- New Transparency Resource for Connecticut Taxpayers (CFA Site »)
- Colorado Senate Debates "Dirty Dozen" Tax Package
- About Those Jobs Numbers (CFA Site »)
- More Job Creation By The Federal Government
Monday, February 8, 2010
- Van Taylor, candidate for Texas State House, Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- February 6, 2010: Ronald Reagan Day
Saturday, February 6, 2010
- The Obama Budget
- Obama Feels International Pressure to Pass FTAs
- Let's Expedite Debate on Spending Reductions! (CFA Site »)
- Bipartisan Reform Commissions - a Comparison (CFA Site »)
- Obama Should Cooperate with Boehner and Cantor to Force Debate on Spending Reductions
- Not All Bipartisan Reform Commissions Are Created Equal
- Populist Politicians Use Poultry to Pontificate and Pander (ASA Site »)
- The Hidden Tax Hikes in the Obama Budget
Friday, February 5, 2010
- PACT Act May Reduce Tax Hike Pressures
- Arizona Congressional Candidate Eric Wnuck Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- David Schweikert Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge for Congressional Race
- ATR and CFA Will Rate House Vote Against Debt Ceiling Hike and PAYGO
- Why Everyone Should be Worried About Craig Becker (and why Scott Brown needs to stop him)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
- New UAW Union-Foxwoods Contract Will Cost Connecticut Casinos Millions (AWF Site »)
- State Legislative Fiscal Transparency Efforts - An Update (CFA Site »)
- Guess Where Politicians From Socialised Medicine Countries Go For Healthcare...
- De-Facto Card Check Vote Coming Soon
- De-Facto Card Check Vote Coming Soon (AWF Site »)
- Grover Norquist Urges Senators to CoSponsor Non-Government Spending Jobs Bill
- Jim Ward Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Arizona Congressional Race
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
- Good Evening Arizona Pledge Breakers
- The Obama Budget and Small Business
- Administration Pushes Ahead With Internet Takeover
- SEIU Response to Lobbying Investigation Tongue-Tied (AWF Site »)
- Brewer Sales Tax Hike Passed out of Senate Committee
- A Senate Vote for Craig Becker, NLRB Nom, is a Vote For Card Check (AWF Site »)
- Sound Tax Competition Policy From Switzerland
- U.S. Attorney Reviews AWF's Call for Probe of SEIU Activities with White House, Congress (AWF Site »)
- Colorado House Disregards U.S. and State Constitutions; Passes eTaxes (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- The President's Budget: No Fiscal Restraint in Sight
- Vulnerable Colorado Democrats Vote for Higher Taxes
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
- Colorado House Signs Off On Tax Package
- Do You Know Where Your Tax Dollars Go?
- US Attorney Reviews Call for Probe into SEIU President Andy Stern’s Lobbying Activities
- Property Rights is a Global Affair (PRA Site »)
- What does the "budget freeze" actually mean?
- Utah Legislators Paving the Way for Higher Taxes
- The Budget & International Tax Competition
- Initial Thoughts on the New Obama Budget
- Another Look At Employment Data
- Obama Labor Board Nominee, "workers should not be able to choose against having a union"
- State Level Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers in Illinois
- Presidential Math: Failed Policies + More Failed Policies = More Jobs
Monday, February 1, 2010
- The Effects of the Mere Possibility of a Bank Tax on Your 401(k) (ASA Site »)
- Very well, so there is a 'job boom'
- Survey Says: Legal Downloading Not So Bad (PRA Site »)
- Post "Stimulus" Unemployment: A Historical Perspective
- Virginia Senator Janet D. Howell Doesn't Get It
- Trains, Pains, and a Whole Lot of Subsidies
- Do You Know Which Candidates in Illinois Have Signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge?
- State of the Union Myth/Fact: Obama's Taxes on Energy & Families
- Real Stimulus Georgians Can Believe In
- Stimulus II: A Sequel America Cannot Afford (ASA Site »)
- SOTU: The President's Misguided Take on Spending
Friday, January 29, 2010
- Colorado House Finance Committee Passes Cadre of Tax Hikes
-
State of the Union Myth/Fact:
Government-Run Healthcare - Colorado Legislature Kicks Off 2010 with an eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Beth Coulson Signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in 2010 Illinois House Race
-
State of the Union Myth/Fact:
Obama's New Taxes on Your 401(k) - Colorado Legislature Kicks Off 2010 with an eTax
-
GOP SC Gubernatorial Hopefuls Debate in Charleston Tonight,
ATR asks all to Sign Pledge
Thursday, January 28, 2010
- ATRF Analysis: Prevent Repatriation Of Earnings In Certain Cross-border Reorganizations
- Possible Heightened Regulation on Banks Similar to Attempted Regulation of Microsoft in Late 90s (ASA Site »)
- Updated: How Much Does It Cost To Hire a New Federal Employee?
- Tax Preparation "Simplification": A Big Government Power Grab
- Ghost of Tim Kaine Seeks to Raise Price of Spirits
- Seven Prudent Reforms Tackling Our Nation’s Over-Spending Problems
- State of the Union: Time to play Obama BINGO!
