posted on April 21, 2001 08:06:48 PM new
So, now that PayPal is gonna charge $1.50 to issue a check (for those of us who don't let them deposit into our bank accounts), will eBay and PayPal allow *that* fee to be passed along--it's not a fee for accepting credit cards
posted on April 21, 2001 08:09:14 PM new
Not really a surprise, but yet another fee introduced after an entity thinks it's secured a dominant market share. Same behavior as eBay.
posted on April 21, 2001 08:15:59 PM new
I doubt they will let you get away with it.
I tried to offer free shipping on some of my auctions with the stipulation that if the buyer used paypal they would need to add .30 towards shipping (these were items that could be shipped in a #10 envelope for .34. Ebay cancelled all of my auctions that I had running at the time and said that if I reposted them without changing that I could be suspended. I don't see how ebay should care if I charge someone a lousy .30 to ship something-- but there you have it.
posted on April 21, 2001 08:16:37 PM newSo, now that PayPal is gonna charge $1.50 to issue a check (for those of us who don't let them deposit into our bank accounts), will eBay and PayPal allow *that* fee to be passed along--it's not a fee for accepting credit cards.
I wouldn't think ebay or paypal will allow this, at least not directly.
Not really a surprise, but yet another fee introduced after an entity thinks it's secured a dominant market share. Same behavior as eBay.
In the sad but true department...ebay and paypal have secured a dominant market share. It's really too bad when this happens, but it has happened.
posted on April 21, 2001 08:23:39 PM new
Ashlandtrader: We meet again!
I think you would have been ok if you had done it the other way around. You are allowed to GIVE DISCOUNTS for cash (Ie.checks, money orders), but you can't charge a surcharge for credit cards. So if you state that shipping is 34¢, but will be waived for checks or money orders you should be ok. At least that was eBays stance a few months ago.
posted on April 21, 2001 09:04:28 PM new
Hi Stamper3,
Good idea! It seems obvious but I hadn't even thought of it. I was so discouraged after the cancelling fiasco that I had given up on the idea-- but I know my ebay customers liked free shipping and I think it helped my bids.
Thanks! Take care! :0)
posted on April 21, 2001 10:12:20 PM new
I know some like having checks sent to them. I'm too lazy and direct deposit works best for me.
Here's another alternative. If you have a PayPal debit card you can withdraw your funds at the USPS. Simply purchase a money order for up to $700.00 with your PayPal debit card and you only pay 75 cents. Take the money order over to your bank and deposit it.
Half the price of having a check mailed to you, and instead of days, you're now dealing in minutes.
posted on April 21, 2001 10:49:18 PM newNo debit card transaction fee?
The only fee is the 75 cents from the USPS per money order (with a $700 maximum per money order). PayPal will allow you to spend up to $1000.00 per day with the debit card. So if your opposed to direct deposits and have no trouble going to the USPS you could withdraw up to $998.50 a day with 2 USPS money orders (the other $1.50 would be paying for the money orders.)
Perfectly legal to purchase USPS money orders with a debit card. They'll allow up to $3,500.00 in money orders purchased with a debit card, or the debit card's limit if it is less.
posted on April 22, 2001 10:09:32 AM new
My original post on this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I rarely process a PayPal transaction anymore, don't have a verified account, and have no interest in PayPal's debit card. I'm fascinated by the possibilities this offers, though. I think the situation provides an, er, interesting dilemma for eBay and PayPal.
Right now, eBay and PayPal "forbid" passing along fees. They're saying that some law somewhere says something about not being allowed to pass along credit card fees to buyers, and even though we sellers are not the ones accepting the credit cards, "they" have decided this law applies to us. Okay.
But...this $1.50 per check transaction fee is a direct charge to the seller from PayPal. This fee has absolutely nothing to do with the transactions between buyer and seller--it applies only to the relationship between PayPal and account holder. I don't see how "they" can claim passing along this charge falls under that same law that they've been throwing in our faces before.
I suppose they can do just what they've been doing and say "no no bad seller, thou art not permitted to recoup thy costs. No reason required." But it's interesting.
posted on April 22, 2001 10:50:08 AM new
I have just surender and moved with the flow I incressed all my starting bids to match the incress in running auctions.
My starting bids have been raised from .75 to $1.50 have been doing this now for near two months and it dont seem to be hurting bids on my Auctions at all.
