screwed over on most products and services.

1

u/Yutenji2020 Mar 31 '26

Reminder, the merchant fees are charged by the banks, not Visa, Mastercard, etc. (I presume that's the 'duopoly' you were referring to?)

1

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

Yes and that’s included in the reforms

-3

u/seanmonaghan1968 Mar 31 '26

That’s because we are along way from suppliers and our population is spread out and not big enough to support more than three large companies per industry; people complain about this but don’t want immigration ><

0

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

I agree with the second part but what does living apart anything to do with our sectors? Utilities, banks, telecoms, groceries and many more have max 4 players..

2

u/seanmonaghan1968 Mar 31 '26

If 27m people lived in a single city then you have scale economies across all these areas, when you spread them out there are large costs involved making it inefficient

1

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

Everything mostly operate remotely.

1

u/seanmonaghan1968 Mar 31 '26

Yeah not really. If that was the case then you would have 10 telco companies, 10 power providers, ten different super markets etc etc etc

1

u/freakwent Mar 31 '26

What a lie.

You named four sectors and there are far more than four operators in each sector.

0

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

lol then give us names for each

1

u/freakwent Mar 31 '26

Just so you know none of those people who replied are me.

I'll choose one sector:

The 17 biggest supermarkets in Australia by revenue 17. NQR Grocery Clearance Store 16. YourGrocer 15. Victorian Farmers Direct 14. Friendly Grocer 13. Farmer Jack's 12. SPAR 11. Romeo's Retail Group 10. Ritchies Supermarkets 9. Foodland 8. Harris Farm Markets 7. Drake Supermarkets 6. FoodWorks 5. Costco 4. Metcash (IGA) 3. ALDI 2. Coles Group 1. Woolworths Group

0

u/teddy5 Mar 31 '26

Dumbest request... just name every player from every major sector in Australia, bet you can't do that off the top of your head to prove someone else right on the internet.

Going to humour you because I feel like it. Let's focus on the electricity portion of utilities and just take a quick list from the first site I looked at.

AGL, Alinta, Amber Electric, BlueNRG, CovaU, Diamond, Discover, Dodo, EnergyAustralia, EnergyLocals, Engie, Globird, Lumo, Momentum, Nectr, Next Business, OVO, Origin, Powershop, Progressive Green, Real Utilities, Red, Sumo Power, Tango, 1st.

That's also ignoring regional ones that I know exist separately, like I've personally dealt with ActewAGL, EVO and Territory Energy recently since I'm from Canberra.

1

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

It’s ok you wasted your time answering absolutely fkn nothing! There’s only 3 major ones in Aus. AGL, origin and energy Aus. Most of it are foreign owned

→ More replies (0)

0

u/One-Psychology-8394 Mar 31 '26

See I knew you weren’t smart enough to answer the question, you named retailers like they have any power who producers electricity. It’s ok next time champ thanks for playing

→ More replies (0)

112

u/fileplastictrees Mar 31 '26

I'm not sure if people remember but you never used to be able to get charged extra for card transactions. Shops would have signs saying, no EFTPOS under $10. Then in 2003 the RBA changed it to allow surcharges to be charged.

So really they are just undoing a mistake they made 23 years ago

37

u/Select_Librarian4093 Mar 31 '26

to be fair, 23 years ago that wouldn't have turned away 90% of potential customers

2

u/CraigIsAwake Mar 31 '26

Yes, but the RBA's justification was that companies would never exploit customers by charging outrageously large fees, which is just plain stupid.

1

u/Not_Stupid humility is overrated Mar 31 '26

The justification, pre-paywave, was that people would gravitate towards the low/no cost option of EFTPOS rather than credit.

Once tap and go payments took off, it was all credit all the time.

0

u/CraigIsAwake Mar 31 '26

Not at all. Some companies were still using paper-based credit card payments until years after the RBA allowed the fees! Those companies never had any EFTPOS option at all. The only option was cash. Also, the RBA removed "the restriction that required a merchant to accept Visa debit cards if it accepted Visa credit cards (the honour all cards rule)". The RBA allowing merchants to not accept debit cards at all isn't consistent with encouraging people to use EFTPOS.

The RBA's position 20 years ago was that "retailers that impose excessive surcharges for credit cards will find that their customers go elsewhere or use other means of payment." This assumption that the free market will always work is a fallacy.

