i'd like to see an end to Paypal "surcharges" on CAG...

Status
Not open for further replies.
allyourblood

allyourblood

CAGiversary!
Feedback
44 (100%)
something that's been bugging me for a while is the recent proliferation of Paypal surcharges, where traders/sellers are asking buyers to add some arbitrary amount (most often 3%) to their total when paying through Paypal. it's been going on for some time now, but recently seems to have surged. this is in direct violation of Paypal's policy, and i personally find it a little irritating.

straight from Paypal's website:

"4.7 No Surcharges. You agree that you will not impose a surcharge or any other fee for accepting PayPal as a payment method. You may charge a handling fee in connection with the sale of goods or services, as long as the handling fee does not operate as a surcharge and is not higher than the handling fee you charge for non-PayPal transactions."

as described above, by using Paypal to receive online payments, the seller agrees to pay Paypal's transaction fees themselves and not pass them on the buyer. i accept Paypal payments myself on occasion, and i think it's only fair that we sellers shoulder the cost. as a buyer, i find nothing more annoying. why should i pay the fees for a service that you're using?!

i am a member of several other forum websites that buy/sell/trade stuff, and all of them have imposed a firm policy in this respect. i think that in order to maintain a professional and honest atmosphere within the CAG trading community, it is something we should adopt as well.

so that's it. i'd really appreciate it if some moderators would weigh in on this one; i consider this subject to be right in line with others of a legal nature (ie: trading modified consoles, pornography, flash carts, preloaded mp3s, etc.). it'd be nice to take a preemptive strike before someone from Paypal comes sniffing around and pestering Cheapy D and the gang over this!
 
Interesting, I don't see it in the same category as modded consoles and what not. I do agree, if you don't want to eat the paypal charges don't use it, better yet just charge more j/k.

Seriously people just use postal service MO's.
 
I think its actually a lot of people don't understand there are no charges for using paypal unless you are using a credit card via paypal to pay. People misinterpret the credit card charge as a fee to use paypal. I could be wrong...
 
[quote name='kube00']Seriously people just use postal service MO's.[/quote]

It takes days to arrive and than a week or more to clear. Or you could instantly transfer the money in a second. Hmm... what seems more logical...
 
So instead, I should just add the extra amount myself without mentioning it? Whether we mention the fee or not, it's still the same. I know since I became Verified, I've been losing a lot of money. I wish I could get Unverified. I don't see a problem with this though, other than people should mention the full amount instead of saying 3% extra.

http://ppcalc.com/
 
oooooook.... so reword and charge a higher price to start and say you get a discount for paying with anything other than paypal?
 
[quote name='Hostile']So instead, I should just add the extra amount myself without mentioning it? Whether we mention the fee or not, it's still the same. I know since I became Verified, I've been losing a lot of money. I wish I could get Unverified. I don't see a problem with this though, other than people should mention the full amount instead of saying 3% extra.

http://ppcalc.com/[/quote]

are you referring to credit card paypal? because i have debit card verified paypal and i don't get charged a fee.
 
I understand and agree with your point but enforcing this would be mighty difficult on our end. As has already been mentioned, all someone has to do is up their costs and you'd never even know. Still, it doesn't hurt to implement this. Let's see what Cheapy says since it would constitute some rule changes.

In the mean time, might I suggest only doing business with verified Paypal accounts. Last I checked, there were no fees associated with using Paypal accounts that are directly tied to a bank account. I personally only use Paypal in this fashion. Perhaps others would be interested in this alternative?
 
I forgot to mention that I upgraded my account so I could receive/send more than $500 (which quite honestly I didn't need but didn't know about the charges). Now even receiving a $1 through Paypal takes away about $0.50.

Should I just start a new Paypal account?
 
For any who don't know, Paypal does NOT prohibit the holding of multiple accounts. All you need is a different bank account tied to each one (I actually opened a second checking account with my bank just for this purpose). I have two accounts: One verified premier account and one verified personal account. I receive Ebay purchases and a small number of other payments through that account. Most person-to-person sales I deal with using my personal account. It seems as though a lot of you guys are hazy on how each type of account works, so here's a quick breakdown as of the last time I looked this up:

Premier account: Fees are assessed on EVERY incoming payment. It doesn't matter whether it's credit card funded or not...you're gonna get charged. If this account is verified, the amount you can receive, as well as the source and the amount you can withdraw at any time, is unlimited.

