New insight on an old topic: Sellers charging the 3% for paypal use.

[Darthdiesel]

A seller I'm working with sent me a very polite and intelligent response into my inquiries as to why they charge the 3%. I just thought I'd catch your opinions. Let me know what you guys think. Or if you have any good replies. I found some from previous discussions regarding the ease and insurance of payment/speed of payment and more bids for offering payment with paypal :

 

My question: Just FYI...I was going with paypal then I saw that you were charging the surcharge. I believe it is illegal in California to do that, as well as other states. I'd check if that is OK to do in NY. The Paypal website may have something about hidden surcharges.

====================================================

Seller's response: As for PayPal - We don't care if people use PayPal or not. It really makes no difference to us as a seller. We don't get the money any faster than a Money Order.

Actually, we would have the money order before we had the PayPal

payment finalized most of the time. It usually takes 3 business days from the

time of withdrawal to receive a PayPal payment.

The only person who really benefits is the buyer. He/she get's their item faster.

 

Plus, we do not accept: Visa, Mastercard, American Express, etc. We accept

PayPal. How the people choose to pay for an item is up to them. Many people

just pay with a stored up money account having nothing to do with Credit Cards at all.

As a matter of fact, that's how I do it. I use PayPal all the time as a buyer. I don't

use a credit card. I just use the built up cash right out of the PayPal account.

 

No Surcharges. Under Visa, MasterCard, Discover and American Express regulations and the laws of several states, including California, merchants may not charge a fee to the buyer for accepting credit card payments (often called a "surcharge"). You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as payment. This restriction does not prevent you from imposing a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services, as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge (in other words, the handling fee for transactions paid through PayPal may not be higher than the handling fee for transactions paid through other payment methods).

 

That's why we don't advertise that we TAKE PayPal. We WILL take PayPal if the buyer wants to use it and agrees to pay the fee's associated with the service. If not, that's fine. We don't blame them one bit because we don't want to pay the fee's either. Say if we sell an item for $1,000.

We would have to pay PayPal a $29.00 fee. So you see, it's entirely up to you if you want to use it.

 

Now with smaller items, such as your order of $xxx.xx, the fee would be $xx.xx cents.

Now, figure in the cost of a money order ($1.00+ depending on where you get it), a stamp to mail the money order (.42 cents stamped envelope), your time (usually priceless), and your ability to get your item several days faster. So, who benefits? It certainly isn't the seller. Why should the seller be charged for the service of the buyer getting the item faster?

 

I'd love it if everyone sent Money Orders. It easier to handle and keep track of. But, like I said, we offer the option as a convenience to the buyer if they want to use it.

 

[jens25e]

What exactly do you want to say, Darth?

[GP_]

sounds to me like the guy is a jerk/crook. He "accepts" paypal since he knows many people wont bid on auctions that dont. Paypal has strict rules against the charges being charged to the buyer, and I believe they will pull an account if they find the person is doing it.

 

I would never buy from a seller that does that, just on principle. If you dont want to pay the fees, then dont accept paypal, easy enough. I have bought from many people that only accept "funds" paypal and not paypal from credit cards, to me, that fine as long as it is in the auction discription.

[FlyingDonut]

So they basically say we know we can't do it, but we're doing it anyway?

[Joanna]

Darth,

 

Slime. Pure slime, wrapped in semantics.

 

I don't know who he's dealing with who sends him money orders faster than Paypal clears, but most of my customers tend to consider a money order as a license to take a lot of extra time to pay. "It's in the mail" my foot.

 

Paypal payers tend to pay instantly.

 

Both have exceptions, but those are the patterns I've noticed.

 

-- Joanna

[fantastic_four]

Does PayPal charge anything when you send cash?

[delekkerste]

Slime. Pure slime, wrapped in semantics.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, nice shootin' Tex! Let's not get carried away here. So he's either exaggerating a little or he's misinformed - neither is sufficient cause to pull a Spanish Inquisition on the guy!

