Stepping back, I think this is getting silly. The upstream comment stated to prefer cash over credit to avoid fees. You called that wrong and state there is a benefit to using credit. My claim is that you are equally wrong if the first person is wrong because interest and fees are often payed (data in peer comment)
If someone has cash, and is using credit to float the amount monthly, is there even really a distinction? If so, then the first commenters second paragraph could be amended to state to prefer credit only if you have the cash. Which is exactly what you are arguing.
I chafe at this thread since you are eager to call others wrong while actually arguing the same thing in the end.
That there is a benefit, can be a benefit to CC users is not in dispute. Meanwhile, the implications and practical effects of a duopoly are the interesting things. Notably, fir example, all prices being 3% higher. Yes that can be offset by cashback rewards, but sometimes is not and is certainly not when paying cash.
I am not calling others wrong, I am calling the definition incorrect.
A credit card balance during the grace period is not a debt - it is no different than paying by check - it is not more than a delay between a purchase being reflected on an account. That's all.
Only the balance after the grace period should be counted as a debt if we are using that term to talk about a population being more or less indebted than say X number of years ago etc.
A credit card balance is simply a form of bank account for large number of people.
> I am not calling others wrong, I am calling the definition incorrect.
Yet you wrote: "Regardless, your last paragraph is also wrong". The last paragraph was stated borrowing money was to be avoided. Nothing about debt vs balance.
> A credit card balance during the grace period is not a debt
This conflates "long term debt" with "short term debt." Debt generically refers to current debt, which might be short term or long term.
Second, by way of counter example, imagine a Credit card with a $100k balance. Your net assets are zero, and income are zero - if you max out that card - you have $100k of debt. Go to a creditor, tell them that $100k balance is actually zero debt because you have yet to repay it and have yet to pay any interest. I suspect you would be laughed at or charged with fraud. That $100k balance is not $0 in debt. Income actually does not matter to that statement. It would only matter if you qualify it as long term or short term debt. This is exactly why creditors often look at debt to income ratio, and not just absolute debt.
> Only the balance after the grace period should be counted as a debt if we are using that term to talk about a population being more or less indebted than say X number of years ago etc.
I agree that would give a more accurate picture of long term debt. Though, most redit card debt does represent long term debt. It must because the average balance exceeds the average income.
> A credit card balance is simply a form of bank account for large number of people
Indeed, but a large number is also small fraction of a giant number.
Let's step back. The second paragraph you said was wrong stated to essentially avoid borrowing money. You said (paraphrasing) "nuh-uh, credit is good for floating money." My retort is while that can be the case, for the majority of Americans credit cards are borrowing money. For a sizable and privileged minority, it is a way to purely float a balance. To then argue because of that, credit cards are a net good for the majority of people seems very flawed. That is further predicated that the interchange fees that are always payed are also always offset by credit card rewards programs. The predicate is flawed, and the assertion that for a majority credit is good because it just floats money is not supported by the data.
If someone has cash, and is using credit to float the amount monthly, is there even really a distinction? If so, then the first commenters second paragraph could be amended to state to prefer credit only if you have the cash. Which is exactly what you are arguing.
I chafe at this thread since you are eager to call others wrong while actually arguing the same thing in the end.
That there is a benefit, can be a benefit to CC users is not in dispute. Meanwhile, the implications and practical effects of a duopoly are the interesting things. Notably, fir example, all prices being 3% higher. Yes that can be offset by cashback rewards, but sometimes is not and is certainly not when paying cash.