Personal account: This account can only accept payments funded directly through a user's Paypal balance. This also includes "e-checks" that need a few days to clear. These payments are not given fees. This account can accept up to 5 credit card funded payments per year, but these must be verified by the account holder and fees will be assessed. A verified personal account can receive and hold unlimited funds in its balance, but account withdrawals are limited to $500 per month.

Being verified DOES NOT affect your fee/no fee status. Upgrading to a premier or business acount DOES.

So I have one of each. Almost every person-to-person deal I make goes through my personal account. I get no fees and therefore don't have to pass them on to make the amount I want from a sale. This makes everyone happy. If you only have a credit card, though, I won't shy away from adding a couple bucks to a transaction. Generally I split the costs with the buyer and it ends up being no more expensive than sending out a money order. Sure, receiving Paypal may be a convenience for me, but using a credit card with a private seller is sure as hell a convenience for a buyer. How many average guys have a credit card reader in their apartments? Ergo, I feel a split is fair.
 
[quote name='BasketCase1080']oooooook.... so reword and charge a higher price to start and say you get a discount for paying with anything other than paypal?[/quote]

this reply is to anyone asking the same question as you, BasketCase; it's not specifically directed toward you:

well, then we're getting into just arguing semantics. as for what anyone should actually do about this if it gets changed, that's up to you. all i know is that in order to accept Paypal payments, people agree to accept and pay any fees incurred for using Paypal's service. i think a simple way of viewing your question about "discounts" is this: if it were posted to Paypal themselves, how would they interpret it?

if you want to use Paypal's Premier or Business service (or whatever it's called), you are required to pay those fees yourself. if you don't like it, you simply stop using it. no one owes you anything: just like retail businesses pay a fee to offer credit card payments, you chose Paypal for convenience and security, and that comes at a price (to the seller).

think of it this way: how many non-Premier members are secretly attaching the inflated cost to their transactions, despite not actually being charged that fee by Paypal? the whole thing is too slippery of a slope, and i think it needs to stop.
 
[quote name='TahoeMax']Sure, receiving Paypal may be a convenience for me, but using a credit card with a private seller is sure as hell a convenience for a buyer. How many average guys have a credit card reader in their apartments? Ergo, I feel a split is fair.[/quote]

while i understand and somewhat sympathize with what you're saying, the fact is it isn't up to you. you're breaching the TOS agreement by doing this, and whatever personal feelings one may have about this does not absolve the fact that it is wrong.
 
[quote name='daphatty']I understand and agree with your point but enforcing this would be mighty difficult on our end. As has already been mentioned, all someone has to do is up their costs and you'd never even know. Still, it doesn't hurt to implement this. Let's see what Cheapy says since it would constitute some rule changes. [/quote]

yeah, i considered those points, but i still feel it's the right thing to do, and another way to promote a safe and honest selling environment here. i'd be very interested in hearing what Cheapy has to say regarding this.
 
Or just call it an 'record keeping fee due on all payments'. Seriously, the buyer is the one getting 95% of the convenience created by the use of paypal....or do you value you time so little that your willing to waste 20 minutes of your life getting a postal money order and then paying buck and change for it for it and then spending 41 cent to mail it and then get to wait a week for it to get to the seller. But in avoiding all that postal money order hassle and expense with paypal plus the added protections of paypal, you want to say, hey, seller, go suck it and eat the charges associated with payment method that makes my life so easy yet does nothing but add risk and hassle to the seller's side of things? Get real. You want the convenience of paypal, the least you can do is pay for it rather than expecting everyone to pay for it....which is exactly that that paypal clause 4.7 is designed to do....pass on those paypal fees onto every single buyer, regardless of how they pay, regardless if they used paypal or not.
 
Having 2 paypal accounts seems like a good idea, though it doesn't entirely address the issue; however, it's a lot more work... I upgraded to premier when I started selling on ebay, in order to receive faster payments - waiting 2 weeks for checks to clear back then was just annoyingly long.

Also, paying from premier account, from a balance in the account, to someone with a personal account, should not incur any fees. I'm not sure if that was mentioned.