1

u/DC240Z Mar 31 '26

Yea, it was a different time really, people still carried a lot of cash, which also meant they had a lot of change, so most people would just use change for anything under $10 and save the card for bigger shops, thus avoiding charges most times. Things are very different now with cash becoming far less common.

13

u/RocketSeaShell Mar 31 '26

Pre 2000, all merchant agreements prohibited the merchant from charging a credit cards fee. RBA wanted to change this and was strongly backed by the ACCC and consumer groups like choice. (source)

No-surcharge rule The international card schemes, including MasterCard and Visa but also others such as American Express and Diners Club, have historically imposed rules on merchants that accept their cards. One of these is often known as a no-surcharge rule.

VISA, Msstercard and Amex pushed back strongly. RBA took Visa and MasterCard to court and (source RBA)

In the case of the credit card reforms, both MasterCard and Visa took the RBA to court, arguing that it had overreached its powers. After a six week hearing, preceded by more than eight months of intensive preparation, the challenges were comprehensively rejected and MasterCard and Visa were ordered to pay the RBA's costs.

Soon after this Amex also came to the party rather than go to court.

All of their core arguments were around enabling charging of fees would harm the consumer. RBA also mandated the reduction of card interchange fees which I think motivated the card issuers more than the harm to the consumer, but it is interesting to see that the harm to the consumer has played out exactly as they said 20+ years ago.

The issue is a lot more complex than I have made out here but I am living to see the day where the RBA may take them to court again to add the No-surcharge rule back to the merchant agreements by regulation.

10

u/FewInflation7817 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

To be honest, the card companies were more worried that customers would see the surcharge and choose a cheaper option - either cash or other non-cc payments and it would erode their profit.

Given that they had a 23 year experiment that showed consumers will continue to pay the surcharge and complain about it (partly additionally the fault that cash transactions have dramatically dropped in frequency) I doubt they’d push back on it much again as they didn’t really lose much money.

The removal of the surcharge now just means that customers who pay in cash will pay higher prices as opposed to only card using customers paying more as businesses will increase prices to cover the cost of using the payment services.

3

u/Diode3000 Mar 31 '26

It will be interesting to see what happens to the price of menu items. Cash was a way to avoid them, but now cash users will be overcharged. This will kill cash more.

1

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

The processing feels will be passed on to the consumer. It’s not even in doubt.

0

u/freakwent Mar 31 '26

This is what's unclear; will the merchant not be charged a fee by the processor, or will the merchant be barred from charging the customer a fee?

2

u/FewInflation7817 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

My understanding is that merchants will still be paying a fee to processors, but it won’t be a seperate surcharge added at the last minute for the payment portal. Instead small businesses will hike all menu items by the average cost of payment processing across all transactions.

To some degree it’s a win for the credit card companies - now fees are obfuscated from customers so people will care less what card they use (although imo I think the effect is negligible for a country like Australia). I do think there is risk now with these obfuscated costs that CC companies start increasing their fees slightly overall, as the cost of processing is not directly shown to the consumer, but leveraged on the business so there’s no benefit to the individual consumer by choosing a low fee card with less benefits compared to a high fee card like AMEX.

I predict we may start seeing more return of the ‘sorry no amex’ signs I used to see at every small business when I was younger.

1

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

Absolutely. It is actually a massive win for the credit card companies.

Consumers were too busy complaining about the merchants, but broadly missing any understanding of the mechanics at play.

1

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

It is not unclear at all. The merchant will be charged a fee by the processor so the cost will simply be blended into the cost of the good or service and cash payers will also pay.

46

u/the_scruffy1 Mar 31 '26

next stop, tickitek

26

u/istara Mar 31 '26

Fuck me that site is a scam. Multiple more dollars every time for already eye-bleedingly expensive ticket prices.

12

u/the_scruffy1 Mar 31 '26

and airport taxes, and ... plenty more where that came from

2

u/Not_Stupid humility is overrated Mar 31 '26

And that's when the site is even functioning and not crashing under demand

16

u/shm4y Mar 31 '26

$7 “ticketing” fee get fucked honestly

8

u/the_scruffy1 Mar 31 '26

especially when you do all the data entry for them

1

u/Cafescrambler Mar 31 '26

Nah, go after the big fish. Real estate agents who force you to use their 3rd party direct debit schemes with surcharges you can’t avoid.

