Why don't banks allow more control over credit/debit card charges?
quid has expressed some of the disadvantages with this approach, but there is another. Vendors will not want to give you any goods you buy with your credit card until they are sure they will get the money. With your suggested approach buying something with a credit card now looks like: No vendor is going to stand for this for even moderate sized transactions, so in reality they will just decline your card if you have this facility enabled. Credit card fraud is an extremely (to stress, EXTREMELY) small proportion of total credit card transactions.  The card issuing entities all offer zero fraud liability, even on debit cards.  There are millions of transactions every day and fraud loss just isn't worth developing, and supporting, an additional authentication layer that faces the consumer. To be clear, the downside is cost.  Cost to develop, cost to implement, cost to maintain, cost to support.  All of this to stop something that millions of people have yet to even experience. The other answers touch on why having two-factor auth or some other additional system is not worth it compared to simple reactive systems (cancelling lost cards, reversing fraudulent charges etc), but it should also be noted that this goal can be achieved with a method similar to what you describe.  My bank (TD Canada Trust) has an app (I'm on android) that gives you a notification immediately after your card is charged (even test charges like at the gas station).  It's really simple, does not slow down authorization, and makes fraud detection super easy.  (I'm sure some other banks have similar apps). "Actually in Finland on some bank + debit/credit card + online retailer combinations you type in your card details as you normally do, but after clicking ""Buy"" you get directed to your own bank's website which asks you to authenticate yourself with online banking credentials. It also displays the amount of money and to which account it is being paid to. After authentication you get directed back to the retailer's website. Cannot say why banks in US haven't implemented this." 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. This is a question with a flawed premise.  Credit cards do have two-factor authentication on transactions they consider more at risk to be fraudulent.  I've had several times when I bought something relatively expensive and unusual for me, where the CC either initially declined and sent me a text asking to confirm immediately (after which they would approve the charges), or approved but sent me a text right away asking to confirm (after which they'd automatically dispute if I told them to).  The first is legitimately what you are asking for; the second is presumably for less risky but still some risk transactions). Ultimately, the reason they don't allow it for every transaction is that not enough people would make use of it to be worth their time to implement it.  Particularly given it slows down the transaction significantly (and look at the complaints at the ~10-15 seconds extra EMV authentication takes, imagine that as a minute or more), I think you'd get a single digit percentage of people using that service. "A few years ago I had a US bank credit card that was serviced (all support, website, transaction issues) handled by FIA Card Services (part of Bank of America). I could create one-use credit card numbers, or time-limited (for example, 3 months) numbers.  I could also create (""permanent)) extra card numbers.  All of these could have a max charge value (IIRC, even a fixed value), so you could have a separate card number, with a limit, just for a subscription service or gym membership. The Bank issuing the card cancelled the entire card offering, so I lost these features. Maybe FIA still provides these features on cards they service. As a note to pjc50 (can't comment in this SE yet), Japan has had contactless cards for >10 years, but during use they tend to place them in a special tray (with the sensor underneath) during the transaction."
"The problem is ""what would have been"" without regulations.   A good cause and effect is the Durbin amendment to DFA - they randomly regulated interchange debit card transactions (win for Walmart, loss for banks) so it no longer makes sense to offer free checking to poor people. WMT wins, banking loses, poor people lose.  The other issue is maxing out regulations actually makes the system more frail as it promotes consolidation in the sector.  Consultants love it - tons of free, easy, no thought work." Because more than a few utility companies have overcharged me in the past, and with online banking they can automatically deduct from my account. With a check I can control how much I pay them. It's much easier to fight a charge when they don't already have your money. "Let's just focus on the ""why would a bank need to accept deposits from private clients part"" and forget the central bank for a moment. I'm a guy. I have a wife and two kids. They have this pesky habit of wanting to buy stuff. When I get paid, I could just get a check, cash it, stuff it under a mattress, and pull it out when I need it. Hey that worked for a long time didn't it? But sometimes it's nice to write checks. (Just kidding, that's so gauche...) I use my debit card. I use my credit cards, but they need to be paid somehow. My light and phone bills need to be paid too. If only there were someone out there who could facilitate this transfer of money between me, the private client and the merchants I'm forced to spend my money at. Now some of those merchants have plans. Light bills I can pay at my grocer if I choose. But most of the other's don't. Luckily I have a bank that's willing to do this, for a fee. So basically they do it because there's a void in the market if they don't. I don't know if it's true what they say about supply creating its own demand, but it certainly is true that demand creates supply!" The key is that you need to use your debit card to earn the higher interest rate. The bank can offer a higher interest rate on accounts connected with a debit card because: They earn additional income through debit card fees charged towards account holders, among other things. They offer the higher interest rate specifically to encourage people to use their debit cards. By offering a joint checking/savings account that requires you to use your debit card, the bank is assuming that you'll keep more money in your account than you would in a standard checking-only account. Your higher balance translates into more money the bank can loan out or invest, which usually leads to higher profit for them. Businesses pay fees to the bank to accept debit cards. These fees represent another source of profit for the bank. The more you use your debit card, the more the bank earns in fees, so the bank encourages you to use your debit card more frequently through incentives like a higher interest rate or waiving fees on your account if you use your card enough. Plus, since it's likely that an individual who maintains a fairly high balance in an account linked to a debit card is going to spend more (simply because they can spend more), banks will sometimes waive fees on the consumer side for balances over a certain amount. Think about the credit card business model... they have two revenue generators: interest and fees from borrowers and commissions and fees to merchants. The key to a successful credit card is to both sign up lots of borrowers AND lots of merchants. Credit card fortunes have improved dramatically since the 1990's when formerly off-limits merchants like grocery stores began to accept cards. So when a credit card lets you just pull cash out of any ATM, there are a few costs they need to account for when pricing the cost for such a service: Credit card banks have managed to make cash advances both a profit center and a self-serving perk. Knowing that you can always draw upon your credit line for an emergency when cash is necessary makes you less likely to actually carry cash and more likely to just rely on your credit card. It is not only merchants that charge for credit card purchases but also service providers. Have you looked at your phone bill lately and even your Council Rates. Most of them charge a small %, usually about 1% on Matercard and Visa, and closer to 2% on Diners, Amex and American Express cards. However, the merchants and service providers that do charge a fee for credit card use, must also provide alternative ways of paying to their customers, so that the customer has the choice to either pay or avoid paying this fee. Banks need to provide a free mechanism to deposit and withdrawal money.  