Anyway, my opinion is, if you aren't going to subsidize the paypal fees, then someone can easily charge more for shipping (claim fees for gas, packing materials) and call it even there... Coming from the buyer's side, I don't mind spending a little extra to save myself a visit to the post office/bank (I get free money orders from the bank, but then I have to go to the post office to mail it, plus stamps and envelopes, etc etc) - plus I can send it instantly any time. As a seller, well... I'd hope the buyer felt the same way I did, plus I ship the same business day as I receive the payment (if the post office is still open).

Overall, I think my point is that the surcharge (and subsequent reimbursement) could just be looked at as a convenience fee...

Edit: Oh, one other thing, I actually have access to a credit card reader at home (my parents use it for billing for their company), but there is still a 4% or so surcharge on all incoming payments. In that sense, paypal is better in that it's cheaper, and there's another level of protection (at least if you're verified)...
 
I really screwed myself over with getting the Premier account then. I don't remember ever having money taken from me by Paypal when I was using a Personal account.

The way I see it, Paypal just wants to save their own hide by trying to hide the fact that there are those fees. Cheapy replying or not, this wouldn't make a difference anyway. Everyone would just charge an extra 2.9% + $0.30. The only reason I could see any complaining is for CAG members that lie about them being charged a fee and/or people annoyed at having to do the math themselves when adding the 3%.
 
I got "forced" into a Premier account after an ebay sale once. The seller would only pay via credit card, and I had to upgrade to accept the payment. (Even after I said no cc payments.)

(I think that's how it went...it has been a long time. For whatever reason, I needed one.)

I haven't really touched my Paypal account since.
 
i'm shocked at how many people oppose this idea. why are you trying to rationalize or reason the concept away? the fact remains: Paypal requires the seller to pay for it, or not use the service. what's so difficult to understand?

as for those suggesting buffing your prices by 3% across the board: i think that's a great idea. while i find nothing of the like on Paypal's site, Ebay themselves recommend this when taking their auction fees into consideration. they suggest that you build any fees and increases into your item's price upfront.

so if you have an item that's 10 dollars, you charge 10.30 upfront, regardless of payment type (heck, make it eleven dollars even). if people just charge what they want for the item after fees in the first place, they won't have to "work around" or outright disregard the TOS agreement at all. further, they'll make a bit more money on cash/MO/whatever payments as well. hey... just like retail businesses do...
 
[quote name='K_G']Or just call it an 'record keeping fee due on all payments'. Seriously, the buyer is the one getting 95% of the convenience created by the use of paypal....or do you value you time so little that your willing to waste 20 minutes of your life getting a postal money order and then paying buck and change for it for it and then spending 41 cent to mail it and then get to wait a week for it to get to the seller. But in avoiding all that postal money order hassle and expense with paypal plus the added protections of paypal, you want to say, hey, seller, go suck it and eat the charges associated with payment method that makes my life so easy yet does nothing but add risk and hassle to the seller's side of things? Get real. You want the convenience of paypal, the least you can do is pay for it rather than expecting everyone to pay for it....which is exactly that that paypal clause 4.7 is designed to do....pass on those paypal fees onto every single buyer, regardless of how they pay, regardless if they used paypal or not.[/quote]

actually, you prove my point: let's say i'm buying something for $200. as a buyer, would i rather pay 2 bucks for a MO and stamp, or 6 bucks to use Paypal? what if it was $800??

also, it's very common on CAG to see a seller claiming they "need Paypal fast to pay for bills/rent/other games/auctions/etc."... to those sellers, the speed of payment is a huge boon, as is the security that comes with a Paypal payment. that's what you're paying for.

you say, "Get real. You want the convenience of paypal, the least you can do is pay for it rather than expecting everyone to pay for it"....

you're kidding right? did you read what you just wrote? that's my exact argument FOR paying the 3% fee yourself! and guess what? i absorb the Paypal fees myself when i sell an item and receive a PP payment, just like i'm supposed to. i've used Paypal and Ebay for years. i'm by no means a wealthy individual, but i've never been so down on my luck as to have to scrape a measly 3% from each buyer in order to circumvent a policy i agreed to when signing up!
 
People will just call it a handling fee.

Besides, OP, you're using some really poor logic in your arguments. "Why am I paying for a service you are using." Both of you are using it. It might be a one-way street in terms of monetary exchange, but it's still something being utilized by two different parties.

