hmmm..my shell citibank just been charged annual fee by citibank...

but i remember their promotion when i subscribed, (the brochure come together with the card) saying that spend rm50 in the first month to get 3 years annual fee waiver......

& i did spend more than rm50 in the first month...so should i accuse them for false marketing/dishonest promotion or what....

This post has been edited by he-sham: Oct 23 2009, 03:27 PM

for me the new impose rules is stupid...

to promote prudent spending ??

what's the relationship between imposing charge on each card with prudent spending ?? is it when we pay rm50/year/cards we can spend more prudent ??...

clearly the G simply want to earn extra income here... this is insane la...

time to cut guys our cards guys....later in PRU13 we cut the power of existing government laaa...

yeah...the only positive from the moves...

hopefully there'll be banks that can offer to absorb this charge for their cc customer to maintain their product as free for life....haha...

but again, easy money for the government....what to do "RAKYAT" diutamakan....

yeah....that's in consumer point a view...

as for the government, what they earn from this must be utilized to improve on something....such as upgrade facility or subsidize more merchants/shops/restaurants to rent cc terminal from banks for the convenience of cc user....example like kedai mamak or kedai runcit also can provide cc payment facility instead of conventional way of cash payment.......this will lift us towards develop country......not only by collecting service tax from cc user & use it to their own pocket... at least show some improvement back in term of facility to the cc user...

so u're buying the idea of "to promote prudent spending" is effective by charging this rm50/card/year ? For me its unnecessary burden to rakyat... who are use to have cc debts will always have cc debts plus together with the charges....who are collecting cc for hobby and can afford to pay high annual fees & service tax will always collecting and never stop collecting...

at the end of the day, the idea of "to promote prudent spending" never been effective anyway.... plus "to promote prudent spending" also i think less related to charge card user & supplimentry card becoz its publicly known as for convenience rather than credit tools...the G simply want to make easy money here...

ocbc bank first to give some comments on its website about budget 2010...but no conclusive decision or action yet....


http://www.ocbc.com.my/download/Budget_2010.pdf

haha....the bolded sections in the quote i think oppose each other.....first understand....but then would not curb usage....

which one laa ??

This post has been edited by he-sham: Oct 25 2009, 06:42 AM

we can analyze impact on rm50 service tax per card per year almost in many terms..include socially..when people canceling cc, people will start carry cash..snatch theft & robbery will happen more frequently... our country will back to third world country instead of developing... for me its a backward step.... 1malaysia, rakyat burdened, cronies will gain.... tahniah 1malaysia boss...

Recent moves by the government to impose rm50 & rm25 service charge tax for principal credit/charge card and supplementary for me its more burden to rakyat rather than to “promote prudent spending”. I’m not a financial expert or analyst…but here are my complete comments. When we look at the so called objective of this service tax are imposed which is “to promote prudent spending”, we can relate it very much to the impact to the user or rakyat. I categorized rakyat/consumer in 5 financial groups. For category A to D, assume in average they have 4 principal cards each to their name.


Group A
People who are using cc as purely a payment tools and pay all their cards in full for each statement period. People in this category might also have & use their charge card. We can conclude, this group are from high income group & certainly can afford to pay all their card in full every month. So, they already practice prudent financial management. So they actually not the target group for this new government policy, Yet they have to pay the service tax for their cards even though they are not the target group of the objective of the decision. But they certainly can afford to pay rm50/card/year for nothing since they are from high income group.
Conclusion: Objective of “to promote prudent spending” not met for this group since they already practicing prudent financial management. Hence, the tax can be seen as easy money for government.


Group B
People who are using cc as both credit & payment tools. In this group they might settle in full payments some of their cards every month and some cards they might leave some balance (debts). They might also use cc as easy-payment(installment) such as buying LCD TV/Notebook & many more plus they alsao might use for emergency purpose. People in this group usually come from mid income group. They can be classifieds as practicing prudent financial management as well because they take advantage of the credit facilities of the cc issuers. But they are not from rich or high income group. Hence, charging them rm50/card/year should be a new yearly burden to them. Assuming averagely they have 4 principal cards to their name, rm200 a year for service tax for cc can be considered very high & certain burden to them.
Conclusion: Not the target audience for the policy. Objective not met. They might have to cut to 1 or maximum 2 cards only and still paying rm50 or rm100 (which is a burden to them) for the newly imposed tax..


