posted on March 6, 2002 08:21:38 AM new
technerd, a Paypal surcharge is not illegal in the sense that it is against the laws of a nation, state or locality. I think people here mean "against Paypal/eBay rules" when they say illegal.
I believe that much of the Paypal fees are offset by the larger number of bidders you bring in when accepting Paypal. Unquestionably, if you give buyers more options, you will have more buyers. Who can deny that?
posted on March 6, 2002 01:18:37 PM new"a Paypal surcharge is not illegal in the sense that it is against the laws of a nation, state or locality. I think people here mean "against Paypal/eBay rules" when they say illegal."
I agree with you. When 3rd party payment services first came on the scene and they were touting the "against most state laws to impose a surcharge for credit cards..." argument, I contacted both Mastercard and Visa.
My position was, I am agreeing to accept payment through PP or BP (customer's choice not mine) and I had no way of knowing which payments were from cc or from debit cards or e-checks! I was not the merchant account, PayPal and BillPoint were!
I even wondered why, if it was illegal to charge a "surcharge" , were PP and BP able to charge me for accepting a payment through them????
Both Mastercard and Visa informed me that as far as they were concerned a fee could be charged for accepting a 3rd party payment processing service because I did not have a merchant account. They did say that it was up to the company (PP or BP) as to how to conduct their business and if they chose to charge a fee for their "service" and prevented me from passing it on that had nothing to do with them. It was between me and the 3rd party payment service!
Sooooo, to be 100% accurate, PP should probably say something along the lines of: We do not allow anyone to charge a fee for using our services period and end of discussion.
I just don't like PP or Billpoint telling me it's "illegal" or "against credit card rules". I would prefer them to be better informed (if they really think it's "illegal" ) or more upfront about the real reason for their fees and why it's only charged the "receiver".
They are a business and certainly have the right to try and make a profit.
They really don't want to charge "buyers" because then they couldn't advertise "free to use" could they while trying to sign up new users????
Since money orders and checks work just fine for me, I really prefer not to use the payment services. Unfortunately, many of my buyers want to. Afterall, it's "free" to them...
Please don't say "it's just part of the cost of doing business", because in every business I have ever been a part of, we made sure we got all our "cost of doing business" back one way or another...if we hadn't, we would not have been in business long.
posted on March 6, 2002 05:22:38 PM new
Every merchant, restaurent or airline that accepts CC's are charged fees.
That's the price to pay in doing business.
All to many ebay sellers seem to want only profits without any of the overheads of normal business.
They don't have the mall rents to pay, employees salaries delivery vehicles and business taxes etc etc.
Then greed sets in, they start charging for CC fees and shipping fees as well.
Of course we all know that they declare all that income and pay all the various income taxes on this profit.
posted on March 6, 2002 05:31:40 PM new
Re cost of business:
BUT the 'non ebay merchants' include it in the sales price, as should the Ebay seller.
The problem is the Ebay sellers are cutting each other's throghts all trying to sell cheaper than the next guy the same goods purchased from the same supplier.
It's the same out on the street. Sears or home depot sell at one price and Joe down the street under cuts for cash with no overheads.
The basic problem is the Wholesalers that sell to anyone.
posted on March 6, 2002 05:41:53 PM new
Almost every restaurant, airline and business alsoraise their prices to cover the credit card fees, and that is the normal way to do business. One restaurant I frequent only takes ATM cards. He says the credit cards eat into the profits. His prices are also lowest in town and quality of food excellent so I'm glad I can pay cash and still get a low price.
In all fairness, all credit card users should be willing to pay the fees so cash customers wouldn't have to pay the fees that CC customers whine about.
posted on March 6, 2002 06:31:59 PM new
I also believe that any person who chooses to use a service that charges a fee for processing the payment, should pay the fee!
I still buy more than I sell, and I have just gotten into the habit of adding a little extra to help cover the fee if I choose to use PayPal. Funny thing, though, if the seller states they prefer PayPal as the form of payment, I don't feel the need to add xtra. Why? Because it's their choice then, not mine. Seems totally appropriate to me!
posted on March 6, 2002 06:44:07 PM new
"I also believe that any person who chooses to use a service that charges a fee for processing the payment, should pay the fee!"
We do pay the fee. I pay paypal a few $100 every month to them, then I pass the overhead on to the buyer like any business.