Also, do you honestly think that all these other sites/forums you belong to do not have members who are circumventing it through a variety of ways? Wouldn't be hard. Again, they could call it a "handling fee" and be done with it. I imagine you've seen the eBay auctions with the outrageous shipping prices, aye?

You and the seller have other options, and if you can't work it out, then you don't do the trade/transaction. That's really kind of the end of it. Either you agree to the price based on what the seller says it is, or you don't go along with it.

I think you have a valid point, I just think it's an extraordinarily permeable one to try and enforce either way. Besides, one could easily make the argument that the seller has every right to do it because ultimately it can be factored into the price. And I base that on the idea that Paypal is being used by both parties as an amiable exchange conduit. Otherwise the buyer would say they will only send an MO and the transaction either carries forward in that manner or not.

Also, I wouldn't put too much stock into whatever rules and regulations Paypal has on their site. They probably break half of them every day.
 
I think it is annoying for everyone who sees or asks of the price of a game and the seller says, 20 but with paypal 20.84 or whatever, I'm guessing almost all games that are sold on cag are sold using paypal so why do sellers act like paypal isn't the norm? Paypal is also much safer, asking people to pay with money orders makes me more wary of buying from someone, through paypal you know if the seller is verified and you have possible recourse if something goes wrong.

And separately shipping should also be included in prices, the game has to be shipped, so why not include the price and just give a discount if someone buys more than 1 game?
 
[quote name='Rig']I got "forced" into a Premier account after an ebay sale once. The seller would only pay via credit card, and I had to upgrade to accept the payment. (Even after I said no cc payments.)

(I think that's how it went...it has been a long time. For whatever reason, I needed one.)

I haven't really touched my Paypal account since.[/QUOTE]

That's what happened to me too. I see nothing wrong with asking to help pay for the fee. In fact, I always say it's x if you do check and x + 1 if you do paypal. I give them a choice.
 
I'm rather curious why PayPal cares, unless they're doing it as a self-preservation clause so that people aren't inclined to use other payment options instead of paying an additional charge to a seller. They get the fee themselves either way; hell, they get a bigger fee when the buyer pays it.

If I'm doing an advertised sale, I don't incorporate PayPal fees. But if someone asks me to pick up a game for them or something along those lines, I don't plan on losing money on the exchange. And in the end, PayPal protects both parties as well as providing the convenience.
 
I think this is an issue that is impossible to enforce from the CAG side of things, since anyone with more than a few braincells will just incorporate it into their price for the item.

OP, if you don't want to deal with the "surcharge", don't deal with anyone who does it. I've dealt with people who ask for it and who don't ask for it, and it's no issue to me either way. I've never explicitly asked for the Paypal fees, though I do figure it into my pricing I offer someone. If they have an issue with the price I'm asking for an item, there's always room for negotiation, as well as walking away.
 
[quote name='botticus']I'm rather curious why PayPal cares, unless they're doing it as a self-preservation clause so that people aren't inclined to use other payment options instead of paying an additional charge to a seller. They get the fee themselves either way; hell, they get a bigger fee when the buyer pays it.

If I'm doing an advertised sale, I don't incorporate PayPal fees. But if someone asks me to pick up a game for them or something along those lines, I don't plan on losing money on the exchange. And in the end, PayPal protects both parties as well as providing the convenience.[/quote]
I'll tell you why PayPal cares, because:
1. eBay owns PayPal. eBay doesn't want users adding a surcharge onto the S&H fees as that would take away from the final value fee. Adding the cost of the PayPal fee to the cost of the item increases the final value fees.
2. PayPal doesn't want big name retailers that accept PayPal adding fees as that may make people think "Why pay $52 with PayPal for XXX when I can pay $50 with a CC?" And the more people that pay with PayPal means more money in PayPal's banks earning interest.

[quote name='munch']That's what happened to me too. I see nothing wrong with asking to help pay for the fee. In fact, I always say it's x if you do check and x + 1 if you do paypal. I give them a choice.[/quote]
If there ends up being a rule saying CAG traders cannot add PP surcharges just say it's X if you pay PP and X - 1 if you pay check.
 
