Good grief...ebay just increased their FVF and now PayPal will also. What they need is a 2 tiered system...no fee if from existing funds in a paypal account...fees if a cc is used to pay for the item.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>Good grief...ebay just increased their FVF and now PayPal will also. What they need is a 2 tiered system...no fee if from existing funds in a paypal account...fees if a cc is used to pay for the item. >>
good idea if they give the seller the option to not accept credit card payments.
<< <i>Good grief...ebay just increased their FVF and now PayPal will also. What they need is a 2 tiered system...no fee if from existing funds in a paypal account...fees if a cc is used to pay for the item. >>
I've wondered about this for years. Using a cash source like my PP balance or bank account incurs the same fees as using a CC. A 2 tiered system is a good idea.
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting. >>
True. eBay/PayPal only turns a 25% net profit now. If CC companies cut 1% into that, I'm sure they will raise their fees 5% on all consumers to make even more money.
eBay/PayPal will keep raising fees, expect 20% eBay/PayPal fees very soon. There's a reason why monopolies are regulated. It keeps them from taking every dime the consumer owns. Right now eBay/PayPal are in a position to continue gouging the user for every dime possible and they are willing to do just that.
How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
<< <i>How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
oops I guess they can't do that either >>
PayPal has a negotiated fee structure like other major merchants. They clearly are not paying CC companies 2.9%. It is likely 1.5% to 2% but your point is well taken. If the buyer funded every purchase with a CC, they and the seller get full PP buyer/seller protection for less than half the cost of those who use cash/PP balance funding.
PayPal competes with other payment platforms like Google Wallet on many fronts. Ebay transactions are only a small part of the story.
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
<< <i>How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
oops I guess they can't do that either >>
PayPal has a negotiated fee structure like other major merchants. They clearly are not paying CC companies 2.9%. It is likely 1.5% to 2% but your point is well taken. If the buyer funded every purchase with a CC, they and the seller get full PP buyer/seller protection for less than half the cost of those who use cash/PP balance funding. >>
I almost always use a CC as funds for PP, if for no other reason than the reward points. I can buy from a merchant and pay him/them with PP or direct from my CC. Makes no matter to me. I do like the fact that a merchant can't access my CC info.
I would say it's tough for a business to gouge when participation is voluntary. I've cut Ebay $ by 90-95%. Hasn't hurt a bit.
And it's OK. Ebay wanted to become Retail. To me they are Garage Sale. What will be interesting is when they start charging sales taxes on top of their fees.
<< <i>I would say it's tough for a business to gouge when participation is voluntary. I've cut Ebay $ by 90-95%. Hasn't hurt a bit.
And it's OK. Ebay wanted to become Retail. To me they are Garage Sale. What will be interesting is when they start charging sales taxes on top of their fees. >>
Do you mean as in eBay charging YOU sales tax on the fees you pay?
Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting
That's a pretty bold statement. How can it be considered stealing when PP themselves are the ones offering the option? It's not another entity tied to PP, it's them, they offer the service. A good man once told me to take advantage of the opportunites that legally present themself. In the case of receiving/sending a gift payment, I don't see in the slightest how it could be considered as you suggest. It's a service they're offering, an opportunity for me to use it. One may look at it and say you are not using it for its intended purpose. My response to that is why are they offering it to be used in such a way then? Are they (PP) that ignorant and naive that some would take advantage of that? Are you that naive and ignorant? I don't think so. They are a huge business corp. and surely know better.
One thing to add to note. When sending a gift payment now, the sender must have the funds in a Bank account. The funds can no longer come from a CC account, without being tapped for a fee.
To forgive is to free a prisoner, and to discover that prisoner was you.
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting
That's a pretty bold statement. How can it be considered stealing when PP themselves are the ones offering the option? It's not another entity tied to PP, it's them, they offer the service. A good man once told me to take advantage of the opportunites that legally present themself. In the case of receiving/sending a gift payment, I don't see in the slightest how it could be considered as you suggest. It's a service they're offering, an opportunity for me to use it. One may look at it and say you are not using it for its intended purpose. My response to that is why are they offering it to be used in such a way then? Are they (PP) that ignorant and naive that some would take advantage of that? Are you that naive and ignorant? I don't think so. They are a huge business corp. and surely know better.
