Salvation Army Accepts Credit Card Payments
[Guest post by DRJ]
It was inevitable:
“Not having cash won’t be an excuse to pass by the Salvation Army red kettles this holiday season. Bell ringers in about 200 cities now accept credit cards.
The change, which was tested in some local branches last year, is being rolled out in many more cities this year, including New York, Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, and Memphis, says Jennifer Byrd, national public relations director for the Salvation Army. Salvation Army national spokesman Mark Hazlin said, “It’s been done spottily in different places in the past, but this year is the biggest rollout.”
Although local start dates vary, the Salvation Army’s 2009 Red Kettle Christmas campaign began nationally on Thanksgiving Day and runs through Christmas Eve. The funds support programs such as toys for needy children and food for the homeless.”
There’s a saying in law that good cases make bad law. This sounds like a bad idea for a good cause. (In other words, it’s bad idea to use credit to make charitable donations.)
— DRJ
I though the saying was that hard cases make bad law.
Charlie Davis (af958c) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:26 pmI agree that this is not a good idea. My wife and I have been bell ringers for the Salvation Army for many years.
Just yesterday a lady asked us if we did the credit card thing. She said that if we did she wouln’t donate a penny. I’m with her. First, charity on credit is not a good thing. Second, the Salvation Army is one of the best organizations out there helping the poor and needy. The reason they are so good is they have been good stewards of the funds they recieve (unlike, say, ACORN). Swiping plastic does not set an example of good stewardship.
So I told the lady that I will ring the bell as long as there is no credit card machine involved. I much prefer thanking someone for taking the time to put their change in the kettle, thank you.
PatriotRider (1729de) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:29 pmCharlie Davis,
I’ve heard “Good cases make bad law,” “Bad cases make bad law,” and several other variations. It’s appropriate that lawyers can’t even agree on their sayings, isn’t it?
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:34 pmyou can get points
happyfeet (0003d3) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:37 pmSeems like they think all law is bad, just can’t agree on the reason. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:46 pmOh, no. All law is good except when it hurts my client.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 4:50 pmPutting a donation on a credit card would be silly, but I pretty much go through life cashless these days and would consider swiping my debit card. Although usually I do my giving these days using the online bill pay service my Credit Union provides.
Hal (a58c0b) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:01 pmWhen I go to a store/mall with serious shopping in mind (like yesterday), I use a credit card. We do not hold a balance, we pay it off by the month. I do not like to use a debit except at the grocery store, because my wife and I each have one and we are not as faithful entering debits as we are checks. Cash I have to buy little things and food/drink while out.
So, I agree the idea of giving on credit seems off, but I’m sure we’re not the only ones who use credit cards for cashless convenience.
Once upon a time the dimes and quarters and bills in small denominations meant something, not so much anymore.
Some grocery stores have donation tickets at the cash register where you can pay for a 1,5, 10 dollars to the local food bank while buying your groceries. That would be another thought, but going that path would provoke all kinds of negative reaction these days, I suppose.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:16 pmBTW, I thought it was “hard cases make bad law” also, with the idea being that you want sweeping generalizations to be well defined and straightforward, but since I am not a lawyer, maybe my opinion on this matter doesn’t count.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:20 pmActually, bad law makes good cases. And hard cases.
And money.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:24 pmMD,
I don’t have a problem with accepting debit card transactions for charitable giving. It’s the use of credit cards I don’t like. Not everyone is as responsible as you are in paying off their balances.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:32 pmHow about: All law makes bad cases.
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:32 pmI so very rarely have any cash, so that would make it convenient for me. Plus, rewards points.
JD (61e494) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:34 pmAnd no law makes … well, no cases, I admit. It sucks, though.
I particularly don’t like the idea of potential ID Theft. I would much, much rather them hand out fliers with a URL for donations. I kinda was in a habit of giving spare change to the Salvation Army. I wouldn’t mind businesses giving me the choice to round up my purchase and give that change to the Salvation Army.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:38 pmWe use credit cards for almost every transaction, and pay the balance in full at the end of the month. We have done this for so long I cannot imagine any other way.
JD (61e494) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:46 pmWhat Hal and others said… credit cards aren’t just for credit any more, folks. I use a debit card for almost all purchases these days, and don’t carry as much cash as I used to do.
