Miscellaneous desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 14

ID for credit card purchases

Why and when did stores stop asking to see ID when you use a credit card? I remember as a kid (say around 2004) they would almost always ask my mom to see ID if it was over a certain amount (I think about $20). Then eventually the practice slowly faded away, and I can't recall any times she was asked after about 2008-2010ish maybe. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 01:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 08:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall that ever being the case in Australia — The Australian standard for EFTPOS transactions, including by credit card, is (was?) AS 2805. That standard includes a response code 08 (in 1987) or 001 (since 1993) which means "Honour with identification". The only case that I can recall this happening was when the terminal could not connect to the bank and verify the PIN - in which case the transaction could be approved (stored in the terminal and sent later) if the cardholder provided ID. (Although it could happen with large transactions, even online with PIN - the rules varied between banks and merchants.) In theory any form of ID would do, but the most common form of "ID" was the signature on the card - ie the customer signed the receipt and the merchant checked that signature against the card. In fact the latter was so common that many terminals displayed "Approved with signature" rather than "with identification".

(I wrote software for Australian EFTPOS terminals in the late 1990s.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MasterCard and Visa prohibit this practice, but I am not sure when that started. [1]. Other card brands may have similar rules. RudolfRed (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Visa Core Rules of 22 April 2017 said, "A Merchant may request Cardholder identification in a Face-to-Face Environment."^[2] Those of 13 October 2018 said, "Unless specified in the Visa Rules, a Merchant must not request Cardholder identification as a condition of purchase."^[3] This has remained unchanged since. There is an exception that applies in the US, Canada, and several other regions, for when the merchant suspects fraud in a face-to-face environment. The oldest version of the MasterCard Tules I found, of 12 May 2010, already states, "A Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards." ^[4] --Lambiam 09:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money question

In Carl Barks's story A Financial Fable, Scrooge McDuck's money gets spread all over the land and people grab it for themselves. However, they soon find that their new wealth is not of much use, as there are not enough things left to buy with it, which leads to increased prices.

How analogous is this situation to real life? If the richest people in the world suddenly decided to spend all their money, would it happen that there are not enough things in the world to buy with it, making the money useless? JIP | Talk 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a real-life situation would be the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Some might fear that most people would simply stop working if they had a guaranteed income to cover their basic needs, removing the need to work, and this would lead to the situation described in Barks' fable. I don't agree with that interpretation, and I don't believe this situation could arise in real life, at least as long as only money is involved. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened repeatedly in history. It was more common before the ability to travel easily. A rich person travels across the land. Town by town, the rich person spreads wealth. The people are initially happy at the wealth, but quickly find that all prices have increased and there is no continued income. So, they end up poorer than before. It has continued with increases in wages. When wages increase, people are initially happy. Then, prices increase and they find they have less purchasing power. For more detailed information, look into the Big Mac index. It attempts to separate the concept of money vs buying power. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a larger scale, large amounts of silver and gold looted by Spain from the New World resulted in the Price revolution. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mansa Musa#Wealth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.186.221 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The richest person in the world today is worth about $215 billion.[5]. If that money were distributed equally to each of the 8.1 billion people in the world, each person would receive about $26. I would think that that would make essentially no impact on the economy. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding this somewhat, according to Forbes, the world’s billionaires were worth $12.2 trillion in 2023. If this were divided ratably among the people of the world, each person would receive a little over $1500. That would probably be inflationary in some poor countries, but would have little effect in wealthier countries. John M Baker (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If every recipient spends the money wisely, it will very likely provide a noticeable boost to the economies of the poorest countries. Consider the positive impact of microcredit, without the burden of having to pay back a loan. It is not likely that most would spend the money wisely, but it is not likely that the world’s billionaires will let their wealth be redistributed in the first place. --Lambiam 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro credit loans do have to be repaid, and often at what many would consider high interest rates (20%+).DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I added the words "without the burden of having to pay back a loan", so as to focus solely on the positive impact. --Lambiam 17:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If every recipient spends the money wisely." Hahaha! During Covid, the Federal government handed out free money. How many Americans still have any of that money? I simply purchased an SP500 index with the first check, a DOW index with the second one, and a Nasdaq index with the third stimulus check. I assume I am in a very tiny minority. I'm not saying that I spent the money wisely. I haven't spent it yet. I invested it. When I do spend it, I will likely spend it on something rather stupid, but I will have a lot more money to be stupid with. 75.136.148.8 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bet most of the American recipients were not particularly impoverished, unlike the target groups of microcredit programs. The whole point of the CoVID stimulus was that they would spend this money, never mind how, to avoid the contraction that was to be expected because many people were going out less and therefore spending less. If everyone had instead invested it "wisely", this would have thwarted the goal. --Lambiam 17:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden said in his State of the Union address that he wants to tax wealth above 100 million dollars at 25% per annum. The billionaire would down to a tenth as much in just 8 years. A state wealth tax was introduced in the California legislature of 1% on any taxpayer worth over 50 million, so about $10 million a year. If they move to another state, he wants to keep collecting the tax anyway as an exit tax, for years after they moved out. Edison (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's proposal is a tax on income, not wealth. Anyone who earns more than $95,000 already pays a marginal tax rate of between 24% and 37%. A billionaire who pays a 25% tax on income is not going to lose his wealth in 8 years or 800 years. CodeTalker (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]