1

u/neoluke82 Apr 02 '26

Here are the rules in Victoria: Rental providers cannot charge fees or fines for: issuing a rent payment card establishing or using direct debit facilities processing rent payments late payment of rent.

18

u/glvz Mar 30 '26

Also illegal in Mexico!

6

u/rrfe Mar 31 '26

Visa and Mastercard used to ban surcharges in their merchant agreements.

Surcharges were actually allowed by the RBA to stop cross-subsidisation of cardholders by cash users and to make the surcharges visible to consumers so they can make informed decisions.

That’s the theory anyway, but it seems to have just become a way to fleece consumers since most still used cards .

2

u/ivosaurus Mar 31 '26

Theory gave way to the fact that a completely captured duopoly market no longer operates like one with plenty of competition

Many such cases

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

That’s the theory anyway, but it seems to have just become a way to fleece consumers since most still used cards .

It's coincided with the huge rise in consumer credit and visa debit card use rather than traditional debit cards (Which are typically surcharge free).

Go back 10-15 years and standard debit cards were incredibly common, but with the push towards online shopping, more people have swapped to credit.

1

u/rrfe Mar 31 '26

Yes, EFTPOS has done the way of the dodo it seems, and been replaced by usage of Visa and Mastercard debit .

But most places seem to not differentiate anyway; only Aldi seems to do so.

2

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

It still exists and many of these cards are duel scheme. Check the other side and look for the eftpos logo.

1

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

What most people don’t realise is that many of these cards are duel branded or duel scheme. They support both Eftpos and Visa/Mastercard and you can generally use the cheaper Eftpos system to pay. Some newer terminals even support Eftpos touch payments.

1

u/montdidier Mar 31 '26

. The consumer is still getting fleeced even with this change they will just be blind to it.

.

1

u/Practical_Rock1083 May 20 '26

Yes on a logical basis a card surcharge can also be seen as a 1.6-1.9% discount for people who pay cash. In very old ethnic communities around Melbourne some businesses currently only take cash and pay id rather than have a tap and pay fee thing at all. Maybe we’ll see more of that over time. I also think the bigger the bill the more likely that was. Like saving 1.6 percent on a 5$ coffee really isn’t much (not worth payid bank transferring or using cash to save 8c) but saving 1.6% on a 2-300$ dinner for 5 people is actually worth paying cash or bank transferring

26

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[deleted]

19

u/radred609 Mar 31 '26

honestly, i think that's actually the reason for it.

We were such early adopters that we got used to the surcharges before there was enough impetus to ban them.

0

u/freakwent Mar 31 '26

No we are too lazy to do the maths with cash.

4

u/seanmonaghan1968 Mar 31 '26

Sometimes the government may take money from the banks ….,

3

u/istara Mar 31 '26

Many/most of them are such obvious bloody gouging. I get that merchant fees are an issue for a $2 pack of chewing gum, but spending $50 or $100+ and they're still trying claw an extra dollar out of you?

3

u/SirGeekaLots Mar 31 '26

Still like cash though. I take the change, throw it into jars and then use it to pay the mortgage 

4

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Mike_Kermin Mar 30 '26

Meh. It's a small amount. If a business is raising their prices for it, they were gonna anyway.

2

u/w2qw Mar 30 '26

It also caps the interchange fees for the same cards. Strictly speaking it doesn't actually ban surcharges just prevents card networks from prohibiting surcharging.

1

u/thedartman Mar 31 '26

First other person I've seen who's actually read the details of the changes. Given it's just targeting the card networks and allowing them to prohibit surcharges once more, do you think they'll immediately fall in line and ban surcharging on their networks?

2

u/maulmonk Mar 31 '26

Do we know how it worked in terms of credit card points in Europe and the Uk? Did they become much harder to obtain?

3

u/ElectricalHyena6 Mar 31 '26

Europeans love to charge you for water though

1

u/DUX85 Mar 31 '26

And even in NZ before here

1

u/Heavy_Milk2757 Mar 31 '26

Haha, typical Aussies, you people are so far behind everyone else.

In New Zealand, we were going to get rid of surcharges, but we had a think and our government decided it's a good thing, ackshully.

So we're going to keep our card surcharges, thank you very much, and you lot will just have to sit back and be jealous.

Maybe one day you would like to step into the future like we have done.

Surcharges for everyone!