I do agree it’s a bad idea, because I would be very worried about identity theft. Way too easy for a scammer to pose as a Salvation Army worker and swipe the cards to a card duplicator.
PatHMV (a00c3c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:48 pmI agree with your general concern, DRJ.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:50 pmDRJ, I’m not sure that vendors have a choice to accept debit cards but not credit cards. And, as others pointed out, plenty of folks use credit cards for reward points and the like, but pay the balance in full each month.
PatHMV (a00c3c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:50 pmI love the Salvation Army. They are so faithful in making sure donations actually go to those in need rather than administrative costs, with whatever is left being doled out.
I don’t have a problem with them using providing credit card options to donate. Why not? If people choose to spend their money that way, who’s business is that?
If these people are willing to stand there and go through the process of making a charge, what difference is it that than if they went to a store to charge a material item? I don’t see that this is any less valuable a donation than cash.
Citizens are still the ones making their own decision with what to do with their own money.
Also, as less people carry cash these days, it would seem that it would be beneficial to both Salvation Army & shoppers, who upon seeing the red kettle wish to donate but find themselves without cash. I think alot of people don’t plan on donating, but rather the ringing bell and red kettle remind them to.
The article doesn’t say but if they selected credit card charging locations that are more high end, they might get a more reliable person donating via their credit card.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:52 pmJD, oh, I assure you, there is another way. I agree that there are some really good reasons to do business that way. You get great consumer protections and convenience with a credit card.
It’s only saved me a couple of times, but it was a significantly good thing that I was able to tell the retailer that I had a recourse other than begging for my money back or suing them.
But a credit card scanner in from of HEB? No thanks. Too easy to fake, too easy to mess up, too easy for a disaster to happen. Print your URL on the donation can, and ask for people to donate online.
Actually, since I don’t even shop in person very often, it would be awesome if Amazon and other online retailers had some kind of ’round up to the nearest dollar and donate the change to Salvation Army’ button. I’d even like a little flash animated bell ringer.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:53 pmRING RING RING RING RING RING
Donate to the Salvation Army
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 5:57 pmWouldn’t this be the same as a cash-advance on a credit card? No grace period before interest accrues makes the monthly bill much higher. We always pay off any balance each month and avoid any finance charges so this would be a deal-breaker for us.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:05 pmOf course, Stashiu, there’s no real difference between giving change and using a credit card.
If you pay off your debt, then it wasn’t a problem whether you used a quarter or added $.25 to your Visa bill that month. If you carry ten thousand dollars in debt, then even if you used change for the donation, you didn’t then use that money to pay off your debts. I suspect most donors are effectively borrowing their donations, no matter what format.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:10 pmIt’s fine that people disagree with me on this subject — as my Mother used to say, differences are what makes the world go round — but we know people are more generous with plastic than when they use cash. That’s good for the Salvation Army but not so good if the givers are prone to spend/give impulsively.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:26 pmDustin,
I disagree. If you use your credit card to give money and it is treated as a cash-advance, then interest begins accruing from that moment. A $10 donation becomes more than $10 when the bill comes due. If it is treated as a purchase and is subject to the grace period, then when the bill is due you owe $10 and that’s it unless you carry that balance forward. Several of us here have already mentioned that we don’t carry a balance and pay the bill in full each month. The usual reason for this is to avoid finance charges while not having to carry a lot of cash around. My question remains… are these donations treated as cash-advances or purchases?
Treating credit cards like cash is an easy way to financial trouble unless you pay off your balance in full.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:28 pmStash – It is my understanding that these type of charges are not treated in the same way as cash advances.
JD (1f8ada) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:33 pmStash, I see what you’re saying. Actually, I totally missed that angle. Just assumed it would be a normal charge, like if I clicked on the link I posted above (to salvation army).
It depends on the facts, then. If your cash advance theory is correct, you’re right… this is not a good idea for a host of reasons.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:40 pmA cartoon by Signe Wilkinson of the Philadelphia Daily News kind of on topic. http://cartoonistgroup.com/properties/signe/signetoons/index.php Safe.
nk (df76d4) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:40 pmNope, sorry. The link is not stable. The one I had in mind was Obama at an airline ticket counter with soldiers lined up behind him and the lady asking, “Thirty thousand tickets to Afghanistan? Debit or credit?”
nk (df76d4) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:43 pmNow I’ve changed my mind. If some people want to max out their credit cards giving to the Salvation Army, go for it.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:46 pmnk, your link works for me.