[quote name='mguiddy']I'll tell you why PayPal cares, because:
1. eBay owns PayPal. eBay doesn't want users adding a surcharge onto the S&H fees as that would take away from the final value fee. Adding the cost of the PayPal fee to the cost of the item increases the final value fees.
[/quote]

Come to think of it, ebay only takes a percentage of the final value, not shipping, right? Maybe that's the key.
 
[quote name='AkariK']Come to think of it, ebay only takes a percentage of the final value, not shipping, right? Maybe that's the key.[/quote]
Yep, eBay doesn't take any money out of the s&h costs, which is why they forbid people selling items for $0.99 with $30 s&h.
 
[quote name='allyourblood']while i understand and somewhat sympathize with what you're saying, the fact is it isn't up to you. you're breaching the TOS agreement by doing this, and whatever personal feelings one may have about this does not absolve the fact that it is wrong.[/quote]

...because PayPal says so?

I would not want to see CAG attempt to enforce this, even if it was possible. It's not the job of CAG to enforce PayPal's rules. If PayPal starts paying the bills here, we'll talk.

If you don't like it, don't patronize the seller and tell the person why although I imagine the most you'll get is a lot of rolled eyes. :roll:

You wouldn't happen to work for PayPal, would you? Quoting their TOS and being happy with prices raised across the board -- the only real winner I see here is PayPal.

It has nothing to do with a professional and honest atmosphere. It's honest now, with PayPal fees being out in the open in the transaction instead of being hidden by higher prices.

Perhaps you meant corporate bullshit atmosphere. Sometimes they're hard to tell apart.
 
[quote name='allyourblood']

you say, "Get real. You want the convenience of paypal, the least you can do is pay for it rather than expecting everyone to pay for it"....

you're kidding right? did you read what you just wrote? that's my exact argument FOR paying the 3% fee yourself! and guess what? i absorb the Paypal fees myself when i sell an item and receive a PP payment, just like i'm supposed to. i've used Paypal and Ebay for years. i'm by no means a wealthy individual, but i've never been so down on my luck as to have to scrape a measly 3% from each buyer in order to circumvent a policy i agreed to when signing up![/quote]

Did you read what I wrote?...I wrote the most of the convenience and benefit is on the buyers side, not the sellers, so why should the seller eat the costs of something that makes the buyer's life easier? Also the clause says ZERO about charging a fee, only that you can't attach one solely to paypal payments, which as others have pointed out is why many sellers charge $5-6 dollars to ship a game on ebay when it only really costs $2-3 to mail one while there is, on a $24 BIN game, $3.70 worth of ebay and paypal fees.

And given this is CAG, I doubt that many people are tossing around $200 MO orders let alone $800 and the fact is that MOs are very costly in both money and time for low dollar items. And I think most rational people would opt for Paypal more as the $ amount goes up...hmmm, do I send a non revocable payment to a complete stranger on the other side of the country and hope for the best or do I use a service where I can get my money back if their is a problem on this $200 item.

And don't think for a second this doesn't exist in the real world as well. Every retailer that takes credits cards factors the costs of merchant credit card fees into their prices (identical terms exist with MC, VISA, and AMEX as that paypal clause), so the result is EVERYONE pays higher costs even if they only use cash. Even the federal government charges you a fee if you pay your taxes with a credit card (although they've worked out a system that legal under the no surcharge terms...they just call it a convenience fee and the company that handles the CC payments for feds takes don't take anything but credit cards, so the service charge is applied to all transactions they do, so it is legit).

Wow, so some folks don't penalize those people who pay with less costly methods but do expect those who do pay with with more costly methods to pay a little more. Wow, what total dicks they must be.

So instead of complaining about people just trying to cover the direct costs of service that makes your life much easier, why don't you complain about the huge profits that paypal makes as a result of the fees they charge.
 
well, i really hoped this wouldn't have devolved into an "us vs. the evil corporation" type-thing, but here we are. it's extremely disheartening. i didn't say Paypal's policy was a good one, i merely pointed out that it exists, and we should strive to uphold these types of things when we can. ultimately, you're all going to do what you want for better or for worse. i just wish folks weren't so eager to "get one over" on everyone, every chance they got.

and whether or not it can be effectively policed doesn't change the fact that it should be incorporated into the rules. if it discourages a small percentage, and i think it would, i feel it's worth instituting.
 