One thing to add to note. When sending a gift payment now, the sender must have the funds in a Bank account. The funds can no longer come from a CC account, without being tapped for a fee. >>
I wonder if PP has actually checked to see if accounts using the gift option for $50 or less are really generating additional/replacement revenue through fee-related transactions?
How can it be considered stealing when PP themselves are the ones offering the option?
That option came with conditions, which you agreed to. True or False?
When you accept paypal gift as payment for your silver, you are violating those terms. True or False?
So since you think you have the right to violate those terms to make an extra 3% for yourself, do you also think it is right to sell someone 100 widgets but only deliver 97 of them?
I don't believe I am either of those, but I also believe if I sign an agreement that I will adibe by it. If I didn't like the terms, I wouldn't have signed it. Obviously, some think putting an extra 3% in their pocket is more important than their word.
You forgot the part where I said, "I don't think so." Such bitterness out of some here. Oh well, I'm not here to change how people think like apparently some are. Have fun with your agenda(s).
To forgive is to free a prisoner, and to discover that prisoner was you.
Let me ask you this WR. I always offer the buyer to pay with either PPG or a Postal money order.
When the buyer chooses (their choice, not my demand) to pay me with a Postal m.o., who is being ripped off then? NOBODY.
When a seller offers an alternative, as I always do, to not using PPG, and the buyer still chooses to use PPG, is the seller getting no more than he would by receiving a Postal m.o.?
I think I just blew a hole in your "stealiing" theory.
To forgive is to free a prisoner, and to discover that prisoner was you.
The buyer gets to choose from 2 methods that offer him no protection at all ? How is that supposed to reassure him on a first transaction?
Take regular paypal for the first transaction, everybody gets to feel safe then go off the grid for the remaining sales to that person with money orders.
When ever you use paypal they become your partner , partners get upset if they think they are being cut out of a deal and if they feel that way they can make life difficult.
Call that first 3% fee a finders fee and pay it one time.
<< <i>When ever you use paypal they become your partner , partners get upset if they think they are being cut out of a deal and if they feel that way they can make life difficult. Call that first 3% fee a finders fee and pay it one time. >>
Exactly...
I for one, will not go the PP "gift route" when making a purchase on the BST. All of the sellers that I've dealt with, who listed the gift option, subsequently agreed to reg PP payment. As a buyer, all you have to do is, insist on it. If the seller declines, move on to some one who does.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
I for one, will not go the PP "gift route" when making a purchase on the BST. All of the sellers that I've dealt with, who listed the gift option, subsequently agreed to reg PP payment. As a buyer, all you have to do is, insist on it. If the seller declines, move on to some one who does
As would I, as long as the buyer is willing to pay for the shipping then.
To forgive is to free a prisoner, and to discover that prisoner was you.
When the buyer chooses (their choice, not my demand) to pay me with a Postal m.o., who is being ripped off then? NOBODY.
I agree 100%. There were no conditions involved when you purchased the money order, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.
When a seller offers an alternative, as I always do, to not using PPG, and the buyer still chooses to use PPG, is the seller getting no more than he would by receiving a Postal m.o.?
Again, not sure I follow the logic. It doesn't matter if you offer 14 different payment alternatives. If the buyer uses PPG, and the seller accepts that PPG, that means BOTH of you have violated the terms you agreed to, correct? And how much money the seller receives has nothing to do with the fact. In your example above, Paypal is NOT receiving the fee to which they are entitled, and you agreed to pay in the T&C.
Now that I have answered your question, will you respond to the ones I asked a few posts up?