DRJ, there are worse things in the world than people going bankrupt trying to help others.
The number of people who do this and weren’t already doomed financially is going to be pretty small.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:48 pmI’m not following the objection to it: is it that the security issue is of concern, or is it because a lot of people do indeed treat their credit cards like cash and suffer tremendous consequences as a result, and now the Salvation Army is providing them yet another opportunity for those irresponsible people to make another irresponsible decision (charging a donation)?
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:51 pmAbsolutely, Dustin, and the Salvation Army will be there to help:
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:53 pmStashiu3 – I have made a number of charitable contributions via credit card and as I recall they are treated as purchase transactions. The credit card company is merely completing a transaction entered into between you and the charity, which very well could involve the purchase of goods and services instead of a cash contribution.
I’ve manned the kettles for the Salvation Army with my Scout Troop several years and the normally cynical little bastards, as well as myself, have enjoyed it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:58 pmDana,
I think Stashiu was worried whether a donation would show up as a purchase or a cash advance. My concern different. I was worried people would be tempted to give more than they could afford. I think that’s a problem since credit card default rates are already at record levels. Now I’ve changed my mind.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 6:59 pm“Now I’ve changed my mind.”
DRJ – Men are simple according to Dana. Women are a mystery.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:00 pmDRJ, I don’t know why I didn’t make more clear that I was supporting your view, though you obviously understood that. I need to work on my communication skills anyway.
I love the irony you’ve pointed out.
Am I wrong, or do you have to enter your PIN to perform the cash advance thing that Stash is concerned about?
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:05 pmLet’s filter this through President Obama’s metrics for economics: If instead of donating this year, I keep the money and don’t become homeless, I’ve saved or created a home and simultaneously cut out the middleman, right? 😉
Thanks daleyrocks, that supports what JD said earlier and would appear to answer that particular concern.
Okay, I’ll bite. Why the change?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:13 pmDRJ, I understood Stashiu’s concern but not yours. I should have been specific.
I think there is a difference: it’s easy to see where people readily charge a material item they really cannot afford, yet it seems a much bigger step to take when one considers charging a donation to help those in crisis that one can’t afford. They seem to be different categories of self-accounting. One is much easier to rationalize (thus credit card debt for *things*), while the other is less easy to rationalize because of it’s non-material nature and generosity being at the heart of it. Hence there might be more caution might be taken.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:16 pmI’m torn, Stash. The libertarian part of me says let people do what they want with their own cash/credit, but the conservative in me says we want our systems to encourage good behavior.
Letting people use credit to buy things has economic benefits, but letting them use credit to make gifts is not as beneficial in my view. I value charity but I don’t value encouraging people to give away what they don’t have and, while I know there are people who pay their bills in full every month, there are many who don’t.
Anyway, tonight I’m going with my libertarian side.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:18 pmI can agree with that wholeheartedly. I wouldn’t do it, but I have no problem with that option being available to others. If they use it unwisely it should be on them… however, my next concern would be yet another
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:24 pmbailoutredistribution of wealth at the expense of those who were financially responsible.DRJ – Personally, the times I have used a credit card to make charitble contributions have typically been when there has been a deadline involved and regular mail or other means were not available. It was not a question of availability of funds. Other peoples’ usage may vary.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:31 pmCash is useless to me. I just don’t have any anymore. I think I have a $20 hidden in my car manual, but that’s the only cash I have had for years. Even coke machines at UT take credit cards.
Oh, and I don’t pay off my full balance every month, sadly. I do what I can, but I have a bit of debt. The ‘plan’ did not exactly go as planned, but that’s OK.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:37 pmStashiu,
And that’s the problem. We can say it should be everyone’s choice but when 10-20% of credit card holders are in default — i.e., they aren’t just behind, they have no ability to pay — then we all make up the difference. In other words, you and I are paying for the 10-20% of Americans who make their charitable gifts and buy their big screen TVs using credit cards they can’t pay for.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:45 pmDRJ correctly notes that the responsible cardholders are the ones taking the brunt of the credit card problems. All of the congresscritters actions taken against the evil credit card companies have had the intended/unintended effect of raising rates on the responsible to cover for the irresponsible.