I guess I just dont see why this is a hot button issue... why dont you get all hot and bothered about the ebay sellers that charge more than "actual" shipping to cover paypal/listing fees? HEAVEN FORBID, thats the next thread youll create...
 
[quote name='BasketCase1080']I guess I just dont see why this is a hot button issue... why dont you get all hot and bothered about the ebay sellers that charge more than "actual" shipping to cover paypal/listing fees? HEAVEN FORBID, thats the next thread youll create...[/quote]

of course, like all buyers, that bothers me as well. the big difference is that CAG is a smaller community with a more direct relationship between its moderators/owner and members. one of the nice parts about Cheapassgamer is that we have a voice here that is welcomed, and often carefully evaluated by the moderation team. the fact that i can voice a concern and have it heard and considered by (a) moderator(s) is excellent, and leagues beyond the service and support provided by Ebay's mostly automated efforts.

also, this thread is not intended as a complaint, but as a suggestion to help improve the site. i would've PM'd the moderator team directly, but i wasn't sure if that was the appropriate avenue for this sort of thing.
 
[quote name='allyourblood']well, i really hoped this wouldn't have devolved into an "us vs. the evil corporation" type-thing, but here we are. it's extremely disheartening. i didn't say Paypal's policy was a good one, i merely pointed out that it exists, and we should strive to uphold these types of things when we can. ultimately, you're all going to do what you want for better or for worse. i just wish folks weren't so eager to "get one over" on everyone, every chance they got.

and whether or not it can be effectively policed doesn't change the fact that it should be incorporated into the rules. if it discourages a small percentage, and i think it would, i feel it's worth instituting.[/quote]eBay doesn't allow its sellers to charge for Paypal fees because they own Paypal. And from what I've been hearing, they may restrict payment methods to only use Paypal, so they keep all the money in-house. That's worth more complaints than this.

Also, there is no way to enforce this on CAG, as much as you'd like it to be done. Pretty much all negotiations for price are done via PM's, so there's no way to see anything done via PM's. Posts, yes, those could be policed, though you have no idea how many posts there are on CAG to police for this, among all the other posts we have to deal with.

It could be put into the rules for trading, though there is no reasonable way to police this on CAG. And I'm sure eBay sellers figure it into their pricing, so I'm sure it's happening there as well. Again, no real way to police it, unless someone was stupid enough to put it on their invoicing.

This is simply not something that is reasonable or feasible to monitor and control on CAG.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']
It could be put into the rules for trading, though there is no reasonable way to police this on CAG. And I'm sure eBay sellers figure it into their pricing, so I'm sure it's happening there as well. Again, no real way to police it, unless someone was stupid enough to put it on their invoicing.

This is simply not something that is reasonable or feasible to monitor and control on CAG.[/quote]

like piracy, modded systems, flash carts, etc, right? people are always going to "go behind closed doors" and do things their way. but i still feel that adding it to the rules might discourage the idea in some folks' minds at least. again, i see nothing wrong with people figuring the fee into their pricing: they should! that should be encouraged!
 
[quote name='allyourblood']well, i really hoped this wouldn't have devolved into an "us vs. the evil corporation" type-thing, but here we are. it's extremely disheartening. i didn't say Paypal's policy was a good one, i merely pointed out that it exists, and we should strive to uphold these types of things when we can. ultimately, you're all going to do what you want for better or for worse. i just wish folks weren't so eager to "get one over" on everyone, every chance they got.
[/quote]

I would probably be more inclined to be supportive of your point of view if not for the added risk to sellers of accepting it. I'm sure you've noticed all the CAG posts about getting swindled by PP chargebacks. Unless your defense is perfect, Paypal will side with the buyer in a dispute and you'll lose your money and your item. Personally, I'm VERY careful and haven't had this happen, but then again I have a pesonal account, unlike most users. Since it can't accept CC payments, it can't get hit with chargebacks either. However, every time I sell using my premier account, there's a risk, and any investor will tell you that with added risk they expect higher returns...and with Paypal, you're actually expected to PAY for that risk under the umbrella of its convenience factor. Unacceptable.
 
Okay then, everyone who takes PayPal should increase their prices by 3% so that way people can't argue about it. That way it's not a surcharge since it's the same price you would pay with cash/check.
 