If you can't follow the logic (because you are only taking snippets of what I am saying, and interpreting them as the complete thought) that when a seller receives a postal money order payment no one is getting ripped off any more than if the payment was accepted thru PP and the seller is receiving the same amount as if the payment was accepted thru PP, I can't make it any clearer. I'm sorry, we're at a dead end to the conversation if that can't be understood. I guess I can't understand your logic as well.
If I as the seller give the buyer a choice in how to pay and in the end receives the exact same amount either way, that's no harm no foul in my book. Here's why...PP is allowing it to happen by offering the choice in the first place...taking me back to my original "ignorant" question. Am I supposed to believe they are ignorant this is a possiblity to happen? I'm sorry, I'm not that ignorant to believe that. So why allow it in the first place? I'll let you figure that one out, you're a smart guy.
What some seem to have overlooked is something I said in my initial post in this thread. PP has in fact changed the way a gift payment can be sent. The sender now has to have funds they intend to send in a Bank account now (real money, not artificial like with a credit card). So what does that tell you about THEIR GREED? It tells me that PP does not want to incur the fee THEY are charged when a transaction is done thru them with a credit card. If they don't want to incur a fee, why the hell should I incur one????? That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
To forgive is to free a prisoner, and to discover that prisoner was you.
POM....You lost me. PP is only the transfer agent on gift transactions, as such, why should they "eat" any expense involved when a "gift" transaction is implemented. Rightfully so, as you indicated, they get passed on to the sender, which is the complete opposite from a reg PP transaction.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
I still see you are evading the simple questions asked above.
If you can't follow the logic (because you are only taking snippets of what I am saying, and interpreting them as the complete thought) that when a seller receives a postal money order payment no one is getting ripped off any more than if the payment was accepted thru PP and the seller is receiving the same amount as if the payment was accepted thru PP, I can't make it any clearer. I'm sorry, we're at a dead end to the conversation if that can't be understood. I guess I can't understand your logic as well.
I never said anyone is getting ripped off when transactions occur with the use of a money order. How much money the seller receives is not the point, and never has been the point.
If I as the seller give the buyer a choice in how to pay and in the end receives the exact same amount either way, that's no harm no foul in my book. Here's why...PP is allowing it to happen by offering the choice in the first place...taking me back to my original "ignorant" question. Am I supposed to believe they are ignorant this is a possiblity to happen? I'm sorry, I'm not that ignorant to believe that. So why allow it in the first place? I'll let you figure that one out, you're a smart guy.
I agree the seller can use any payment mediums they wish. I stated that a few posts above. Again, the point I am trying to make is that the amount received by the seller has no bearing in this discussion.
Paypal established guidelines on how that could be used, correct? You agreed to them, correct? You then decided you didn't need to follow their rules, correct?
What some seem to have overlooked is something I said in my initial post in this thread. PP has in fact changed the way a gift payment can be sent. The sender now has to have funds they intend to send in a Bank account now (real money, not artificial like with a credit card). So what does that tell you about THEIR GREED?
That change was made quite some time ago. Perhaps they were getting hit with phony charges. Perhaps they want to make more in fees to offset their costs, such as the huge amount of money it took to develop the software, establish the contracts with the various merchants and financial centers around the planet, advertisements, SG&A, infrastructure to process those payments, etc. I do not know the answer to that one. Probably a combination of many things.
If they don't want to incur a fee, why the hell should I incur one????? That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
Because you agreed to do so when you signed up to utilize their service, and now you are deciding you don't need to honor your agreement. You're right, that about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
There was a board member here who I used to do business with; I don't believe he posts here anymore, so anonymity rules.
Anyway, he told me about a sizable transaction he had conducted using PayPal Gift (which he used often) and "lost" $3,000 to $4,000 (I can't remember the exact amount). He contacted PayPal and explained to them that the "Gift" was actually for the purchase of goods not delivered and ask for his money back because the seller didn't deliver. You know what happened? PayPal gave him his money back and told him not to use "Gift" for purchases anymore! They either got the funds back from the seller or ate it.
