Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!wm
From: wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Cash-payers: take note
Message-ID: <680@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 12:17:31 EST
Article-I.D.: tekchips.680
Posted: Mon Apr  9 12:17:31 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Apr-84 04:36:13 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 56

The comparison of cash discounts on gasoline to credit surcharges
*is* fair.  You just have to compare the discounted cash price
at stations that offer cash discounts to the regular (only) price
at stations that do not offer offer cash discounts.  I think you
will see that there is a strong relationship between these two
prices, and the stations that say they are offering a cash discount
are in fact charging a surcharge for credit.

This is reasonable as long as the price that is advertised is the
regular price.  Unfortunately, most stations I know advertise
(on the signs in front of the station) the cash price, which in
effect makes explicit that these are credit surcharges, not cash
discounts.  There is one stations near here where the price on
the sign looks pretty good (for a major oil company), until
you drive in and find that that price is only if you pay cash, and
only if you get a fillup, and only if you purchase a minimum amount.
That scam made me feel really burned, even though I was paying cash,
getting a fillup, and buying more than the minimum amount, and I
don't go there anymore.

I feel this sort of thing would be more common if credit surcharges
were made legal.  Businesses charge what the market will bear,
constrained by what their competitors charge.  If a store can
advertise a lower price and then charge extra if you use a credit
card, they will.  But what business will advertise a price and
then give a cash discount?  You see, they are the same, but they
are different.  That is why one is legal, and has always been,
but the other is illegal.

I hate surcharges, little add ons and such.  When I bought
my house it seemed that of the cash I had to cough up to buy
the thing, less than half actually went into the down payment
(i.e., into my equity), and the rest went to countless little
charges and payoffs.  I have three pages listing all of them,
and all of them are legal and customary.  Everyone had their
hand deep in my pocket, especially the bank (did you know
that last year, on the average, banks paid -12.6% of their
income in taxes; yes, that was a negative number [source:
article in this Sunday's paper, in Parade, I think]).

I believe that making credit surcharges legal will only serve to
raise prices and make buying things more complicated.  Oregon
has no sales tax, and property taxes and personal income taxes
are very high because of it.  Since sales taxes are regressive,
and my income bracket is high, I would be much better off with a
sales tax.  But the pleasure of buying something and paying
exactly the price they advertise is more than worth it to me.

I suppose that since you in the rest of the country are used to
having a 5 or so percent surcharge added onto your purchases,
you wouldn't mind a credit surcharge.  So how about if Congress
makes them legal everywhere but Oregon? :-)

			Wm Leler    503/627-5151
			wm.Tektronix@csnet-relay
		{ucbvax|allegra|decvax|ihnp4}!tektronix!wm