solomon wrote:I ask shouldn't fast food be considered restaurants, anyways?
Not if they're not coded the same. It's the creditors that determine "should". I mean, if "should" is up to us then why would I aim so low? I'd make it all 5% with no limits. Heck, why stop at 5%?
Thing is that 5% is the equivalent of a loss leader in the credit card world so, yes, it will tend to come along with caps and other restrictions via fine print. If you want to play the game then you have to be willing to play and can't assume that a 5% offer will be around forever or have terms that are in your favor.
solomon wrote:These cash back ideas are cool and a privilege, but if you really think about it, it's just a gimmick when you could save lots more money either by just not using it or paying cash.
All depends on the details. A lot of merchants don't offer different pricing for cash. Cash doesn't have the protections that credit cards offer. YMMV but cash wouldn't be saving me "lots more money". I can't account for cash expenditures whereas I can account for every transaction with credit. Most of my shopping is online anyway so cash is a nonstarter for me.
One could "save lots" either way. It's up to the individual to determine which approach makes more sense for that person. You can't just assume that your "cash is king" approach is a universal solution just because it works for you.
solomon wrote:These 5% cash backs are incentives to get you to buy more to 'earn' more. But in actuality, you save more just by not spending it.
Cash and not spending are not the same thing. That's why it doesn't make sense. You're assuming them to be the same. Not spending works with both cash and credit.
Yes, people do tend to spend more with cash back offers but you can't assume that everyone does because of the tendency of others. Again, you're assuming something to be universal where it's not. All rewards do for me is determine which card I pull.