They know what's going on and choose not to enforce it unless people really abuse it. I imagine PayPal has a formula tracking $ transfers vs fees generated and warn those that fall below a predetermined threshold (say 1.5% or whatever). Big PayPal money makers are sellers who pay the $0.30 + $2.9% on sales (some of which are likely funded from cash sources) and then turn around and fund purchases (not gift) with their PayPal balance, generating another $0.30 + 2.9% for PP.
I know of sellers who accept only PayPal "gift" and sell a lot of items. They must receive 15-20 PayPal "gift" transfers a month. Month after month, year after year - they're still doing it. Every time.
bronco2078
Posts: 9,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
<< <i>Good grief...ebay just increased their FVF and now PayPal will also. What they need is a 2 tiered system...no fee if from existing funds in a paypal account...fees if a cc is used to pay for the item. >>
good idea if they give the seller the option to not accept credit card payments.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting. >>
i see more changes coming to fleebay
<< <i>Good grief...ebay just increased their FVF and now PayPal will also. What they need is a 2 tiered system...no fee if from existing funds in a paypal account...fees if a cc is used to pay for the item. >>
I've wondered about this for years. Using a cash source like my PP balance or bank account incurs the same fees as using a CC. A 2 tiered system is a good idea.
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting. >>
True. eBay/PayPal only turns a 25% net profit now. If CC companies cut 1% into that, I'm sure they will raise their fees 5% on all consumers to make even more money.
eBay/PayPal will keep raising fees, expect 20% eBay/PayPal fees very soon. There's a reason why monopolies are regulated. It keeps them from taking every dime the consumer owns. Right now eBay/PayPal are in a position to continue gouging the user for every dime possible and they are willing to do just that.
How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
oops I guess they can't do that either
<< <i>How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
oops I guess they can't do that either
PayPal has a negotiated fee structure like other major merchants. They clearly are not paying CC companies 2.9%. It is likely 1.5% to 2% but your point is well taken. If the buyer funded every purchase with a CC, they and the seller get full PP buyer/seller protection for less than half the cost of those who use cash/PP balance funding.
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting. >>
If it was hurting them THAT much, they'd do away with the gift thingy or put a limit of $25 on it.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>How does paypal make any money charging 2.9% to process a payment coming from a credit card? I would say they don't , they are subsidizing those by charging 2.9% on the transactions that are much cheaper to them like when the buyer uses money in paypal or a linked bank account.
There is a theory that by holding funds for a few days paypal makes money on the float but I doubt its coming from interest. There is no money to be made from interest in any account unless you happen to be depositing funds in a cyprus bank
oops I guess they can't do that either
PayPal has a negotiated fee structure like other major merchants. They clearly are not paying CC companies 2.9%. It is likely 1.5% to 2% but your point is well taken. If the buyer funded every purchase with a CC, they and the seller get full PP buyer/seller protection for less than half the cost of those who use cash/PP balance funding. >>
I almost always use a CC as funds for PP, if for no other reason than the reward points. I can buy from a merchant and pay him/them with PP or direct from my CC. Makes no matter to me. I do like the fact that a merchant can't access my CC info.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting. >>
If it was hurting them THAT much, they'd do away with the gift thingy or put a limit of $25 on it. >>
The gift feature requires the recipient to have or open a paypal account. Probably a good tool for paypal to get new customers.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
And it's OK. Ebay wanted to become Retail. To me they are Garage Sale. What will be interesting is when they start charging sales taxes on top of their fees.
<< <i>I would say it's tough for a business to gouge when participation is voluntary. I've cut Ebay $ by 90-95%. Hasn't hurt a bit.
And it's OK. Ebay wanted to become Retail. To me they are Garage Sale. What will be interesting is when they start charging sales taxes on top of their fees. >>
Do you mean as in eBay charging YOU sales tax on the fees you pay?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
That's a pretty bold statement. How can it be considered stealing when PP themselves are the ones offering the option? It's not another entity tied to PP, it's them, they offer the service.
