On Sep 24, 8:03*am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:32:36 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
> > blake murphy > wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:22:38 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >>> I emphaatically agree with rejecting debit cards, which my
> >>> bank always tries to foise upon me at least once a year as
> >>> a replacement for the traditional ATM card. *You can't
> >>> blame them; they charge the merchants up to 2% per transaction
> >>> on the debit card. *But it has the weakest possible
> >>> consumer protection.
>
> >>you need a new bank. *mine charges me zip for each debit card transaction.
>
> > (1) You can't know what the merchants get charged; (2) there
> > is still much less consumer protection than with a credit
> > card.
>
> i don't give a shit what the merchant is charged. *you were complaining
> about what *you* were charged.
>
> your pal,
> blake


As I understood the post, the person was complaining that they were
charged for using a debit card, as they expected it to be free. The
problem is that the retailer pays a fee for both debit and credit card
transactions, so most retailers treat them the same. If the gas
station charges a fee for credit cards, I would assume they would do
the same for debit cards. The complaint seems unfounded, in my
opinion.