According to your logic, Walmart should not charge the costs for transporting the goods to their store because they choose to have the items transported there instead of having the buyers buy from their wholesalers. Total nonsense logic.
posted on March 6, 2002 06:46:44 PM new
"Sooooo, to be 100% accurate, PP should probably say something along the lines of: We do not allow anyone to charge a fee for using our services period and end of discussion.
I just don't like PP or Billpoint telling me it's "illegal" or "against credit card rules". I would prefer them to be better informed (if they really think it's "illegal" ) or more upfront about the real reason for their fees and why it's only charged the "receiver".
They are a business and certainly have the right to try and make a profit."
-----------------------------------------
I agree 100%. For some reason the word "profit" has become a synonym of "steal." Only a wage is an honest way to make money.
But, all the Ebayers I know are trying to make a profit.
I wish companies would be more honest or just keep quiet.
"The rates on Tuesday will go up to xxx."
End of discussion. No pablum about because the customers demand it or that they are required to, etc
The only reason any company, anywhere raises prices is because they can. Period.
posted on March 6, 2002 06:55:32 PM new
Funny Paypal discriminated against sellers who had different levels of accounts. Some had to pay Paypal fees with accepting Paypal, while others were allowed to accept Paypal free.
Even credit cards offer different rates to different customers. It's discriminating, all customers shgould have the same interest rate despite their credit history! Right?
posted on March 7, 2002 08:07:47 AM new
A wise buyer will not bid on ANY item without all fees disclosed up front. That's just common sense.
Wise sellers will offer Paypal and eat the PayPal fees, while not giving away other fees for free (Handling charges).
As a buyer, I will not consider bidding on an auction that doesn't accept PayPal. And many here have stated the same thing.
Yes, quickdraw, you CAN find clever ways to extract the exact paypal fees from your buyers -- but again you can only do that AFTER THE FACT, because you don't know the final price of the item until the auction's over -- and you're losing bidder who won't bid because you're failing to disclose all fees up front.
It's far better to have a fixed handling amount that everyone pays and not charge for PayPal.
posted on March 7, 2002 08:59:33 AM new
I don't find it wise for sellers not to cover their overhead. Many Dotcoms gave away the house and went bankrupt. It's just poor business.
Buyers should be willing to pay for the convenience of Paypal. They pay for convenience in so many different ways already but for some reason they think they are immune to it when it comes to ebay.
As a buyer also, I know how valuable the convenience of payal is and certainly worth paying my full share of that convenience. It saves me gas plus the cost of the money order so I actually save money by using paypal even when the seller charges me the fee. I know a good deal when I see one and I'm not going to bite the hand that gives me that deal.
posted on March 7, 2002 09:06:59 AM new
Where did I say not to cover your overhead? Nowhere. But since it is ILLEGAL to directly charge Paypal fees, there are other ways -- as I've indicated -- to prevent losses without alienating buyers.
posted on March 7, 2002 09:12:44 AM new
If you don't know the undisclosed fees, you don't know the total cost before bidding.
I said you cannot legally charge for Paypal fees -- but you CAN charge for Handling which most give away. Swap one legal charge for an illegal one. See?
posted on March 7, 2002 09:14:40 AM new
"since it is ILLEGAL to directly charge Paypal fees.."
It's not illegal to charge paypal fees. It is illegal to have a "surcharge." A surcharge is a cost beyond your regular price. A seller can increase his regular price for all buyers and that is not a surcharge.
posted on March 7, 2002 09:22:01 AM new
"If you don't know the undisclosed fees, you don't know the total cost before bidding."
What? If the shipping is $5 and my bid is $8, I know my total cost to be $13. I don't need to know the paypal fee or the listing fee and FVF, I assume the seller has figure all that into the shipping or sale price. All I care about is what my total cost is because that is what normal shoppers do. You don't walk into stores and ask the manager to break down their overhead before you buy. It's unneccesary.
posted on March 7, 2002 09:50:28 AM new
"If you don't know the undisclosed fees, you don't know the total cost before bidding."
What? If the shipping is $5 and my bid is $8, I know my total cost to be $13. I don't need to know the paypal fee or the listing fee and FVF, I assume the seller has figure all that into the shipping or sale price. All I care about is what my total cost is because that is what normal shoppers do. You don't walk into stores and ask the manager to break down their overhead before you buy. It's unneccesary.