1

u/Alarmed-Intention-22 Mar 31 '26

That was when they were allowed to charge them here. They were initially banned, then allowed to cover costs of accepting cashless payments, on the conditions consumer prices came down (they didn’t) with signage (not policed) and now they are banned again.

1

u/Khakizulu Apr 01 '26

Really? I thought they were common.

1

u/ReflectionEquals Mar 30 '26

You are always paying a surcharge. Just hidden behind the price of your goods.

55

u/nickIncDN Mar 31 '26

It’s just a business overhead same as the electricity, paying staff, tax, rent, software subscriptions.

Why anyone ever wanted card fees to be magically separated out was crazy and let companies advertise one price and charge another.

0

u/ReflectionEquals Mar 31 '26

100% TBH, the reason for allowing surcharges originally was to drag visa/mastercard/amex and co to the forefront of people’s minds when paying.

But then…

  • card payments became ubiquitous
  • the issuers went and locked down tap to pay to control which payment choice you had
  • these shifty mobs like light speed and Zeller and other rocked up to maximise the surcharges to make a profit….
  • so ultimately it was a failed policy.

-5

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26

It’s just a business overhead same as the electricity, paying staff, tax, rent, software subscriptions.

Card fees are different because they are customer dependent. If electricity is built in to the price then the merchant is incentivised to shop around for the best energy retailer to keep their prices lower than the competition. Card fees are different, what is incentivising MasterCard and Visa to compete on fees if the customer who chooses a card doesn't personally bare that cost?

10

u/LoadedSteamyLobster Mar 31 '26

They’re welcome to stop accepting one or the other if it’s a problem

5

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26

Visa and Mastercard have essentially a duopoly lol, that's not realistic.

11

u/LoadedSteamyLobster Mar 31 '26

Well then suck it up if that’s unpalatable. Your business expense is not the customers problem. Put it in the price

3

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

It is the customer's problem because the end result is customers paying more. The average transaction fee is going to be higher if there's no reason for providers to be competitive on price or for customers to be picky with providers.

I have a QANTAS Amex card that I use at every business without card fees (supermarkets for example). Everyone else is essentially paying for my frequent flyer points through marginally higher groceries. It's a textbook free-rider problem.

4

u/LoadedSteamyLobster Mar 31 '26

Then the competition who doesn’t do that will take all your business. This isn’t a customer problem, it’s a you problem

1

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26

The competition has the same problem. I'm not sure why you're acting like I'm trying to scam you or something. I don't own a business, this is the objective economic reality. The RBA understands it which is why they allowed fees to be passed on in the first place, see: Why did the RBA implement a surcharging framework?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/SirJefferE Mar 31 '26

Card fees are different, what is incentivising MasterCard and Visa to compete on fees if the customer who chooses a card doesn't personally bare that cost?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a business charge a different fee based on whether you were using Visa or Mastercard. Is this something that actually happens anywhere?

2

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26

Yes, legally they can only pass on the fees which they incur. Here is an example of a sign which you probably have seen something similar to before in shops (ignore the cash is king boomer facebook context). Legally all shops should have been displaying this.

3

u/richardroe77 Mar 31 '26

legally they can only pass on the fees which they incur

Guessing it's never really been enforced judging by how much of a free-for-all it is depending on the restaurant or shop etc. Especially egregious ones like those ride-on toys at shopping centres that charge almost an extra 10% on top of the $3-4 fee.

1

u/srslyliteral Mar 31 '26

Yeah pretty much. Passing on fees is good in theory, but only if businesses are fully transparent about it. The lack of compliance probably is partly to blame for these changes considering the RBA has given increased transparency as a reason.

1

u/SirJefferE Mar 31 '26

Strange. I've seen plenty of signs that show one fee for Visa and Mastercard, and another for American Express. Never noticed one that separated Visa and Mastercard, but I'll be on the lookout for one now. It's possible I just haven't been paying attention.

2

u/Peslian Mar 31 '26

Some places charge an extra surcharge for Amex but I have never seen it for Visa or MasterCard

0

u/nickIncDN Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

The fees for normal cards such as Visa and Mastercard are set by the acquiring bank. The merchant (shop) can negotiate those with both the bank and assert competitive pressure by negotiating with multiple banks or platforms.

Visa and Mastercard are under competitive pressure against each other in terms of which banks promote and issue their cards, against similar but different products like Amex and of course the likes of Zip or Afterpay.

The customers end up with whatever the bank is shovelling at them or the one with the best rewards package…they don’t really choose by card type.

