XPost: nf.general 
 From: tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca 
  
 "Clyde Anderson"  wrote in message 
 news:vfOdnZ-WgfGdtCbfRVn-3Q@rogers.com... 
 > not sure of the legality of it, but ive gone to corner stores to buy 
 > butter 
 > or bread and went to use interac only to be told there was a charge. i 
 > said 
 > thank you and left (with the items still on the counter) 
 > 
 > i will not pay for interac , the benefit for the mechant outweighs the 
 > benefit for the consumer. 
 > 
 > we DO have a choice where we shop! 
 > 
 > Clyde 
 > 
 Clyde I agree. It's not the amount, not even that the merchant/retailer 
 could probably make a good case for the percentage or whatever per 
 transaction fee they have to pay the financial service systems for the use 
 of Interac etc. 
 But the principle of paying 'any' surcharge is 'the thin end of yet another 
 cost wedge'. 
  
 i.e. Get the public used to as much 'plastic money' as possible;  jack up 
 the charges for retailers using cash and then allow surcharges by anyone 
 involved in any of  the steps in the whole system. 
  
 Surcharge procedures also make it more complicated for us as consumers. 
 'Buyer beware' and so on.' 
  
 One retailer I know quite well said that it was completely necessary for 
 him, these days, to accept all plastic. If he did not, he said, he would 
 lose business. By same token he now accepts very few if any cheques; and yes 
 the charges for processing those through the financial systems has also gone 
 up. 
  
 Maybe our grandparents, keeping money under the mattress had the right idea! 
 . 
 But what's next? Maybe a surcharge for using cash? (Sorry; the cost to us of 
 depositing cash at the bank has increased. That'll be a fifty cent fee for 
 paying with cash, sir.)!  That'll be the day! 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)