Changed my shipping rates to a Fixed Rate shipping no matter what the Item is.
any Item up to 1 lbs = 3.95
2lbs = $4.95 and so on
all shipping inside the US is priority or parcel post inless other wise stated and this hasnt hurt sales either and not one complaint.
I change no handleing offer no discounts for paying by snail mail I can afford to accept money from any buyer any way they choose to pay me its all green I dont have to threaten complain or bully any buyer.
I make it very clear to the buyer I do not haggle my prices and my stated terms are my terms for shipping ebay dont allow choice auctions what is in my listing is what the buyer and I must live up too.
yes these services make buying easyer for the buyer but they make it easier for you as well in the end they customer pays for them incressing your prices is the path of least resistants.
at least they know if they want your Item they must at least pay your starting bid and shipping rates that you clearly state in your listing.
they can fight handleing charges and extra fee to use some service but they cant fight a locked in starting price. http://dman.Dman-N-Company.com
posted on April 22, 2001 11:07:06 AM newuaru - Also, when you use your debit card you get 1.5% cash back.
Yes the 1.5% cashback is nice, but you don't qualify for the 1.5% cashback on the purchase of a money order. The reason is you must use your PIN number in the purchase of a money order from the USPS. It would be a helluva loop hole if they allowed the 1.5% on such a purchase, you'd buy a $700 money order for 75 cents and get a $700 money order and $10.50 back.
You do qualify for the 1.5% cashback on all other purchases at the USPS, stamps, insurance, postage, etc., but not on the purchase of a money order.
Believe me, if I could purchase money orders and make $10.50 per purchase that would be the only way I'd withdraw my money.
posted on April 22, 2001 11:20:42 AM new
uaru - bummer. I didn't know about having to use your PIN # to buy a m/o, I've never used my card for that. Oh well....
posted on April 22, 2001 11:46:50 AM new
Fine then use the debit card to pay your postage bills on whatever service you use or at the Post Office. The leftover funds can be put in the money market and you can also just wait until the end of the week or month to get your checks. The money will all go into the money market until then. By the end of the month you should have several thousand in your account and the dividends earned will make the deal a little sweeter. Once you subtract the $1.50 from a few thousand dollars it is like nothing.
If you say, "It's not FDIC insured", just forget about it the insurance because there are a lot of federal agencies watching this company and similar companies because if one crashes they will step in and investigate and get back most of the money. When the money goes into the money market account it is actually safer because an outside party is managing the money, but money market industry has never seen but one failure.
http://www.investorama.com/infocenter/articles/banking/moneymarket/
Even in that situation the advisor made good and kept investors from losing money.
Basically, paypal is trying to find a way to keep as much of their customer's money in the company but transferring it from customer to customer. They are also trying to eliminate people who were requesting a check everyday. They are also trying to reduce their costs. They have to pay to print the check on check paper, put it in an enelope, mail the check, then pay the bank for every check cashed, reconcile the bank acccounts... etc. It can cost as much as the $1.50 they are charging as just postage is $.34, and banks can charge as much as $.02 per check.
[ edited by mikeselis on Apr 22, 2001 12:09 PM ]
posted on April 22, 2001 05:42:27 PM new
Hi psyllie,
Thanks for your comments. I have often wondered why users would want a check sent, which has far more potential problems (lost in the mail) than an electronic transfer. The general period for a check is 1-2 weeks, whereas an ach transfer takes several business days (and is much more readily trackable).
The #1 reason I have heard is the user doesn't feel comfortable providing this information. Our terms of use, and federal laws, prohibit transactions against your bank account without your permission. In addition, the information you provide us with is the same that you provide on a check. However, this information is never provided (transmitted to a recipient) to a party you don't know (which is the case with a check). All banking information is encrypted in the system, as is the credit card information. Mailing a check to someone you don't know carries far more danger than supplying it to a corporate entity.
posted on April 22, 2001 07:51:37 PM new
There he goes again.
Our terms of use, and federal laws, prohibit transactions against your bank account without your permission.
But when you agree to be verified, you also give them permission to do whatever they want to your checking account.
So they have that blanket permission.
Notice that he didn't say 'explicit permission for each and every indiviual transaction.'
Beside how can you listien to someone who repeatedly said 'no one will be forced to upgrade' As we see now 1 year later that we all have been forced to upgrade (to the fee paying account)
[ edited by unknown on Apr 22, 2001 07:52 PM ]
