@Anonymous wrote:Sorry, it sounds as if that IS your point to some extent! Referring again to a fee being essentially non-existent after a spend is again neglecting other options, which, on that same spend, could generate more net rewards. It's not "above and beyond", it's also below.
No, it's not. My primary point, which you also made below ("but for one year fee free the 6% really makes sense"), is that it's covered for at least the first year. But more importantly, even if there is an AF, the 6% is so much greater than a typical CB rate that you need to do the math to properly compare.
For example, the average family spends $4,643 a year on groceries. The breakeven point in years with an AF would be $1,585. That means the average family would earn about $183.48 back on groceries alone. Now, compare that to a no AF card that earns 3% back on groceries. They'd earn $139.29 back.
So even if you generally dislike AF cards--which is a perfectly reasonable predisposition--it's worth taking the time to think about it, which is exactly what I suggested.
@Anonymous wrote:To start... I want to clarify that the goal of @Anonymous post and this one as well is/was not to attack, rather to educate...
I'm surprised nobody has chimed in with the addage that was floating around this forum a few years ago... With regards to the BCP annual fee, you actual cannot (or more specifically, should not) use the 6% rate when determining whether the AF is worth it. Further details below...
The BCE is free, no AF, and offers 3% on groceries. As such, you really need to be using the extra 3% offered by the BCP when determining the break even point on the AF. In which case, the breakeven point is 3,167/yr (264/mo) to breakeven on the AF of 95/yr.
Let's use your 1,600/yr example, which I understand your logic... but clarifying the true breakdown/results.
1,600/yr at 3% (no fee on BCE) would be $48 cash back
1,600/yr at 6% ($95 AF on BCP) would be $96 cash back... but then you have to subtract the $95 annual fee. This results in a net positive of only truly earning $1 for the year. That actually ends up costing you $47/yr when considering the alternative of BCE (as mentioned by @Anonymous with regards to "consider the alternatives." Although he meant all alternatives, I was simply keeping this example within the same family of cards.)
Alternatively, if you spend the 3,167 referenced above... the math works out as follows:
3,167/yr @ 3% BCE = 95.01 cash back for the year
3,167/yr @ 6% BCP = 190.02 cash back (minus 95 AF = net positive 95.02)
95.02 (6% minus AF) - 95.01 (3% no AF) = 0.01
By spending 3,167/yr on groceries with the 6% BCP w/ $95 AF, you make literally $0.01 more for the whole year in comparison to the free option.
I did the math in the exact same way, which is how I got to $183.58 for 6% CB on average household spend ($4,643) instead of $278.58, which I then compared to $139.29 for 3% CB on that same amount. You just used a lower total spend than I did. Naturally, each person should do the calculation and make these comparisons with their own annual spend to determine what's best. Comparing AF and non-AF cards in this fashion isn't difficult. Yes, it's basic math. 
The fact that I collectively identified the first-year no AF, the SUB, and the 6% category CB as a package worth considering (at least for a year) doesn't mean people should "neglect" to make that comparison. Nor does the fact that I mentioned the annual grocery spend needed to clear the annual fee to an OP who is clearly fluent in CB cards and is fully capable of making these comparisons. In fact, they have.