I don't see what the big deal is...if someone agree's to sell you something on this site and then wants to add a paypal fee, withdraw from the transaction. If you are going to be so whiney about it, complain to paypal about it. Last year I spend about 5k in paypal fee's and about 13k in ebay fee's...both systems are setup so pro buyer that it has come to the point it isn't worth it to list there anymore.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't see what the big deal is...if someone agree's to sell you something on this site and then wants to add a paypal fee, withdraw from the transaction. If you are going to be so whiney about it, complain to paypal about it. Last year I spend about 5k in paypal fee's and about 13k in ebay fee's...both systems are setup so pro buyer that it has come to the point it isn't worth it to list there anymore.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. If you think it's absurd that people are putting PayPal surcharges on top of their prices, simply don't do business with them. Let your money talk. I wouldn't buy from someone who tacks a surcharge on, and I wouldn't do it myself. I think prices should be as transparent and uncomplicated as possible. It just makes doing business easier. If you buy from someone who's tacking on PayPal surcharges and trying to charge you $6 for media mail shipping or whatever, then they have no reason to stop doing it. Also: eBay's fees have gotten ridiculous and combining those with PayPal's fees is a lose-lose situation, which is one of the reasons I try to sell as many of my used games as possible on CAG vs. other methods.
 
[quote name='allyourblood']well, i really hoped this wouldn't have devolved into an "us vs. the evil corporation" type-thing, but here we are. it's extremely disheartening. i didn't say Paypal's policy was a good one, i merely pointed out that it exists, and we should strive to uphold these types of things when we can.
[/quote]

But why? Because PayPal says so? What kind of reason is that?

Why should CAG be concerned with policing anyone's third-party agreement with PayPal? Is it CAG's concern every time anyone is out of compliance with the terms of service of a third party that has no connection to CAG?

ultimately, you're all going to do what you want for better or for worse. i just wish folks weren't so eager to "get one over" on everyone, every chance they got.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with anyone trying to "get one over".

Sellers who are asking buyers to cover PayPal fees aren't being duplicitous -- they are explaining the cost right then and there. I fail to see how being up front about the cost of the item is somehow bad, or that more information as to why the item is priced that way is less desirable.

If anyone is trying to "get one over", it's eBay/PayPal by attempting to force everyone to raise their prices to hide PayPal's cost of business.

Please explain to me why higher prices overall are somehow better for anyone except PayPal. Please explain to me why higher prices for everyone (whether or not they use PayPal) is something we want to encourage.

Aw, fuck it. Because PayPal says so. :roll:
 
[quote name='allyourblood']like piracy, modded systems, flash carts, etc, right? people are always going to "go behind closed doors" and do things their way. but i still feel that adding it to the rules might discourage the idea in some folks' minds at least. again, i see nothing wrong with people figuring the fee into their pricing: they should! that should be encouraged![/quote]Putting it in the rules won't discourage anyone from doing it, as anyone who's worked with Paypal enough already keeps that in mind when working on their pricing.

Modded systems, flash carts, and other items that are restricted from being sold on CAG are listed as prohibited items, and when they're found out, they're dealt with. Most people will discuss payments via PM's, where it's invisible to anyone but the two parties in question.

In any case, it's in Paypal's best interests for sellers to include Paypal fees in their selling prices, as it's more money for them to get fees from. I can't see them showing up here and sending us a cease-and-desist for someone charging an extra $1 on a sale that's being paid for via Paypal. They're getting a cut of that additional $1, unlike a company that would lose money on someone getting a pirated copy of a game, or a ROM running via an emulator.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']But why? Because PayPal says so? What kind of reason is that?... Because PayPal says so. :roll:[/quote]

why does anyone need more reason than that? it's their service and their policy, and they choose how they want it to be used. if you don't like it, your alternative isn't to do whatever you like, it's to NOT use the service! despite it being a third party service doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to CAG's trading policies. further, it seems to me a nice move on CAG's part to at least remove this practice from the surface, from the public view, to absolve themselves of any possible legal ramifications resulting from an unfriendly visit from Paypal themselves? it's not unknown to happen; that's why some of the other forums i visit imposed this rule in the first place.

what's so hard about complying with something that you are contractually bound to by using the service in the first place? why are people finding this so difficult to understand?

just like many sellers on CAG lay out clear terms that must be adhered to before they'll engage in a transaction with another member, so too does Paypal. just because you don't like it doesn't make it okay to do.

it shouldn't be acceptable to flagrantly ignore this portion of one's TOS on this forum. it looks bad and shouldn't be allowed to continue. not because i say so, not because you don't like it, but "Because PayPal says so."
 