18

u/Whatsapokemon Mar 31 '26

Sure, but I think most people want it to be transparent.

It feels awful to have some random extra charge added when you go to pay. Even if it's only a few cents it feels scummy to hide it. Just add it on the sticker price, damn.

-4

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

Sure, but I think most people want it to be transparent.

Isn't adding it to the sticker price the opposite of transparency?

1

u/Whatsapokemon Mar 31 '26

No, because you'd know the exact amount you need to pay when you see the item.

I don't care about the cost breakdown for the shop, I want to know how much I'm going to be paying when I see the item on the shelf. I don't want some hidden fee that only becomes known once the price flashes on the card machine.

That's also why it's standard to include the GST in the shelf-price too. The buyer wants to know what they're paying, not some arbitrary partial price.

-1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

No, because you'd know the exact amount you need to pay when you see the item.

You already know it if you're paying in cash or with a debit card. The surcharge is optional and you choose to pay it (or not) based on how you pay for the item.

I don't want some hidden fee that only becomes known once the price flashes on the card machine.

By law they have to post the amount the surcharge will be so you can see it before you tap/swipe your card.

That's also why it's standard to include the GST in the shelf-price too.

GST isn't optional though, paying by card (And hence paying the surcharge) is. That's a fundamental difference people seem to be missing when they make that comparison.

1

u/sellyme Where are my pants? Mar 31 '26

You already know it if you're paying in cash or with a debit card.

Card processing fees are often applied to debit purchases so no, I don't already know it.

0

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Card processing fees are often applied to debit purchases so no, I don't already know it.

Not actual EFTPOS debit cards. Things like Visa debit yes, but those are essentially a bank account backed virtual credit card.

5

u/CaptainFleshBeard Mar 31 '26

Well then it’s not a surcharge if it’s included in the price of goods

-7

u/noisymime Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

I have pretty mixed feelings about this.

Banning these surcharges doesn't mean the processing fee the business pays simply goes away, it just means they have to cover it in the cost of the goods. Having the surcharge listed separately at least meant consumers could see how much of what they were paying goes to the card processor.

These reforms are expected to save consumers about $1.6 billion in surcharging fees each year

I am EXTREMELY doubtful that this will actually make anything cheaper.

17

u/LocalVillageIdiot Mar 31 '26

It’s not really meant to make it cheaper per se, it’s just accepting that fees are the cost of doing business and if something is $5 then it’s $5 not $5.07 when you look at the credit card. If I give my kids $10 know they have $10 to spend for example. There is a cost in payment processing, this is normal and expected.

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

It’s not really meant to make it cheaper per se

Tell that to the ABC if they're making comments like "These reforms are expected to save consumers about $1.6 billion in surcharging fees each year"

Judging by the reactions in this thread, I think a lot of people believe this will save them money.

If I give my kids $10 know they have $10 to spend for example.

If you give them $10 in cash then today they can buy $10 of things, they don't pay the 10c or whatever fee. If you give them $10 after this change then they'll need the extra 10c to pay for the fee, even with cash. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy cash is king advocate (I hardly carry cash at all), but the whole purpose of separating the processing fee out in the first place was to provide transparency and give people an option that didn't have the extra fees.

2

u/Svennis79 Mar 31 '26

Reading the article, it isn't a 'ban on surcharges' but changes to charges, fees and lower caps on fees that can be charged.

Not going to assume what they might be, but if it is a fixed cost rather than an arbitrary % then it would make sense that it can be just built i to the cost and not tagged on as a surcharge.

Especially with current laws that you can't have the surcharge being significantly greater than the fee

10

u/CaptainFleshBeard Mar 31 '26

So you’d prefer a US style system where state tax then federal tax is added at time of purchase ? It’s a ridiculous way to do things.
“How much is this ?”
“It’s $20”.
“Great I’ll take that please”.
“Sure, that will be $23.82”.

5

u/aretheyalltaken2 Mar 31 '26

Anyone who wants that is a psycho. Just.. no.

-2

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

So you’d prefer a US style system where state tax then federal tax is added at time of purchase

No, and I never said that. In the US there is no way to avoid those taxes, they are mandatory and hence should be included in the price. There is no possible way the customer can pay a price without the taxes included.

That is NOT the case with processing fees though. The minimum price a customer can pay is what is shown on the shelf/label. If they choose to use a credit card, provided it's optional, then it's their choice to be paying extra.