A good man once told me to take advantage of the opportunites that legally present themself. In the case of receiving/sending a gift payment, I don't see in the slightest how it could be considered as you suggest. It's a service they're offering, an opportunity for me to use it.
One may look at it and say you are not using it for its intended purpose. My response to that is why are they offering it to be used in such a way then? Are they (PP) that ignorant and naive that some would take advantage of that? Are you that naive and ignorant? I don't think so. They are a huge business corp. and surely know better.
One thing to add to note. When sending a gift payment now, the sender must have the funds in a Bank account. The funds can no longer come from a CC account, without being tapped for a fee.
<< <i>Between this, and people stealing from them by requiriing / accepting "gift" payments for non-gifts, it could get interesting
That's a pretty bold statement. How can it be considered stealing when PP themselves are the ones offering the option? It's not another entity tied to PP, it's them, they offer the service.
A good man once told me to take advantage of the opportunites that legally present themself. In the case of receiving/sending a gift payment, I don't see in the slightest how it could be considered as you suggest. It's a service they're offering, an opportunity for me to use it.
One may look at it and say you are not using it for its intended purpose. My response to that is why are they offering it to be used in such a way then? Are they (PP) that ignorant and naive that some would take advantage of that? Are you that naive and ignorant? I don't think so. They are a huge business corp. and surely know better.
One thing to add to note. When sending a gift payment now, the sender must have the funds in a Bank account. The funds can no longer come from a CC account, without being tapped for a fee. >>
I wonder if PP has actually checked to see if accounts using the gift option for $50 or less are really generating additional/replacement revenue through fee-related transactions?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
That option came with conditions, which you agreed to. True or False?
When you accept paypal gift as payment for your silver, you are violating those terms. True or False?
So since you think you have the right to violate those terms to make an extra 3% for yourself, do you also think it is right to sell someone 100 widgets but only deliver 97 of them?
I don't believe I am either of those, but I also believe if I sign an agreement that I will adibe by it. If I didn't like the terms, I wouldn't have signed it. Obviously, some think putting an extra 3% in their pocket is more important than their word.
Such bitterness out of some here. Oh well, I'm not here to change how people think like apparently some are. Have fun with your agenda(s).
When the buyer chooses (their choice, not my demand) to pay me with a Postal m.o., who is being ripped off then? NOBODY.
When a seller offers an alternative, as I always do, to not using PPG, and the buyer still chooses to use PPG, is the seller getting no more than he would by receiving a Postal m.o.?
I think I just blew a hole in your "stealiing" theory.
The buyer gets to choose from 2 methods that offer him no protection at all ? How is that supposed to reassure him on a first transaction?
Take regular paypal for the first transaction, everybody gets to feel safe then go off the grid for the remaining sales to that person with money orders.
When ever you use paypal they become your partner , partners get upset if they think they are being cut out of a deal and if they feel that way they can make life difficult.
Call that first 3% fee a finders fee and pay it one time.
<< <i>When ever you use paypal they become your partner , partners get upset if they think they are being cut out of a deal and if they feel that way they can make life difficult. Call that first 3% fee a finders fee and pay it one time. >>
Exactly...
I for one, will not go the PP "gift route" when making a purchase on the BST. All of the sellers that I've dealt with, who listed the gift option, subsequently agreed to reg PP payment. As a buyer, all you have to do is, insist on it. If the seller declines, move on to some one who does.
As would I, as long as the buyer is willing to pay for the shipping then.
I agree 100%. There were no conditions involved when you purchased the money order, but I'm not sure I follow your logic.
When a seller offers an alternative, as I always do, to not using PPG, and the buyer still chooses to use PPG, is the seller getting no more than he would by receiving a Postal m.o.?
Again, not sure I follow the logic. It doesn't matter if you offer 14 different payment alternatives. If the buyer uses PPG, and the seller accepts that PPG, that means BOTH of you have violated the terms you agreed to, correct? And how much money the seller receives has nothing to do with the fact. In your example above, Paypal is NOT receiving the fee to which they are entitled, and you agreed to pay in the T&C.