Banks are free to charge fees as long as it is well published. If you are not happy with services you can complain to Banking ombudsman. A lot of stores, especially smaller ones, won't accept card payments under $10.00. They pay a fee for taking cards and for small transactions it is not worth it. Your question is based on a false premise. Debit cards are more popular in the US than credit cards are. Indeed it seems to be the non-US part of the world that is big in credit cards. See here for example "I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes...  There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT...  **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive ""payoff"" balance to instantly settle the account:**  It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on.   - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday.   - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift.   - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever.   - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security).   So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance).   What happens when you ""close an account"" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they ""turn off"" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes:  - You notify them to ""close"" the account. They stop authorizing new charges.   - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to ""closing"" the account.   - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired,  - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as ""paid"".   So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons.  Hope that helps." "The ""hold"" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't ""holding"" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/small-bank-in-kansas-is-a-financial-testing-ground/ Citizens Bank of Weir might allow you to do this, their experimentation in speeding up bank transfers was pushing money over the debit card network. I think the question relates to the discussion here: http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/10/05/19449/ It was always the case that merchants could discount purchases made with cash.  What wasn't allowed is allowing the merchant to charge extra for credit card transactions (presumably to cover the fees the merchants pay).  These fees usually carry a flat fee per transaction, plus around 2% of the purchase price.  What also wasn't allowed was them to refuse any credit transactions.  People could charge a pack of gum, even if the fees put that transaction in the red. What's allowed according to this new development is different levels of discounting for different credit cards. Somewhat related to this discussion is another development that happened this summer: merchants now have the ability to refuse credit card transactions of less than $10. Here's my feeling on all of this.  I think we'll see merchants imposing minimum credit transaction amounts before we see them monkeying at the 1-2% level on pricing for different types of credit cards.  My feeling is that they'd be wise not to change anything, even though they can.  Refusing transactions (or charging more for others) is going to come as a unpleasant shock to enough people that they may take their business elsewhere. "Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards).  And the government does not subsidize this.  In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free.  Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing ""fine print"" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways.  However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates).  So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent.  The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting ""subsidized"" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers.  And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent.  Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends.  (or you'll forget).  And this works - that's why they do it.   By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month.  So if that's your goal, you already have it.  In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest.  That doesn't work, though.  The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances.  That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults.   The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve  you.  They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor." "I completely agree with @littleadv in favor of using the credit card and dispute resolution process, but I believe there are more important details here related to consumer protection. Since 1968, US citizens are protected from credit card fraud, limiting the out-of-pocket loss to $50 if your card is lost, stolen, or otherwise used without your permission. That means the bank can't make you pay more than $50 if you report unauthorized activity--and, nicely, many credit cards these days go ahead and waive the $50 too, so you might not have to pay anything (other than the necessary time and phone calls). Of course, many banks offer a $50 cap or no fees at all for fraudulent charges--my bank once happily resolved some bad charges for me at no loss to me--but banks are under no obligation to shield debit card customers from fraud. If you read the fine print on your debit card account agreement you may find some vague promises to resolve your dispute, but probably nothing saying you cannot be held liable (the bank is not going to lose money on you if they are unable to reverse the charges!). Now a personal story: I once had my credit card used to buy $3,000 in stereo equipment, at a store I had never heard of in a state I have never visited. The bank notified me of the surprising charges, and I was immediately able to begin the fraud report--but it took months of calls before the case was accepted and the charges reversed. So, yes, there was no money out of my pocket, but I was completely unable to use the credit card, and every month they kept on piling on more finance fees and late-payment charges and such, and I would have to call them again and explain again that the charges were disputed... Finally, after about 8 months in total, they accepted the fraud report and reversed all the charges. Lastly, I want to mention one more important tool for preventing or limiting loss from online purchases: ""disposable"", one-time-use credit card numbers. At least a few credit card providers (Citibank, Bank of America, Discover) offer you the option, on their websites, to generate a credit card number that charges your account, but under the limits you specify, including a maximum amount and expiration date. With one of these disposable numbers, you can pay for a single purchase and be confident that, even if the number were stolen in-transit or the merchant a fraud, they don't have your actual credit card number, and they can never charge you again. I have not yet seen this option for debit card customers, but there must be some banks that offer it, since it saves them a lot of time and trouble in pursuing defrauders. So, in short: If you pay with a credit card number you will not ever have to pay more than $50 for fraudulent charges. Even better, you may be able to use a disposable/one-time-use credit card number to further limit the chances that your credit is misused. Here's to happy--and safe--consumering!"