JD (9cfd42) — 11/29/2009 @ 7:50 pmI wonder how much I can put on my FEMA card?
AD - RtR/OS! (814f72) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:12 pmWouldn’t using a credit/debit card make it easier to have a record of charitable giving for tax purposes?
Dagwood (9ede2a) — 11/29/2009 @ 8:17 pmDRJ, got any stats at all that those who go bankrupt from credit card debt gave significant funds to charity? I’m thinking that the big screen TV purchases are a far bigger problem, so if that’s your concern, you’d have to demand that the mall stop taking credit cards, rot the Salvation Army folks standing in front of it. I just seriously doubt that we’ll see any uptick in bankruptcies from this. And as long as their isn’t any increase in bankruptcies or defaults on the credit card bills caused by it, then it really doesn’t affect the rest of us.
PatHMV (003aa1) — 11/30/2009 @ 12:25 amI don’t think that information is readily available. As you know, it’s difficult to get a consensus on how much bankruptcy debt is due to medical costs so I doubt there’s data on charitable debts. However, I agree charitable giving is not a big factor for most debtors. (Gambling is not a big factor, either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem for some debtors — and I’m not equating gambling and charitable giving except that neither is good if you don’t have the funds to cover your spending.)
Basically, these were my original concerns: First, studies show people are willing to spend more when they use credit than when they use cash, so they will probably give more to charity if they can use credit cards than if they have to find some cash or change. Thus, people will incur more credit card debt unless they cut back on other spending. Second, charity is good and I like to encourage charitable giving, but it doesn’t add to the economy the way buying a big screen TV does.
Nevertheless, I ultimately decided the benefits of charitable giving outweighed my other concerns. Having said that, I wonder how many people would share my original concerns if the charity standing outside asking for credit card donations is not as admirable as The Salvation Army?
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/30/2009 @ 1:27 amI probably would in that case.
voiceofreason2 (4be1b3) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:19 amI donate through the Combined Federal Campaign. Each charity must provide information on how much is spent on overhead and how much goes to the charity itself.
Phone call solicitations and door to door get the cold shoulder. Local food bank and firefighters get money from me regularly but the bulk of my giving is through the CFC.
I wonder if any churches out there have a credit card kiosk yet.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/30/2009 @ 2:25 amIt is definitely a good idea. They are not rejecting cash or check donations, rather they are opening up a revenue to the big block of people that mostly use credit cards. If you are worried about accumulating debt, then it’s obviously not for you. Everyone has to be responsible to take on an amount they can pay off, if you can’t handle that responsibility then you have only yourself to blame.
Process USA (8f9226) — 11/30/2009 @ 9:26 amI know of churches doing automatic withdrawal from your checking account like paying utility bills, mortgage, etc.
I think the lurking unease is that we expect the Salvation Army to promote responsible behavior, and the tendency to overuse credit cards is an irresponsible behavior.
For example, if I remember correctly, some years ago a person won a huge amount in a lottery (I think from W. Va.) and wanted to donate a substantial chunk of it to the Salvation Army, and they refused because they thought it would be seen as endorsing gambling, which they clearly did not want to do.
I imagine they balanced the realities of a “semi-cashless society” against any liklihood they would add to the problem of overextended credit. Gambling per se is always a cash-loss overall, or you wouldn’t have casinos. credit card use by definition doesn’t have to be irresponsible.
(Of course, some people can afford a certain amount of gambling losses and see it as the cost of certain types of entertainment, just as somebody else might pay to go to a big concert or pro-football game.)
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/30/2009 @ 10:08 amThanks, Stashiu, I wondered where it went.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 11/30/2009 @ 8:53 pm> I don’t have a problem with accepting debit card transactions for charitable giving. It’s the use of credit cards I don’t like. Not everyone is as responsible as you are in paying off their balances.
Comment by DRJ
Yes, Mother.
Arthur (0a946a) — 12/1/2009 @ 3:05 pmLol. it’s still good advice, Arthur. Nannies are not bad things so long as they don’t have armies and laws and taxation capabilities.
Dustin (cf255c) — 12/1/2009 @ 3:20 pm