Group C
People who are using cc totally as a credit tools. In this group, they pay all their cards with a minimum payment every month. Definitely, they’re not from high income group. They are actually form the group that have minimum requirement to subscribe/apply for cc. Hence, with debts in each card, they cannot cancel their cards immediately. Assuming averagely they have 4 cards with them & all still have outstanding, they need to pay another rm200 a year for the service tax. This group is the target group for the new policy by the government. But as describe earlier, the outstanding in the cards also they can only afford to pay minimum, how they gonna pay extra rm200 a year. It will increase their debts/outstanding. They could fall to the group D.
Conclusion: The target audience for the new policy. But implementation not met objective since it made the situation worsened rather than help them to promote prudent spending.

Group D
People who are using cc totally as a credit tools and cannot afford to even pay minimum. People in this group actually on their way to be declared bankrupt
Conclusion: Charging them rm50/card/year is ineffective since they cant afford to pay their own outstanding debts. Objective “to promote prudent spending” not met.

Group E
People who are not using any credit/charge card. They use debit or cash instead. This could the potential target group for the objective. There are from mix income group. Since the new policy of government imposing rm50/card/year, they might abandon any interest of applying a credit card. So they’ll never encounter such service fees. They will spend only whatever of their capable.
Conclusion: Objective met. But government earn nothing from them because there’re not cc owner..



Other potential impact:
- Mass canceling cc.
- Economics stimulation low since discourage of spending.
- CC market will be worsened. Many merchant might cancel terminal rental since not many people will opt to pay by cc. The 0% installment plan also might be no more available since people cut the numbers of their cc & credits available to them low & unable to proceed for installment..
- Microcredit & along will be popular option rather than cc balance transfer
Snatch theft might increase
- Bank might be more competitive on their cc product

hey...u forgot 1 in front Malaysia...haha
clap for our 1malaysia boss...

rm50 is only for one card per year....majority of cc owner usually have multiple cards....so its not rm50 only case u know...usually credit card balance transfer that worth subscribing is something around 24 or 36 months.... so it's 3 years tenure which is rm150 service tax fee for each card....

but again, its as i mentioned earlier, it's just only the thing that "might" happen....not neccesserily or definately will happen..at the end of the day its depend on the consumer financial management...

so dont look this as rm50 only case....if rm50 per person (card owner) regardless how many cards they have, then i'm pretty sure we all will have no complain.....but bear in mind, it's per card per year....its not just rm50 only case...

potong or cancel our cards directly means "we would rather cancel our cards than paying m'sia government unnecessary tax"...

after this, maybe they'll introduce more nonsense policy...

such as..

to promote prudent time management, each unit television in a household will be charge rm50/unit/year..there u go...we'll have TV tax !!..to discourage wasting time to watch tv....haha....its not impossible u know....since tv tax been abolished in the 90's....it might come out again under 1Malaysia boss....maybe even more complecated...such as each astro subscriber must pay rm50 per account per your as tv tax...

haih..why la government add burden to rakyat and give lame excuses...

This post has been edited by he-sham: Oct 26 2009, 11:58 PM

for basic & entry level, easy & fast to apply if u hold a degree is CIMB DA Gold Mastercard & Visa....They're giving generous limit too..

benefit can get rebates for petrol & groceries....

the deputy minister then added :



if like that, please la auto waive la for the first two cards...subsequent cards only charge the tax....

at least we can save rm100 unneccesery burden per year.....

SCB stands for Standard Chartered Bank

regarding this rm50 service tax thingy,

it will be charged into the cc account on 1/1/2010 or at our annual card cycle ?