 

Personally, I don't have any problem if a seller wants to impose a PayPal surcharge as long as they are upfront about it. It would be one thing if they ONLY accepted PayPal and they made you pay a surcharge - that would be wrong. But if they give you the option to pay by other means and you CHOOSE to pay by PayPal (and they clearly state in the listing that they will impose a surcharge), then that should be the seller's prerogative. You can choose to not bid on their auctions, bid less on their auctions or pay using another method. No one is holding a gun to your head to either bid or pay by PayPal.

 

Obviously, an auction where a surcharge is imposed is less attractive to potential buyers, but if the seller wants to do that, who are we to tell them how to run their business? Let the bidders vote one way or another with their dollars.

 

- Laissez-Faire Gene

[Bonds25]

I agree wholeheartedly. When I'm selling, I'd MUCH rather someone send me a money order for $500 than Paypal it. It's not worth $15 to have my money in my account 1 day faster. I think it should be up to the seller, and if a bidder doesn't like it, than don't bid!

[GP_]

merchants may not charge a fee to the buyer for accepting credit card payments (often called a "surcharge"). You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as payment. This restriction does not prevent you from imposing a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services, as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge (in other words, the handling fee for transactions paid through PayPal may not be higher than the handling fee for transactions paid through other payment methods)

 

My take on that statement, from PayPals website means if you charge a handling fee, it has to be for all methods of payment. So if you charge 3% for paypal, you have to charge 3% to people paying with a money order, check, gold dabloun, whatever.

 

If they only charge the "handling" fee for paypal, then they are in violation of the law, and the agreement that they "signed" when getting a paypal account.

[delekkerste]

If they only charge the "handling" fee for paypal, then they are in violation of the law, and the agreement that they "signed" when getting a paypal account.

 

While it may be in violation of PayPal's rules, I don't see anything morally objectionable about this practice (certainly nothing to warrant attacking the seller). As I said, a seller does not have to offer the PayPal option and no one is forcing a buyer to bid on an auction which has a surcharge.

 

And you know, rules were meant to be broken.

 

Gene

[GP_]

yeah that dont have to offer paypal, but they know they have a better chance of selling it if they do. I have run several business, and accepting credit cards was always a good thing. We never charged more for credit cards, it always worked out, since you are getting more sales by accepting them.

 

In my opinion, any seller that charges a surchage is just greedy, no different than someone that charges $10 for insured shipping then ships non-insured in an envelope for $1.50 postage. it all comes down to dollars, some sellers want to squeeze every last penny they can out of a buyer, others want to provide excellent service and get repeat customers, sure they wont make as much per sale, but they will get more sales, evening it out or getting them more profit in the long run.

[mlovest]

What I like best about PayPal as a seller, is you get confirmation right away that the buyer has paid. That's worth a bunch when selling infrequently on eBay. I've only sold a couple of items, but all but one paid via PayPal. What a great way to quickly find out if someone is going to honor their bid. A money order is a pain in the butt. As a buyer, you have to go get one and then mail it, wait for it to reach the seller, and then wait for the item. Then the seller has to take ti to the bank or mail it in. With PayPal, it's so much safer and faster. Also, I understand the fees are lower if you use a bank account versus a credit card account.

 

Just my thoughts...

[PovertyRow]

a seller does not have to offer the PayPal option and no one is forcing a buyer to bid on an auction which has a surcharge.

 

No, they don;t. But if they do? They should play fair the commie dillweeds!

[fantastic_four]

Isn't it free if the buyer transfers cash directly from their account?

[comicartfan]

My take on that statement, from PayPals website means if you charge a handling fee, it has to be for all methods of payment. So if you charge 3% for paypal, you have to charge 3% to people paying with a money order, check, gold dabloun, whatever

 

I think this is an extremely appropiate statement. I have sold a ton of stuff on Ebay under two different accounts, and I have NEVER felt the right to charge a buyer for the convience of paying by Paypal, or have I included "shipping and HANDLING " fees into the price of an auction. Personel story : a couple of weeks ago, I sold a Batman 234 to a guy in Australia and charged him $23.00 for shipping.(i figured it out on the USPS web site) and when I went to the post office, it only cost me $15.00 to mail the package...so I refunded the guy's $9.00 back to him....thru paypal.....If a seller is charging for using Paypal , it is simply greed....nothing more , nothing less. -

 

Cost of comic: $253.12 Cost of listing on Ebay : $2.77

 

Value of recieving payment via Paypal minutes after auction ended : priceless

[PovertyRow]

If a seller is charging for using Paypal , it is simply greed....nothing more , nothing less. -

 

I will take that to the bank! On the nosey!

