robbrouse wrote:
Come on guys. No reason to be pissy about it. Fred made his point known and others have responded. He said he would not enforce it. It's up to the seller and the buy about the GIFT. I think it's wrong and will bot play the game as a seller or buyer, but to each there own.
I agree! However the only clarification I would make to your statement is that it's up to the buyer or seller to decide if they want to commit fraud (or as most call it: gift). People seem to be too polite to call it like it is (I suppose as I'm newer here I don't have to worry as much about offending my FM friends - as others might be)
You are right again: it is wrong (finally a sane person here) and I agree with you again - it is (like everything in life) up to the people involved to make the choice.
I guess James_N will be angry at you too robbrouse (although he shouldn't be as he seems to prefer the opinions of senior members even when they are the same as mine )
Armee wrote:
I also,offer the MO or personal check, but nowadays everybody is more and more in hurry
to get what they bought and not wait .They (the buyers)seldom opt for them,due to the extra
time involved.
In my opinion, I know we are all trying to make as much money as possible from our sales without taking another 3% loss, but do need to be honest as possible with each other as well as any third party such as Paypal or any other money handling company. We need to either start stating that we are charging 3% more in our price when listing or that we are willing to eat the 3%. That way things are more on the up and up.
We need to either start stating that we are charging 3% more in our price when listing or that we are willing to eat the 3%.
You dont need to state that the 3% is in the price any more than any store you buy from has it figured into their cost of doing business. It makes no difference either way you stated it...ultimately the price is the price. Your quote doesnt even make sense...its saying the same thing, Since cc transactions have a cost associated with them, there is no reason why you cant/shouldnt offer a lower price for those buyers who chose to pay by a method that does not charge you. Even CC companies have been forced to rethink that one. That said, if someone says its 500 bucks shipped n paypalled, and you cant figure out that the fees are in the price you are just well...lets just say not very bright.
Oh...and it appears paypal has changed the way their gift option works and gets their percentage. I just had a buyer try to use the gift option, only to find that the fee is included...and at the buyers discretion can now either pay the fee themselves (comes out of the $$ sent) or pass that fee on to the buyer...
my buyer had a business paypal acct...so not sure if its changed for everyone, but it apparently has changed.
Brad Barr wrote:
Oh...and it appears paypal has changed the gift option. I just had a buyer try to use the gift opton, only to find that the fee is included...and at the buyers discretion can now either pay the fee themselves (comes out of the $$ sent) or pass that fee on to the buyer....
I *think* (not 100% sure) that is only the case when funding with a credit card (funding with your bank account does not incur the fee when using gift option). However I stand to be corrected.
Thats what I thought too....but he was funding from a bank acct. (or so he said).
Either way...its NOT FM's job to force anyone to pay any certain way. If a buyer wants to use the gift option thats on him. Caveat Emptor and all that. But I have no problem doing so if its a trusted seller.
Paypal as a company, seems to be doing just fine.......
edseiz wrote:
In my opinion, I know we are all trying to make as much money as possible from our sales without taking another 3% loss, but do need to be honest as possible with each other as well as any third party such as Paypal or any other money handling company. We need to either start stating that we are charging 3% more in our price when listing or that we are willing to eat the 3%. That way things are more on the up and up.
Agreed.
This is also the same as saying no PayPal gift option (fraud) will be entertained - only legitimately labelled transactions which will draw the 3% fee will be accepted (only question remains is who will pay? Buyer, Seller or split?)
its not fraud....thats bs
paypal knows exactly how much goes thru that way. Its a calculated cost. People are creatures of habit...and the more often they use PP the more likely they are to continue. With the advent of all the other online pay options, they are simply creating a payment habit. They could stop it with a keystroke if they were actually being harmed in any way. They are way smarter than that. The allow this "loophole" to exist. In fact it didnt always exist...only when comptetion for online payments crept up did they implement the gift option....hmmmmm wonder why?
BS? What do you mean? Why isn't it fraud? I buy a lens from you, I tell PayPal it's a gift (funded from my bank account) to avoid the fees, and you send me a lens. That's not a gift - that's a transaction that swindled money legitimately owed to PayPal. What am I missing? What do you call it?
A person might not like PayPal (I'm not crazy about them myself) but when you sign up for their service, you agree to their terms and conditions.
