Why do card processing companies discourage “cash advance” activities
"This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a ""merchandise transaction"" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper ""purchases"" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent:  1. Bill yourself $5,000 for ""merchandise"", but instead give yourself cash.  2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75).  3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement.  4. Pocket the difference.  5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service" Square does not care if you run a $10 transaction to test the system. They are concerned with its use to move meaningful amounts of money.    The only people who do this will be the Dunning-Kruger gang, who only think they are clever.  Because of course Square will hunt them down, sue, garnish and/or prosecute them!  But the expense of doing so is all on Square, making it a total lose.  The cheapest resolution is to not let it happen in the first place.   The ~3% cash advance fees, lack of rewards points, and the higher interest rate are not just for profiteering.  They reflect, and pay for, the higher risk of loaning money via cash advance: to put it indelicately, the risk of default.   Cash advance credit limits are often much lower than purchase limits.   If a merchant is selling himself phantom merchandise to get easy cash advances, it means he is not using regular ways of borrowing money.  Perhaps because he can't, because he has exhausted his other opportunities to borrow, risk managers have cut him off.  Square has no reason to care either way; but the issuing bank does, and through Visa etc., they will disallow this behavior.   **  PayPal Here's rate used here instead of Square's, to simplify math. "Square charges a 2.75% fee (which the merchant pays), so you would be losing money if you only got a 1.5% cashback bonus. I would guess that the real reason Square prohibits you from getting cash is because of Visa/MC, state and federal regulations.  Visa/MC probably prohibit it for regular merchants due primarily to laws that are designed to prevent money-laundering. Certain merchants (like casinos) are allowed to give you cash advances against a credit card, but regular merchants are not allowed to do this. It is much more difficult to get Visa/MC to approve merchants to handle cash advances and they are subject to many additional regulations.  Services like Western Union will let you send cash with a regular credit card, but they are classified as ""money transmitters"" and must comply with additional state and federal regulations. If Square were to allow cash advances, this would likely subject them to a bunch of additional regulations.  It would cost them more to comply with these regulations and is outside their business model, so they simply prohibit it." I thought this was because credit card companies charge the retailer a fee to accept credit card payments. If you spend $100, the retailer pays $1 (or whatever percentage they have negotiated) to the credit card provider.  Handing over $100 cash and paying $1 fee to Visa means a loss to the retailer. The same transaction on $100 worth of product means the loss is accepted out of the profit margin which the retailer accepts to attract custom.
Car rental agencies typically accept only credit cards for the rental (you can pay at the end with debit, but the securing during the rental must be a credit card - or a high cash deposit). Hotel advance-bookings - even if many months in the future - will work fine with a credit card, but - as explained by others - on a debit card, it would directly affect your cash flow (you basically have to prepay instead of just leave the credit card number on file. The same is sometimes true for other advance booking, like cruises, tours, etc. "Check whether you're being charged a ""Cash advance"" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though ""Cash advance fee - ATM"" has ""ATM"" in   it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're   withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home   country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a   positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for   cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers   (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for   ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will     apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your     account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been     posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150     will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive     (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge     of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on     your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account   is negative? That's a bit of a difference!" "@Joe's original answer and the  example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum  required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate  (including the 0% rate that ""results"" from acceptance of balance transfer  offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on.  Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years).  Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the ""convenience checks"" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no ""grace period"" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. "" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ...."", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password).  Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of  money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan.  (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month." "A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund.  On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider.  But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to.  Asking for details via email doesn't pass the ""sniff test"" either.  To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good.  Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy.   How did you come to be corresponding on this email address?  Did they initially contact you?  Did you find it on a third party website?  Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso.  You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company.  Stop asking for a cheque.  That also circumvents the credit card system.  And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want!  If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction.  This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge.  It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork.   Don't chargeback lightly.  Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order.  The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund.  Each chargeback is also a ""strike""; too many ""strikes"" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business.   As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer.  Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot." Credit cards are great. You get free money for 30+ days and a bunch of additional benefits like insurance, extended warranties and reward programs. When vendors don't behave, you dispute the charge with the credit card and they deal with it on your behalf. Just get a fee-free American Express card and pay the balance off each month.  There's nothing wrong with using cash either, but I would avoid debit cards like the plague. It's good advice that I use on occasion. It typically only works for small businesses though. You need to keep in mind that everytime you swipe your card that business pays 1.5-3% processing fee to Visa/MasterCard and probably won't see your money in their account for at least a month. Also since cash has less of a paper trail many businesses don't accurately report it come tax time (ie. they subsequently pay less taxes). "(I agree with the answers above; would just like to make a couple of additional points.) It's a good and simple strategy to try it out with a small amount as suggested by @JoeTaxpayer♦. It's also generally safe to assert that card issuers currently don't receive or actively look at itemized transaction details. But that does not mean they cannot in the future. Some stores utilize level 3 data processing, which tells the card issuers exactly what you bought in a transaction. An example of level 3 data being utilized to reject rewards is with Discover, which announced a 10% cashback reward for any transactions made with Apple Pay last year. It later introduced an additional term to exclude gift card purchases. And this has been verified to be effective - no more reward on gift card purchases; clawback of cashback on existing gift card transactions. As far as I know, Amex does receive and look at some level 3 data retrospectively. That does not necessarily mean they will claw back your cashback after initially rewarding the 6%. But it might show up if you ever trigger an account review, and be used as evidence of your ""abuse"" of the program (which BTW is defined rather subjectively). There has been many cases of account shutdowns because of this. Card issuers are also trying to do a better job preventing ""abuses"" by proactively setting caps on rewards (as opposed to closing those accounts afterwards and taking the rewards away altogether). Given the trend in recent years, I have to speculate that at some point the card issuers would put clear language in the terms against gift card purchase and enforce it effectively (if they haven't already). This reward game is constantly changing. It's good while it lasts. Just be prepared and don't get surprised when things go south." The biggest advantage to small business owners paid in cash is not that it might save the 2 or 3 percent that would go to the credit card company.  The biggest advantage is that they have the opportunity to keep the transaction entirely off the books and pocket the cash without paying income tax or sales tax, especially when no receipt is given, or when it's a service instead of a product being sold, or when it's an approximately-tracked inventory unit going out the door.  Although it's illegal, it's widely done, and it's also often a temptation for employees to try and get away with doing it too.