PayPal fee ethicality discussion.....why not just....
SurfinxHI
Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭✭✭
....use a different app that does the same thing? (To buy a coin, for instance). If you want protection and claw back ability, pay the PayPal fees and move on.
Venmo....Is owned by PayPal....and it is free to use. Transfer funds between people for free. No ethics involved.
Cashapp
Zelle
Others. Why have the issue with “ethics” when you can do something else? Doesn’t seem so hard to me....
Cheers,
Surf
Dead people tell interesting tales.
5
Comments
The buyer usually wants the best price possible and the seller wants to get paid fast so.......
How does Venmo make money?
Venmo doesn't really make money yet. The idea is charging for instantaneous withdrawals will eventually get a profit? I doubt it but...
I was banned from Venmo for paying somebody for a coin through it.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
money transfers are effectively free to the big boys now . It certainly makes no sense to pay a 3% fee .
to put it another way , there is no way it costs paypal twice as much to move $200 as it does to move $100.
Somebody will fill that niche if they are allowed to compete
One pays for convenience and guarantees. In the old days you had to wait for checks to clear and be concerned about stolen credit cards, which are still a problem. A "customer" offered to pay me with Venmo last winter for a side job that I declined. I later billed her and am still waiting for payment.
I use Venmo for everything that I can
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Paypal has rules, and they charge a fee for their service. If you don't like it, don't use the service. If you don't want to buy a beer at a ballgame or popcorn at a movie, either go without, or don't go.
All of those say (including PPF&F) that they are not to be used for goods and services, only for transfers among friends without recourse.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
except if you look closely there are 2
emojis followed by one of the forefinger to the side of the nose emojis which the forum software can't presently display
There is also transaction insurance involved.
But, again, if you don't like the terms, don't use the service. You don't get to use a service and decide what the terms are. You wouldn't want it done to you.
don't you have some pennies to roll ?
I'm concerned that ethicality may not be a word
Ethicality: “The state, quality, or manner of being ethical”. noun
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
oh ya well why is there a red squiggly line under it? mr smartypants
Don't feel bad, I was thinking the same thing.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The word - yes, it’s a word - appears in multiple dictionaries, not just in SmartyPantsWords.com
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
or .................. " go with"
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
I just bought that domain name ! now we wait
LMAO Of course not, no one around here would ever buy them...even though they recommend that other people buy them.
I'm not sure why people need to justify the behavior. It is a clear violation of the terms of service. As such, it is a clear ethical breach. If people want to do it anyway, so be it, but why pretend it is anything other than it is.
You haven't established that the terms of service are ethical. Thus, it doesn't follow that refusing to follow them to the letter is unethical.
But he pronounced them as ethical isn't that all it takes?
I have never used Venmo........ And as such I shall defer from any comment as I do not have "standing"........ US Supreme Court approved response.
OINK
What is unethical about charging a fee for a service?
Absurd. Im not the one with the burden of proof.
They are clearly ethical. They agree to provide a service for a fee.
Breaking the contract is itself unethical. It is you that would have to prove that the terms were illegal to justify the breach.
My bank does not charge me to transfer funds from one account to another, in fact neither of my banks do. All Paypal is doing is transferring funds from one account to another, as the accounts are in the same bank. Whether they wish to charge for that service is certainly their choice and this is where ethicality is greyed out. Many, many coin collectors remove funds or collectables from a deceased relatives sdb before notifying IRS. Is this unethical, probably, but not immoral, then that's just my opinion. This question will never be answered to a majority's satisfaction.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
No one is saying it's unethical to charge a fee for a service. The issue is that they are trying to force users to purchase a service unconditionally when they may not need it in certain instances. How is it ethical to force me to spend 3% for a service I don't need when the service I actually want is available on your platform for free (and costs you basically nothing to provide)? As pointed out elsewhere, when I signed up on the platform, this requirement was NOT in the terms of service. After they reached a critical mass of users, they killed the free option altogether (for a number of years). Now they are a huge corporation that is basically printing money.
If you feel it's unethical to not pay for something you don't need, then don't (not pay). As a PayPal shareholder, I have no problem with that.
What is unethical about, when given two choices, choosing the one that does not charge a fee or provide protection?
The only way to make an economic system truly stable is to permit the free market to take over.
That is not a legitimate choice per the TOS.
Your conclusion is incorrect. If you feel it is unethical to not pay for something you don't need, THEN DON'T USE THE SERVICE. There is NO reason that you have to use PayPal at all.
I'm actually disappointed in you. I thought more of you.
For many years, it was completely impractical to buy and sell on eBay without using PP. They were the same company, after all. Had there been a practical alternative, I probably would have adopted it after their initial bait-and-switch maneuver of yanking the free option. Now I'm an entrenched user based on the following compromise: they are free to change their terms willy-nilly, and in return I'm free to disregard such changes where and when I can. Note that I'm happy to pay their fee for the vast majority of PP transactions I'm involved in, and appreciate the fraud protection they provide. I'm not out to scam the company.
As to your having thought more of me, I assume that's a joke based on the contempt you've generally displayed since I got reinstated here.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on the ethical question, and that's fine.
I am not sure how venmo or cash app work when it comes to buyer protection, but I do trust paypal because I can confirm buyer protection does work. SOmetimes you pay extra for security.
