Credit Card - Stamp duty

E

ein

Guest
Can some one explain to me why I have to pay government stamp duty proir to canceling my credit card?
 
The more technically correct explanation is that it is collected in arrears.

i.e. You pay for the period from the previous April 1st.

[broken link removed]

If you're simply changing credit card provider then your old provider should give you a Letter of Closure that you can give to the new provider so that they don't also charge you for the period from the previous April 1st. That works more in theory than practice though as the credit card providers aren't particularly helpful about issuing the letters of closure.

The better solution would be for the government to abolish this hated anti-competitive tax.
 
The tax might be hated, but if it discourages people from owning multiple credit cards and building up debt on them all then it is no bad thing. The amount of interest many people are prepared to pay on their cards is well in excess of the stamp duty.

It's not anti-competitive as you can switch your card provider anytime you want without incurring any additional charge (and if your card provider is unhelpful in issuing the letter of closure then report them).

The duty on debit & atm cards is a different matter as this is holding back the use of technology. Funny how the govt could stop the €100m levy on the banks while they are making billions of profits, but leave the duty in place for their customers.
 
webtax said:
It's not anti-competitive as you can switch your card provider anytime you want without incurring any additional charge (and if your card provider is unhelpful in issuing the letter of closure then report them).
Click to expand...

The effect is anti-competitive as the onus is placed on the consumer. The duty could be charged monthly on all credit card accounts open on the 1st of the month at €3.33. So that there's no awkward bureaucracy involved in switching.
 

Nope, just getting the credit card gone
 

This is the lie that is thrown out by Government to justify this petty needless tax. A €40 tax is not going to stop someone getting multiple cards and racking up €1000's of Euro of debt if they are that way inclined. If the government is so concerned about people using multiple cards and it is such a big issue, why not make it illegal to hold more than one card or else impose a higher tax on the second and any subsequent cards. Everyone should be allowed a credit card and an ATM/laser card without having to pay money to the State.
 
Is there actually any evidence to support insinuations/claims that card SD was introduced in an attempt to control/limit the way that people use credit? Remember that with ATM/Debit cards people can (overdrafts excepted) only use money that they actually own so there's no reason for the Government to attempt to circumscribe their use via taxation. Personally I don't see it as the job of Government to tell individuals how many cards they can have or to penalise the many due to the few who may abuse credit cards and land themselves in unmanageable debt - something that is ultimately their own responsibility.
 
ClubMan said:
Personally I don't see it as the job of Government to tell individuals how
Click to expand...


I think the governement police alot of things for the greater good of the people.
What is difficult, is to know where to draw the line.
Alcohol/drug use etc. spring to mind, maybe the government should let it up to people themselves to decide if their use is harmful!
 
Recam said:
Alcohol/drug use etc. spring to mind, maybe the government should let it up to people themselves to decide if their use is harmful!
Click to expand...
This is off topic but I would say yes - a Government should ideally allow consenting adults to decide for themselves what they want to do in these and other situations as long as it doesn't directly harm the person or property of any other non consenting individuals.
 
ClubMan said:
a Government should ideally allow consenting adults to decide for themselves what they want to do in these and other situations as long as it doesn't directly harm the person or property of any other non consenting individuals.
Click to expand...


Would like to see this topic debated in the correct forum, can't say I fully agree with your view. But like you say off topic for here.
 
Recam said:
Would like to see this topic debated in the correct forum, can't say I fully agree with your view. But like you say off topic for here.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that it has been discussed in the past in The Depths. My personal views on this matter are in line with most of what is outlined in this (US orientated) online book by the late Peter McWilliams:

 
ClubMan said:
My personal views on this matter are in line with most of what is outlined in this (US orientated) online book by the late Peter McWilliams:
Click to expand...


So what !

Like you say, they are your personal views (or Peter McWilliams) and thats what's relevant.

Thankfully you're not in charge of the country (I'm guessing this, because if you are "Bertie" you wouldn't have time to post on AAM this week !!! he's got bigger sharks to worry about )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register