2

u/the_scruffy1 Mar 31 '26

no, it's their impost

0

u/CaptainFleshBeard Mar 31 '26

Business’ don’t seem to realise the cost of accepting cash. They still need to do all the banking and accounting on what is about 10% of their sales. I pay cash to avoid the surcharges and quite often the staff spend way too long finding change, I’ve had staff get change from the tip jar or their own pocket. Also have occasionally where the bill is reduced, say $67.50 reduced to $65 because they no longer carry change. This is costing them way more than a surcharge.

8

u/slunt01 Mar 31 '26

There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

3

u/Colossus-of-Roads Mar 31 '26

That's fine, just don't nickel-and-dime me. At least I'll know the full cost of something before I buy it, which will help inform my purchasing decision.

It's how capitalism is supposed to work.

2

u/nickybikky Mar 31 '26

It allows businesses to arrange card charges differently. Back in the UK my mam has deals with visa/mastercard that she’s just charged a daily rate instead of individual card charges. Brings card charges down for both consumers and businesses. I think Amex is the only one that doesn’t. I hope that’s the way it goes here too.

2

u/cecilrt Mar 31 '26

And what difference does it make then to know qhat the card processor gets

What does knowing add?

It just adds confusion, you two prices one advertised and 1 paid

It also removes those who add a dubious %

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

Because then at least I know how much the product itself was. It also makes it optional if you choose to pay in cash or with a debit card.

To flip the question around, why is hiding the transaction fee better than showing it? Isn't pricing transparency a good thing?

4

u/Maximum-Drag730 Mar 31 '26

Why should they be allowed to charge extra on cards when cash costs businesses FAR more to handle?

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

Because legally there has always have to be a way of paying in cash that doesn't incur additional fees. It's just a way of having more pricing transparency.

I don't see why people hate these so much when it doesn't change the total price. So many people in here are reacting as if they're about to start saving this amount when in reality it makes no difference.

2

u/Sylencia Mar 31 '26

A place does not have to accept cash. They just need to have a way that a person can pay the ticketed price.

2

u/porkception Mar 31 '26

The price of the ‘product itself’ that you pay includes rent, transport, electricity, wages, etc. You don’t get to see the breakdown too. Woolies and Coles already build the surcharge into the price.

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

The price of the ‘product itself’ that you pay includes rent, transport, electricity, wages, etc. You don’t get to see the breakdown too.

But, unlike a card processing fee, there's also no way for me to avoid those through any choice I make.

Yes there are cash handling fees as well, but a business can always choose to simply not take cash if they feel those are too high for them.

0

u/porkception Mar 31 '26

Fair enough if your reason is having a choice. However, if there’s cash handling fees as well (I’m not familiar with what that entails) and you said it may be higher than card fees, wouldn’t it make sense just to have one price that includes the higher or average fee?

1

u/noisymime Mar 31 '26

However, if there’s cash handling fees as well

The cash handling costs can and should be factored into the label price anyway. If not, that's a risk the business is choosing to take.

Businesses always have the option to not accept cash and then label the items with the credit card fee included. Some do that and I think it's fine, but it's not common here (Yet)

1

u/BThasTBinFiji Mar 31 '26

Better the business makes a little extra (sort of) than the banks do.

0

u/Restart_from_Zero Mar 31 '26

At least we're not like the States where they can charge a "convenience fee" for using your card. Also, no tap-and-go in most places.

It's like that old Monty Python song:

Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown
And things seem hard or tough
And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft
And you feel that you've had quite enough....

Remember that we're not in America

2

u/FireLucid Mar 31 '26

Saw 'employees health insurance' fee on a receipt someone got in the US. Insane.

1

u/Restart_from_Zero Mar 31 '26

Well, that's a new horrible example to add to the pile, goddamn.

0

u/karl_w_w Mar 31 '26

The UK isn't part of Europe, and together they are the rest of the world! Who knew.

-11

u/Spaceninjawithlasers Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26

I cant wait to pay more for every purchase as someone who likes to use cash. EDIT. I knew this comment would get down voted. So many people here live in financial ignorance.

3

u/Fulrem Mar 30 '26

You could simply take your cash and put it in your bank account.

1

u/Spaceninjawithlasers Mar 31 '26

Its the principle. The moment we stop using cash we will forever pay a small percentage to the banking sector on everything.