- ATR and CFA Endorse CARFA Act
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
7-11 Demands That Congress
Raise Slurpee Prices
From Ryan Ellis on Thursday, October 8, 2009 9:37 AM 
Well, not quite—but it got your attention. Recently, 7-11 delivered 1.6 million petitions to Congress demanding that 7-11 be allowed to charge extra to customers who use credit and debit cards. Never mind that this is asking Congress to rip up a contract 7-11 has signed agreeing not to do this to us.
What’s the issue?
Whenever we go to the store or online to make a purchase, we often choose to use a credit or debit card. These aren’t free. Some company has to process these transactions, make sure everyone gets paid, etc. In order to pay for this convenience, merchant card companies charge the businesses that accept cards—usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.75% of the cost of whatever you and I buy (known as an “interchange fee”).
Naturally, the businesses selling things to us would like to be able to pay less for this service. Paying less for the same service is certainly attractive. I would like to pay less for my NFL Sunday Ticket package on DirecTV, but that's what it costs.
7-11 is trying to get around this little problem of reality by getting Congress to do their negotiating for them. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is marking up a bill this week, H.R. 2382, the “Credit Card Interchange Fees Act of 2009.” It would for the first time use the force of law to nullify valid contracts negotiated in good faith between the merchant card industry and retailers. The most pernicious action would be to allow businesses to charge us more for the privilege of using a merchant card (a practice we’re protected against by the current merchant card contract). The hope is that this Congressionally-obtained bargaining chip can be used to negotiate a lower interchange fee.
The retailers and Congressman Frank will tell you they want to be able to charge less to those who pay with cash. But unless Congress is going to get into the business of setting the price of everything from lattes to licorice, the reality is this will leave the base price the same and become a surcharge for card-swiping customers. The practical effect of this legislation is that everything we buy could cost more if we use a credit or debit card rather than cash.
You might remember that when preening Congressmen bash merchant card companies this week.
Comments
So wait a minute--if I don't like paying for something I voluntarily buy, I can get Congress to re-write the terms of my purchase? Cool. I guess I can start with the rent I pay, maybe my iTunes purchases, and then move on to my grocery bill. After all, I need the latter to live, right? Isn't this was Congress is trying to do with health insurance, too?
>> Not Anonymous Tuesday, October 6, 2009 11:08 AM
Keeping with your analogy, what if in addition to your Sunday Ticket you had to buy the MLB channel, the NBA channel, College Volleyball, The Cricket Channel, the Asian Golf Channel and the Pakistani Horseshoe Throwing Channel? And you can gett all of those wonderful channels for only $25,000 a year? Do you still want Sunday Ticket? Ordering just Sunday Ticket is no longer an option. That's what Visa and MasterCard call the "honor all cards" rule. This is just one of the dozens of problems around credit card fees--the most agregious being that they are monopolies and prices are dictated rather than allowing free market forces.
>> CommonSense Tuesday, October 6, 2009 1:19 PM
If the Sunday Ticket Package made me buy all those other things, I would have a choice. I could either suck it up and buy all the other crap because I like the NFL so much, or I could not buy the uber-package at all. What is not an acceptable free-market solution is for me to go to Congress and force DirecTV to sell me the package I want under my terms and prices.
>> Not Anonymous Tuesday, October 6, 2009 5:25 PM
Hey Grover...how much are you taking from the cards and banks to take THIS position????
>> You Kidding Me? Wednesday, October 7, 2009 11:17 AM
You Kidding Me?, What position do you have a problem with? The free-market, separation of government and business position? Or the keep-contracts-consistent-and-valid-rather-than-change-them-on-a-whim position? Seems pretty consistent with ATR's beliefs to me. The government should not have any say on what businesses charge for anything. They should only enforce the contracts made between 7-11 and the credit card companies.
>> TCH Thursday, October 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Stores should be able to set different prices for cash versus credit card if they so desire.
>> Miki Ellis Thursday, October 8, 2009 12:53 PM
This article misses a quite obvious economic principle. If stores are allowed to impose a surcharge on the customer for use of a credit card, this will result in a net decrease in costs imposed on the stores. This will enable stores to charge less for their products, passing the savings on to the customers. At worst, this plan is a break-even for customers. More likely, it will result in savings for customers, since they will have a disincentive to use credit cards. So the customers that switch to cash will get the benefit of lower prices without the cost of any surcharge. The only ones that lose are the credit card companies, which will see diminishing use of their product.
>> Cool Joe Thursday, October 8, 2009 1:10 PM
I think that many are missing the point of this post. It is not about whether 7-11 should be able to charge more to people using credit cards or not, it is about the importance of consistency in contracts and the government’s role in enforcing them. 7-11 is under contract to not charge more for credit card transactions (I am unsure from this post if that contract is gov imposed or one that was freely entered into). Now 7-11 wants to use the guns of government to nullify that contract and make a new one. This would render contracts meaningless if the gov can come in at any time and change them for favored businesses. 7-11 should be able to set its prices however it wants, but it must also honor contracts that it voluntarily agreed to.
>> TCH Thursday, October 8, 2009 4:42 PM