Now that I have answered your question, will you respond to the ones I asked a few posts up?
If I as the seller give the buyer a choice in how to pay and in the end receives the exact same amount either way, that's no harm no foul in my book. Here's why...PP is allowing it to happen by offering the choice in the first place...taking me back to my original "ignorant" question. Am I supposed to believe they are ignorant this is a possiblity to happen? I'm sorry, I'm not that ignorant to believe that. So why allow it in the first place? I'll let you figure that one out, you're a smart guy.
What some seem to have overlooked is something I said in my initial post in this thread. PP has in fact changed the way a gift payment can be sent. The sender now has to have funds they intend to send in a Bank account now (real money, not artificial like with a credit card). So what does that tell you about THEIR GREED?
It tells me that PP does not want to incur the fee THEY are charged when a transaction is done thru them with a credit card.
If they don't want to incur a fee, why the hell should I incur one????? That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
If you can't follow the logic (because you are only taking snippets of what I am saying, and interpreting them as the complete thought) that when a seller receives a postal money order payment no one is getting ripped off any more than if the payment was accepted thru PP and the seller is receiving the same amount as if the payment was accepted thru PP, I can't make it any clearer. I'm sorry, we're at a dead end to the conversation if that can't be understood. I guess I can't understand your logic as well.
I never said anyone is getting ripped off when transactions occur with the use of a money order. How much money the seller receives is not the point, and never has been the point.
If I as the seller give the buyer a choice in how to pay and in the end receives the exact same amount either way, that's no harm no foul in my book. Here's why...PP is allowing it to happen by offering the choice in the first place...taking me back to my original "ignorant" question. Am I supposed to believe they are ignorant this is a possiblity to happen? I'm sorry, I'm not that ignorant to believe that. So why allow it in the first place? I'll let you figure that one out, you're a smart guy.
I agree the seller can use any payment mediums they wish. I stated that a few posts above. Again, the point I am trying to make is that the amount received by the seller has no bearing in this discussion.
Paypal established guidelines on how that could be used, correct?
You agreed to them, correct?
You then decided you didn't need to follow their rules, correct?
What some seem to have overlooked is something I said in my initial post in this thread. PP has in fact changed the way a gift payment can be sent. The sender now has to have funds they intend to send in a Bank account now (real money, not artificial like with a credit card). So what does that tell you about THEIR GREED?
That change was made quite some time ago. Perhaps they were getting hit with phony charges. Perhaps they want to make more in fees to offset their costs, such as the huge amount of money it took to develop the software, establish the contracts with the various merchants and financial centers around the planet, advertisements, SG&A, infrastructure to process those payments, etc. I do not know the answer to that one. Probably a combination of many things.
If they don't want to incur a fee, why the hell should I incur one????? That about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
Because you agreed to do so when you signed up to utilize their service, and now you are deciding you don't need to honor your agreement. You're right, that about sums it up as far as I'm concerned.
It changed for me last week.
Anyway, he told me about a sizable transaction he had conducted using PayPal Gift (which he used often) and "lost" $3,000 to $4,000 (I can't remember the exact amount). He contacted PayPal and explained to them that the "Gift" was actually for the purchase of goods not delivered and ask for his money back because the seller didn't deliver. You know what happened? PayPal gave him his money back and told him not to use "Gift" for purchases anymore! They either got the funds back from the seller or ate it.
They know what's going on and choose not to enforce it unless people really abuse it. I imagine PayPal has a formula tracking $ transfers vs fees generated and warn those that fall below a predetermined threshold (say 1.5% or whatever). Big PayPal money makers are sellers who pay the $0.30 + $2.9% on sales (some of which are likely funded from cash sources) and then turn around and fund purchases (not gift) with their PayPal balance, generating another $0.30 + 2.9% for PP.
I know of sellers who accept only PayPal "gift" and sell a lot of items. They must receive 15-20 PayPal "gift" transfers a month. Month after month, year after year - they're still doing it. Every time.