@CoinJunkie is right about ebay and how it was hard to buy on there back in the day without paypal. I will admit I did sometimes use money orders from the post office back in the day, but that does slow the transaction up. I did ask the seller before I bid if they would be willing to take money orders from the post office.
Positive BST as a seller: Namvet69, Lordmarcovan, Bigjpst, Soldi, mustanggt, CoinHoader, moursund, SufinxHi, al410, JWP
For the record on the BST or elsewhere, if I want to buy a coin, and the seller wants PP F&F, I won't do it. I will agree to send a check, or negotiate terms/price for using the standard PP.
Best, SH
No, I actually did think better of you.
And the OP question was about PP on BST not eBay.
The terms of service I agreed to years ago said nothing about fee free payments being used for goods and services. If paypal wants to change or add to its rules that benefit paypal and not the user it should darn well make sure the changes are forced upon the user as were the no return of fees on returned merchandise or forcing fees on state taxes collected. It could also require a "new" agreement with the use of an acceptance block to be "checked" by the user.
When a change to the agreement leaves the user with a choice, expect the user to make the choice that is in his best interest, not that of paypal who, after all, is wrongly collecting fees for something the seller did not sell (state taxes).
The only way to make an economic system truly stable is to permit the free market to take over.
This is simply incorrect. YOU AGREED TO accept future changes:
This is in the PayPal Terms and conditions:
"We may revise this agreement and any of the policies listed above from time to time. The revised version will be effective at the time we post it, unless otherwise noted. If our changes reduce your rights or increase your responsibilities we will post a notice on the Policy Updates page of our website and provide you at least 21 days advance notice for personal accounts and at least 5 days advance notice for business accounts. By continuing to use our services after any changes to this user agreement, you agree to abide and be bound by those changes. If you do not agree with any changes to this user agreement, you may close your account."
This is what was posted on the Policy Updates page for the latest update:
"Please read this document.
We’re making changes to the legal agreements that govern your relationship with PayPal.
We encourage you to carefully review the notices below so that you are familiar with these upcoming changes.
There is no further action needed from you as these changes will take place automatically on
December 16, 2020.
In the event you would prefer to decline these changes and close your account, you can do so prior to December 16, 2020 without incurring any additional charges."
So now there's a paypal fee to close the account? lol
Didn't agree to that change either, even if they claim I did by not closing the account.
The only way to make an economic system truly stable is to permit the free market to take over.
I don't think that's what they are implying.
@jmlanzaf said:
So after all this discussion, what we think paypal is saying is open for interpretation. Thank-you.
Now that you have finally proven my point, since, as demonstrated in many threads, you have to have the last word, the discussion is now all yours.
The only way to make an economic system truly stable is to permit the free market to take over.
It says you won't incur any charges. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are specific charges to close your account.
I did a quick (very quick) internet search. At least in the UK, they are instituting a dormant account charge. That may be what that reference means.
[Rather ironic that after you respond to every one of my responses - we used to call that conversation - when you get tired you drop off and accuse me of needing to get the last word. Am I to infer that you were trying to get the last word this time? I just figured we were chatting.]
YOU were asking why I use PP when I don't agree to its terms to the letter. I attempted to answer that question from a historical perspective.
And for the record, if someone is buying/selling a coin on the BST from/to someone they don't know and trust, using PP F&F is a very bad idea, ethical questions aside.
All the guys I have purchased from on BST have been nothing but professional, however I have read about the horror stories of the occasional scum bag, I pay the fee so I sleep better.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
Can you also admit that it is unethical? You don't HAVE to use it on BST. You choose to use it and refuse to abide by the TOS.
Ethics are clearly subjective. I do not consider it unethical, much as you don't seem to consider PayPal's changing of the rules to their benefit after they've essentially achieved monopoly status unethical. There doesn't appear much use in continuing the discussion. While I disagree with your position, I don't consider it wrong-headed. It is simply a difference of opinion and perspective.
PayPal has less of a monopoly now than they did 10 to 15 years ago. There are numerous digital payment platforms now: Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc.
PayPal, or any other company, updating their Terms of Service is a near annual event. There is nothing unethical about it. You are allowed to drop them at any time. Every credit card you have does it frequently. Your bank does it. Your phone company, cable company do it. This is NOT at all unusual.
https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2017/02/why-do-companies-continuously-update-their-terms-conditions/
https://www.businessinsider.com/deloitte-study-91-percent-agree-terms-of-service-without-reading-2017-11
Here's the problem.
Funny thing, emojis - is anyone aware of them being tested in a court of law? The law often turns on finely nuanced interpretation of actual words. A picture of $1,000 isn't considered good and sufficient consideration...
"So in this post, you clearly are encouraging people to violate the terms of service"
"Well, no, I put three emojis on the comment"
"Those weird little pictures?"
"Yes"
"And everybody agrees with what they mean, precisely?"
"Well no..."
"And the one you couldn't display - 'forefinger to the side of the nose'?"
"Yes"
"What does that picture typically mean?"
"Don't tell you are doing something wrong"
"So even though you couldn't 'say' it, you meant it?"
"yes"
Judgement for the plaintiff
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")