=========
I now see where you have misunderstood. A $5 shipping IS DISCLOSED, not UNDISCLOSED. You were meaning a breakdown of that $5 but didn't say that. We're talking about hidden fees that aren't stated up front (UNDISCLOSED). See the difference?
As for my other statement, you said a seller can increase his regular price -- that would be an increase on the ITEM, not a direct recovery of PAYPAL fees.
posted on March 7, 2002 10:24:13 AM new
If a seller considers the sell price to cover the profit, and the shipping to cover their expenses then the seller is indeed going to recover paypal fees.
Technically, one could argue that if you raise your shipping by $1, then bidders will lower their bid price by $1, and the seller does not recoup the fee. In general I don't see bidders on ebay doing this but I know I personally sometimes discount shipping from my bid as some others also, but I do get outbid quite often. With Buy It Now, a seller can lock in their profit and recoup full costs.
posted on March 8, 2002 07:54:22 AM new
My My you all must be on drugs!! Ebay is sooooooo great!! Try to do your own retail. Now when the net expense exceeds 20% of my selling price then I will get a bit testy. Look at a brick and mortar business. Better yet go down town and ask a small second hand store about their expenses before you complain about paypal fees. We all went thru this several years ago when the oil companies tried to charge a higher cost for credit card customers. They even went so far as to build special gas pump panels to get this done--it failed miserabley. Then the computer companies tried it about 88 years ago--no no bad idea. The bottom line is wehn someone buys something be happy toget their money any way it can come to you. Paypal, billpoint, Money order , pennies, gold bullion etc if they pay in a timely manner great. Look at it this way. Most paypal users pay immediately therefore you have the money available to buy more products you don't have to wait two weeks to get the cash. Figure out how that works out in a year and you will see the value fo pay pal. Let's see $100 turned around every two weeks means about 26 transaction per year. at say a $30 profit that is a $780 profit per year.
Now useing paypal $100 turned around every 9 days and you get only a $27 profit due to paypal fee that is a $1095 profit...Get the idea??? Ever hear of ;the time value fo money???? It's like the used car dealer that keeps a car on his lot for 6 months because he wants a $2000 profit. If he sold it for a $500 profit rolled the money into the next car for another $500 and so on he ends up with a lot more than $2000 in six months.
Prepare for the worst but hope for the best!! Spuddy98
posted on March 8, 2002 08:17:36 AM new
Paypal is a convenience for both seller and buyer PERIOD. I personally dont have the time to go to the bank several times a week to deposit money orders and many buyers dont have the time to go purchase money orders. If a seller decides to have a Paypal business account, which requires fees, he/she is responsible for paying those fees. (It is THIER account afterall). The seller is responsible for figuring in those fees to his/her auction. I personally wouldnt bid on an item if there was a surcharge listed for paypal (and I see those all the time)..why do *I* have to pay the sellers fees when he/she decided to take on the responsibilty of fees being charged?? If you dont like the fees, downgrade to a personal account and just accept e-checks, existing funds or instant transfer.
MEOW
posted on March 8, 2002 10:02:34 AM new
spuddy, who does that apply to? I don't earn interest on my paypal account, and I have a money reserve built up (in case of a slow month) to buy inventory, so getting money faster has zero benefit for me. But even if I did receive a beneifit doesn't mean I should not cover my overhead. Does my phone & electric company give me a percentage refund if I pay early? No.
posted on March 8, 2002 10:12:10 AM new
"why do *I* have to pay the sellers fees when he/she decided to take on the responsibilty of fees being charged?? If you dont like the fees, downgrade to a personal account and just accept e-checks, existing funds or instant transfer."
I upgraded because there was a demand for sending payments through (paypal)credit cards. I did not upgrade for my convenience.
Your logic baffles me. It's like saying why should a buyer pay for shipping charges because the seller takes the responsibility to to pay the PO the shipping charge.
But, I agree Paypal should charge the buyer direct, Afterall, that's how ATM machines work!
posted on March 8, 2002 10:21:21 AM new
My logic baffles you? Does someone have a stick up their you know what today? A buyer paying shipping has nothing to do with it..that is ALSO 1 option in case you didnt know. Listings clearly state WHO PAYS SHIPPING in the TOS and the seller picks the option. If I have to pay someone an extra buck or 2 because they have a business account then I will go elsewhere. Especially since I pay with existing funds ALL the time.
MEOW
