No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@keets said:
it is peculiar to me to see even this small sampling of people in agreement with paying a fee to transfer money. this in an age when so many get upset about paying taxes, the rising cost of anything and who will gladly try to buy coins on the cheap whenever they can, but willingly pay to transfer money. I will bookmark this thread and in the future, if I sell anything via the BST, I will gladly charge the "red boxed" respondents an additional 3% because, hey, they don't mind paying it.
weird to say the least.
Lets make a master list of 3%'ers
we could sticky a thread possibly? we wouldn't all that virtue to roll off the top of page 1
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@keets said:
it is peculiar to me to see even this small sampling of people in agreement with paying a fee to transfer money. this in an age when so many get upset about paying taxes, the rising cost of anything and who will gladly try to buy coins on the cheap whenever they can, but willingly pay to transfer money. I will bookmark this thread and in the future, if I sell anything via the BST, I will gladly charge the "red boxed" respondents an additional 3% because, hey, they don't mind paying it.
weird to say the least.
PayPal offers much needed buyer protection. Anyone who’s been burned by a “friend” can attest to that. It’s ridiculous to expect a buyer to give up that protection. You can, of course, feel free to give up that protection and send your money to someone out of blind faith.
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@keets said:
it is peculiar to me to see even this small sampling of people in agreement with paying a fee to transfer money. this in an age when so many get upset about paying taxes, the rising cost of anything and who will gladly try to buy coins on the cheap whenever they can, but willingly pay to transfer money. I will bookmark this thread and in the future, if I sell anything via the BST, I will gladly charge the "red boxed" respondents an additional 3% because, hey, they don't mind paying it.
weird to say the least.
It's a question of willingly paying a fee for a service, regardless of what the service is.
Put yourself on the other side of that. Is it okay if your customer doesn't want to pay you to mow their lawn?
If you charge $50 for coin appraisals, is it ok for a customer to refuse to pay the $50?
You can choose to NOT use the service. But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
FOOD IS A HUMAN RIGHT. How dare the grocery store charge for it?!?!?!
@abcde12345 said:
You may not like Paypal and consider them a large company that can afford fee free transactions that shouldn't be yet really , why allow Paypal or any other large corporation to formulate your own ethics?
It's like sneaking candy into a movie theater that prohibits it ("No Outside Food").
Live like your mom is looking over your shoulder!
post all the signs you want , I'm bringing my own damn M & M's in I'm not paying 7 bucks for a piece of candy and a bottled water.
Anyone whose mom isn't stuffing their pockets with snacks before the movie wasn't brought up right.
And now y'all want to say taxes and morality belong in the same sentence.
If we had it to do over again , none of you bedwetters would have tossed those crates of tea in the harbor , would you?
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
you think me putting something I own in my pocket is stealing?
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
@abcde12345 said:
You may not like Paypal and consider them a large company that can afford fee free transactions that shouldn't be yet really , why allow Paypal or any other large corporation to formulate your own ethics?
It's like sneaking candy into a movie theater that prohibits it ("No Outside Food").
Live like your mom is looking over your shoulder!
post all the signs you want , I'm bringing my own damn M & M's in I'm not paying 7 bucks for a piece of candy and a bottled water.
Anyone whose mom isn't stuffing their pockets with snacks before the movie wasn't brought up right.
And now y'all want to say taxes and morality belong in the same sentence.
If we had it to do over again , none of you bedwetters would have tossed those crates of tea in the harbor , would you?
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
you think me putting something I own in my pocket is stealing?
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
Thats not stealing either .
It is a good idea for an episode of some hidden camera show.
Stealing is taking a "thing "
Go to that restaurant , eat .
, then sneak out without paying and that is stealing
Sitting in a chair is not stealing , it might be trespassing ?
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
PayPal stock just hit an all-time high. So I'm not going to feel any guilt for not paying for a service (protection) I'm not using when I don't need it. I say this as a shareholder myself. As messydesk pointed out earlier, it's smart business to keep engagement on the platform as high as possible.
Let me answer simply: I don't have friends and family here, or on the BST. I pay the fees because it's part of the TOS as a matter of principle and business.
I did not vote. Last time I voted was for a loser.
@abcde12345 said:
You may not like Paypal and consider them a large company that can afford fee free transactions that shouldn't be yet really , why allow Paypal or any other large corporation to formulate your own ethics?
It's like sneaking candy into a movie theater that prohibits it ("No Outside Food").
Live like your mom is looking over your shoulder!
post all the signs you want , I'm bringing my own damn M & M's in I'm not paying 7 bucks for a piece of candy and a bottled water.
Anyone whose mom isn't stuffing their pockets with snacks before the movie wasn't brought up right.
And now y'all want to say taxes and morality belong in the same sentence.
If we had it to do over again , none of you bedwetters would have tossed those crates of tea in the harbor , would you?