Gift
Living expense
Payment owed
Other
Cash Advance (?Your credit card provider may charge you fees for a cash advance.)
these are the options.....Payment owed comes to mind.
In reality...why should it make any difference what the money is for? If they send money, the costs to paypal are the same regardless right? Of course they are. Its called a marketing tactic. If it truly cost them business they would cut it off at the head.....why do you think it hasnt been cut off? Hmmmmmm
They are trading the loss of fees encountered (cost of doing business) against the benefit of increased users, and brand loyalty (forming online spending habits).
They arent telling you thats whats going on....but really, do you actually think a company the size of ebay/paypal would allow themselves to be cheated in any way shape or form? They know exactly whats going on here and relishing hanging on to all the business as you become a loyal pp user stronger and stronger w every transaction. Keeping google checkout, and all the others far behind them.
Brad, you're not really telling me that you honestly believe that "gifting" the money to a seller to buy a lens is the same thing as indicating a purchase of goods (as PayPal asks)? I may not have had my coffee yet this morning but come'on. Let's be real.
Also, the costs aren't the same - you can still save the fee by funding it with a bank balance. However I agree that the gift option has become less compelling - why would a buyer use the gift option to buy a lens, pay the 3% (funded by CC) and lose their PayPal protection if the deal goes south? Doesn't make sense.
I've always been under the impression that Postal Money Order was a good way to pay in the U.S. If either the buyer or seller was committing fraud it would be a federal offense. Granted, that may not get you your money back. I was unaware PayPal had guarantees now. I stopped using it many years ago because it was so easy to get defrauded when you used it. $50 or less I'd go with paypal but higher than that I use Postal Money Order...
Does the Buyer have any protection when paying by the Gift option? Not really, as using the Gift option is simply that, a gift. If someone is asking you to pay for an item using the Personal Gift option this is wrong as they are trying to avoid paying the transaction processing fees. If you do pay the person, you are not protected in any way, shape or form. And there's the possibilty that you will not get the item either.
Come on folks, it is 3%. What sort of commission do you think you pay if you are selling or buying a house? Would you as a Seller, prefer paying the rates that eBay charges?
If you are not happy paying PayPal fees, then don't use PayPal.
Brad Barr wrote:
In reality...why should it make any difference what the money is for? If they send money, the costs to paypal are the same regardless right?
Well try buying an item using Gift, and when you don't receive it, let's see how far you would get by whining to PayPal about them not trying to get your money back.
Imagemaster wrote:
Well try buying an item using Gift, and when you don't receive it, let's see how far you would get by whining to PayPal about them not trying to get your money back.
And how many times have you heard of someone getting screwed here using gift then people jump in and say tell Fred? Like he can do something about it
Brad Barr wrote: its not fraud....thats bs
paypal knows exactly how much goes thru that way. Its a calculated cost. People are creatures of habit...and the more often they use PP the more likely they are to continue. With the advent of all the other online pay options, they are simply creating a payment habit. They could stop it with a keystroke if they were actually being harmed in any way. They are way smarter than that. The allow this "loophole" to exist. In fact it didnt always exist...only when comptetion for online payments crept up did they implement the gift option....hmmmmm wonder why?
WOW! Talk about convenient rationalization! You sign up and enter into a contractual agreement when you use PayPal...like it or not, agree with it or not, it IS fraud! Personally, I don't care what others do, but if you're going to be openly hypocritical then I'm gonna call you out on it!
BE HONEST and at least just say (for instance), "Hey, I don't agree with the payment structure and user agreement with PayPal so I will circumvent their policy and commit fraud". You probably believe that 'using' pirated software is also OK because these companies know some copies are pirated and calculate that into their costs and know it's still free exposure & marketing for them anyway...right?
Paypal charges the same 3% fee for simple and risk-free ACH transfers from bank account to Paypal or even internal zero-cost transfers between PayPal accounts as they do for credit card payments that involve association fees and issuers risk of giving buyer a credit for the amount of purchase. On top of that Paypal gets to invest the money until the seller transfers it to the bank account. That's what I call cheating.
I agree that "gift" is not the right way to call it, but I will keep accepting "payment owed" transactions from trusted FM members with no moral issues whatsoever.
)