[FlyingDonut]

They can't impose a Paypal surcharge. One, Paypal clearly states that you can't, two, its illegal in several states, including California where eBay is based, and three, it goes against eBay's rules for adding fees to the end of the auction that are not listed in the auction.

 

Plus, it is an exceptionally slimy and scammy thing to do.

[Joanna]

Okay, Del, mayhaps I was wee bit overzealous. It's been that kinda day.

 

I can't think of any kinder things right now, so I'll have to get back to you later on that. Basically, this seller is saying "It's illegal to charge a surcharge, so as long as I don't say that word, I can do it." That's not just cheap, it's dishonest. And in California, where I live, illegal.

 

I've never bid on anyone's auction who plays these games, nor will I. I've seen it before, and no matter how much I want the item, the person doesn't get my money. I have bid on auctions where the seller asks for credit cards to be paid to one paypal account, and straight transfers to another. No surcharge, still a tad stingy, but at least there is the opportunity to use Paypal's full services. Credit cards protect our investments. Bank transfers and money orders don't. As a buyer, I want to feel safe and it's up to the seller to make me feel that way. Offering a credit card service sends me a signal that the seller is probably on the up and up (along with feedback, etc.). Ebay is risky enough, so I like to have the odds in my favor.

 

As a seller, it's a service I'm happy to provide because I, too, want my buyers to feel safe. That's why I offer Paypal, a money back guarantee, and my reputation. Online payment services are a real blessing to anyone, buyer or seller, on ebay because it gives some protection to the former, and it gives more customers and faster pay to the latter. That's just good business, and good business deserves to be paid. Paypal can have my fees for providing me with this service.

 

-- Joanna

[delekkerste]

Again, I don't see anything "morally wrong" with this practice. It may be against the rules, but that doesn't make it unethical. Aren't there rules and laws that you don't agree with?

 

As a free-market capitalist, I don't see how giving someone an option constitutes a slimy thing to do? The seller could just specify "money orders and cashier's checks only". B-b-b-but, one might say, then many bidders wouldn't bid on the item. "So what?" I ask. How is that relevant to the debate at hand? A buyer can choose to bid or not to bid based on the criteria the seller has laid out. Did I miss that passage in the Bible where it said, "If you are a seller, thou shalt offer and accept PayPal?"

 

When I go to a restaurant that only accepts cash or American Express, do I call the owner a scumbag because he won't take my Visa card and rant and rave about how he's only hurting his business? As long as I was not deceived into thinking that they accepted Visa when they didn't, that is their prerogative. It may hurt their sales, but that is their choice. As Blazing Bob is wont to say, buyers have no right to tell sellers how to run their businesses (and my apologies in advance if I'm ranting and raving like the Blazing One here!)

 

- Capitalist Pig Gene

[fantastic_four]

Don't give PayPal credit for protecting you...they don't do JACK. If you get ripped off, it's between you and the credit card company. PayPal pulls up the cape and yells "OLE!" whenever any kind of problem-bull comes rushing their way, and they don't care whether it's the buyer or the seller on the other side of that cape who gets gored by the horns.

 

I know what you mean, though...they hook you up with the credit card companies. I haven't figured out why the credit card companies don't do what PayPal does themselves. PayPal sure does pass on all the risk of consumer-to-consumer transactions to them...you'd think that those credit card companies would also want the lil' piece of the action that PayPal gets. I assume they haven't done it because they can't do it as cheaply as PayPal can, since they're outside of the United States and almost impossible to sue for most individuals.