As long as it's disclosed so I can go somewhere else I don't care.

What bothers me more at the moment is if say I want to buy something on eBay and the seller is near me, I'll ask if I can pick up without being "charged", they say no. I know that they are shipping gougers so that they can recuperate some of the funds via shipping and the shipping is actually cheaper than what they posted. (if this is a private sell not a "buisness" although some are not really buisnesses they are just "bulk sellers")
:roll:
 
[quote name='shrike4242']Putting it in the rules won't discourage anyone from doing it, as anyone who's worked with Paypal enough already keeps that in mind when working on their pricing.[/quote]

but i'm in complete agreement with this. members should be encouraged to build any additional fees into their initial price to begin with. there's nothing wrong with that, it's easy, and no one would have to blatantly and publicly disregard the TOS agreement. you wouldn't have to police it beyond the occasional obvious infraction (ie: someone advertising the fee addition right in their tradelist). just like piracy, mod chips, etc., by at least adding it to the rules, you may not stop it, but it would be a clear sign that CAG as a whole does not condone it. would that be so bad?
 
allyourblood, I like what you are saying. I would rather people just raise their price to account for Paypal fees then have me cover what they should be covering. You should sell your games and get enough to cover your costs, period. Just raise your price by a buck or two and see what happens.
 
I just want to let everyone know that I'm really bad at math, and frequently input figures incorrectly when using a calculator. 3% of $10 is like....8 dollars, right? .....carry the one.....Nope, I'm wrong. It's actually 9 dollars.

I'm off to raise all my prices. And then I'm going to tack on a fee for making me waste my time doing this. Not a surcharge, mind you. That would be wrong.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm off to raise all my prices. And then I'm going to tack on a fee for making me waste my time doing this. Not a surcharge, mind you. That would be wrong.[/quote]

it's funny; sarcasm smells a lot like vomit. in any event, i agree with this completely. go for it.

and djbooba: thanks. i'm glad to see at least a few people are willing to look at the subject with an open mind.
 
Surcharge or not, people will continue do it to cover their costs.

Small businesses do it often in cities and towns. That greasy spoon or small corner store might state, "Credit cards accepted with $5 minimum" because that's the lowest amount that they will accept a hit due to the CC processing fee. That's BS and you can process a .50 or $1 transaction (it's on your CC TOS or statement) but vendors impose an artificial price to what's acceptable to them.

The vast majority of CAGs aren't small businesses (hopefully?) and passing on the charge to your consumer - fellow traders - does take its toll. If traders don't want the dual-Paypal account route for quickest transactions, traders will continue this surcharge or do something like "$10 minimum to make it worth my time if paying by PP".
 
And whining goes well with cheese.

You need to realize you've come in here with your arms thrown up in the air to complain about something that is essentially impossible to enforce, and your only justification is two sentences on Paypal's TOS, which isn't so much a rule as it is something of an implied hope. I guarantee you Paypal doesn't give a shit, and wouldn't do anything to enforce it on their own. All they care about is money in their accounts generating interest.

Beyond that, you've done little to improve your original argument other than agreeing with the people who agree with you, and denouncing anyone who doesn't. Which is kind of like saying red is my favorite color, and then punching people who are wearing green shirts.

You're completely failing to see any other side of this discussion because you think this is a one-way street of opportunity for a seller, and that's just silly. If I sell something and know I'm going to lose some money on it because of the way Paypal handles it (since I got forced into a premier account via some idiots on eBay not reading the e-mails I kept sending him, and he finally just said he could ONLY pay with a credit card), then I fail to see why I can't adjust to that.

The best argument you've made so far is "oh noes I hates the big corporations and am sad to see the luv for them here," which isn't ironclad, and is just really more of an appeal to everyone's emotional (and typical) hatred of big organizations pushing everyone around.

I already said you had a pretty good point, but you ignored that, and now you're just going after anyone who doesn't agree. Pretty bad way to continue a discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top