Why do cash back credit cards give a higher rate for dining and gasoline purchases?
These two categories ensure you will carry the card in your wallet (since they only work for physical locations), but don't tend to have excessive spending (most people maxing out at $200 or so per month, so $2 for the bonus).  You then use the same card for other purchases, because you have it on you, where you only get the 1%. It worked for me, I started carrying the Amazon card when I found out it had a higher percentage for gas purchases.  I only use it for gas though. I am not sure but probably it depends upon the cut the credit card company receives from the merchant. For Hotels such as dining etc. the cut could be more. Again, periodically, many merchants join with the card company to launch promotions. It could be part of such promotions. Apart from class of merchants, these points also differ on class of cards e.g a premium card will earn more rewards than a simple classic card. Don't really know but I can guess. Firstly, everyone thinks the price of gas is too high. You drive to work every day, and gas is basically the only product who's price is advertised from the street! From that perspective. So mentally, I argue, we overvalue an extra 1 percent discount on gas. It's only worth maybe 60 cents a month to me, but worth a lot of other interchance fees for the credit card company. Secondly, gas stations are a prime robbery target. Credit cards mean less cash in the till. And less chance for employees to steal from the till, and less chance of counterfit money. Finally, it's a competitive market. If stations don't accept a card, they'll lose business to elsewhere. There's a gas station on either side of an intersection, and you can always tell which station is a few cents cheaper because it's the one with customers fueling up while the other one is a ghost town. They feel they have to compete on convenience or go under, and the credit card companies recruit you into the game with higher cash back rewards.
There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal.  When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item.  By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest.  You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments.  You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong.  Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail.  As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account.  A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash. "In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are:  1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for ""enhanced"" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr." Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US.  Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction.  For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy.  That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either.  Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods.  Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine.  These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%.  More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine.  EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online.  You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually. 5% cashback? Wow. No, this would not generally affect your credit rating. You aren't altering anything that is generally tracked by the credit rating agencies. You put a purchase on your credit card which temporarily increases your utilisation, but then immediately pay it off, leaving your utilisation practically unchanged. "The confusion comes from ambiguity in popular belief -- that businesses are required to accept x_y_x as payment. In reality, a business can state the terms of a transaction to their pleasure. On the other hand, debt is different -- no lender can refuse cash or other legal tender for repayment of debt. Sometimes, people try to split hairs and argue ""Well, if I eat a steak and I owe the restaurant $100, they should have to accept my $100 as tender for the debt of my meal."" Not true. The restaurant isn't giving you a line of credit, they're billing you after services rendered, and your payment is due on their terms." One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods.  Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee. Businesses are free to decide what payment methods they accept for their goods and services. Businesses sometimes advertise what credit cards they accept by posting some stickers at their door. When your credit card isn't among them and you don't have enough cash with you, ask about your card before you order. If a business doesn't accept your credit card, your best recourse is to take your business elsewhere. When you already ate there and got into an awkward situation because you assumed that they would accept your card, you might also want to write an online review of the place and warn others to bring cash for their visit (but please be fair in the review. When the food and service are decent, a restaurant doesn't deserve a one star rating just because they don't take credit cards). Note that businesses have good reasons to not accept credit cards. It often means additional cost for them in form of: But there is also a more shady reason. Taking payment in cash means that there is no electronic trail of the transaction. That makes it far easier for an establishment to misreport their income. They might under-report it to evade taxes or over-report it to launder money (both are illegal, of course). A *lot* of big companies offer credit cards. And it makes total sense. For example, if you have a Macy's card, you get access to special discounts that you wouldn't normally get. It saves the consumer money and builds loyalty to the brand. Same for Southwest credit cards. It's a completely normal move.  EDIT: Also, Uber doesn't actually have to do much - it's the issuing bank that manages the program. *Most* of the branded credit cards you see are Chase, BTW. Amazon and Southwest are both run by Chase. "There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase.  These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount.  These fees are higher for rewards cards.  (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small.  To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who ""pay with plastic"" tend to spend more than people who ""pay with cash"".  If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?" "A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call ""daily interest"" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the ""period billing"".  The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory" Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below.  The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this. "I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked ""Run Your Business"" in the top nav, then ""Accept Visa Payments"". This page has a ""More benefits of accepting Visa"" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015  That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like)." "My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else.  We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford.  In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as ""real"" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise)." RTFA  &gt;Noah places the high-water mark for unionism in the mid-1950s, when nearly 40 percent of American workers were either union members or “nonunion members who were nonetheless covered by union contracts.” In the early postwar years, even the Chamber of Commerce believed that “collective bargaining is a part of the democratic process,” as its then-president noted in a statement. &gt;But, in the late-1970s, union membership began falling off a cliff, brought on by a variety of factors, including jobs moving offshore and big labor’s unsavory reputation. Government didn’t help either: Ronald Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981 sent an unmistakable signal that companies could run roughshod over federal laws intended to protect unions — which they’ve done ever since. &gt;The result is that today unions represent 12 percent of the work force. “Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes Noah, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20 percent of the income gap. "Here's an excerpt from VISA's Card Acceptance Guidelines for Visa Merchants (PDF)  The merchant name is the single most important factor in cardholder   recognition of transactions. Therefore, it is critical that the   merchant name, while reflecting the merchant’s “Doing Business As”   (DBA) name, also be clearly identifiable to the cardholder. This can   minimize copy requests resulting from unrecognizable merchant   descriptors. Merchant applications typically list the merchant name as the merchant   DBA. This may differ from the legal name (which can represent the   corporate owner or parent company), and may differ from the owner’s   name which, for sole proprietorships, may reflect the business owner. I think that the key statement above is ""Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name [...] be clearly identifiable to the cardholder."" Since this merchant was not clearly identifiable to the cardholder, they are in breach of a critical point in these guidelines. This is from VISA, but I would assume that all other major credit cards would have similar guidelines for their merchants. However keep in mind that these are ""guidelines"", and not (necessarily) rules."