No, they don’t charge higher transaction fees in order to pay those reward rates, they just give up on making any profit from that and instead try to profit from charging interest. Which of course is disproportionately paid from people who cannot actually afford it.
Usury is forbidden (haram) in Islam, so many Muslim majority countries do in fact do this.
Malaysia and Indonesia come to mind.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Agreed.
You forgot the butter.
I know right?
Didn’t Democrats literally just take him to court over fleecing those bankers by overvaluing his own properties in order to qualify for a lower interest rate? What exactly makes you think he’s in bed with them?
I mean that’s certainly a possibility but if it helps some people get out of debt, I won’t be mad about it.
Technically, the cashback they pay you likely comes directly out of the transaction fees they collect, which means that after expenses (for running the infrastructure etc.), they make little to no profit on swipes. Which means they have to make profit somewhere else, which, you guessed it, is fleecing those who don’t pay their balance off every month for as much as they can get away with.
You’re both right. The rewards are indeed mostly covered by the processing fees, but that means after covering infrastructure expenses etc., the banks are operating at a net loss (or breakeven at best), meaning they still have to fleece someone on their interest payments.
I guess we’ll see, but I think we can all appreciate his willingness to go straight to brass tacks and hold Trump’s feet to the flame while the entire Democrat Party leadership is still busy clutching their pearls.
Why is it shortsighted? A service like this costs money to run, and if you won’t pay for it, someone else has to.
So did Facebook. It’s the old drug dealer gambit: first hit is on the house, after that, you gotta pay.
Possible, but Vance doesn’t exactly strike me as Hitler 2.0. I watched his Joe Rogan interview and he came off as a pretty reasonable guy.
Did he not read the part where Hitler genocided Jews, Europeans, and the disabled?
That’s the thing though — Hitler didn’t run on a platform of genociding people, he ran on a platform of economic improvement. Weimar Germany was economically depressed and many average people and families were suffering from unemployment and financial hardship while the rich were relatively unaffected and enjoying themselves. Hitler promised to change that (and in all fairness, he did). The genociding Jews part came much later.
Hitler was in charge of Germany for 11 years (1934-1945) — the war didn’t start until 1938, and the holocaust only began in 1942, so the voters DID end up getting at least 4 years of relative peace and prosperity. Also, keep in mind that Hitler was 45 years old when he became chancellor, meanwhile Trump is 78, meaning even if he manages to finish his second tenure successfully, he’ll very likely simply be too old by the end of it in order to continue, which makes it somewhat unlikely that he’ll attempt to stage another coup in order to remain dictator for life.
Weird, because I remember back when Jack Dorsey used to run it no one was complaining, even though he’s also a billionaire.
*pulls out guitar
This is Ground Control to Major Tom
Pretty sure that’s a Bart Simpson phone prank
What about this makes you think they aren’t? Let’s be real, Trump hasn’t even had a chance to renege on this promise yet, since he won’t be president for another two months.