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
you think me putting something I own in my pocket is stealing?
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
Thats not stealing either .
It is a good idea for an episode of some hidden camera show.
Stealing is taking a "thing "
Go to that restaurant , eat .
, then sneak out without paying and that is stealing
Sitting in a chair is not stealing , it might be trespassing ?
I don't know. It represents a "taking" - you've tied up a table and prevented them from earning money.
Why can't I steal a service as well as a "thing"? You mean I can't "steal cable"?
@Connecticoin said:
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
@abcde12345 said:
You may not like Paypal and consider them a large company that can afford fee free transactions that shouldn't be yet really , why allow Paypal or any other large corporation to formulate your own ethics?
It's like sneaking candy into a movie theater that prohibits it ("No Outside Food").
Live like your mom is looking over your shoulder!
post all the signs you want , I'm bringing my own damn M & M's in I'm not paying 7 bucks for a piece of candy and a bottled water.
Anyone whose mom isn't stuffing their pockets with snacks before the movie wasn't brought up right.
And now y'all want to say taxes and morality belong in the same sentence.
If we had it to do over again , none of you bedwetters would have tossed those crates of tea in the harbor , would you?
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
you think me putting something I own in my pocket is stealing?
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
Thats not stealing either .
It is a good idea for an episode of some hidden camera show.
Stealing is taking a "thing "
Go to that restaurant , eat .
, then sneak out without paying and that is stealing
Sitting in a chair is not stealing , it might be trespassing ?
I don't know. It represents a "taking" - you've tied up a table and prevented them from earning money.
Why can't I steal a service as well as a "thing"? You mean I can't "steal cable"?
cable is covered under the "robin Hood " exemption.
@abcde12345 said:
You may not like Paypal and consider them a large company that can afford fee free transactions that shouldn't be yet really , why allow Paypal or any other large corporation to formulate your own ethics?
It's like sneaking candy into a movie theater that prohibits it ("No Outside Food").
Live like your mom is looking over your shoulder!
post all the signs you want , I'm bringing my own damn M & M's in I'm not paying 7 bucks for a piece of candy and a bottled water.
Anyone whose mom isn't stuffing their pockets with snacks before the movie wasn't brought up right.
And now y'all want to say taxes and morality belong in the same sentence.
If we had it to do over again , none of you bedwetters would have tossed those crates of tea in the harbor , would you?
Most theaters make their money based on concessions and not the movie itself. So, go ahead and steal. Teach your kids to steal too. Boomer.
you think me putting something I own in my pocket is stealing?
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
Thats not stealing either .
It is a good idea for an episode of some hidden camera show.
Stealing is taking a "thing "
Go to that restaurant , eat .
, then sneak out without paying and that is stealing
Sitting in a chair is not stealing , it might be trespassing ?
I don't know. It represents a "taking" - you've tied up a table and prevented them from earning money.
Why can't I steal a service as well as a "thing"? You mean I can't "steal cable"?
cable is covered under the "robin Hood " exemption.
@OKbustchaser said:
Yes, it's unethical...what's the difference between ripping off Paypal and ripping off a customer? The amount of money involved?
Amount involved is irrelevant between friends. Just today I received a fee free payment of 2362.50 for coins from a trusted friend who trusts me. Maybe those who receive fee free payments from friends don't consider it a ripoff. The ripoff is paying paypal the 2.9% for protection when protection is not needed. Even paypal recognizes the need to offer fee free, protection free transfers.
IMO, paypal is ripped off for a transaction like this - they supply a service, do you expect the dentist, who supplies a service of cleaning your teeth, to do it for free? Of course not, and neither should one expect PP to supply a free service for an electronic transaction. If you don't want to pay the service fee, then use a check between friends.....
Personally I think the states should have to pay the Paypal fees to collect their tax. It's only fair, but what's fair about anything the governments do?
@Connecticoin said:
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
@OKbustchaser said:
Yes, it's unethical...what's the difference between ripping off Paypal and ripping off a customer? The amount of money involved?
Amount involved is irrelevant between friends. Just today I received a fee free payment of 2362.50 for coins from a trusted friend who trusts me. Maybe those who receive fee free payments from friends don't consider it a ripoff. The ripoff is paying paypal the 2.9% for protection when protection is not needed. Even paypal recognizes the need to offer fee free, protection free transfers.
IMO, paypal is ripped off for a transaction like this - they supply a service, do you expect the dentist, who supplies a service of cleaning your teeth, to do it for free? Of course not, and neither should one expect PP to supply a free service for an electronic transaction. If you don't want to pay the service fee, then use a check between friends.....
This!
If someone wants to talk about eBay forcing you to use PayPal, that might be a different argument. In that instance, your choice of payment method is removed. But on the BST, you have numerous options from wire transfers to checks to cash in an envelope to PayPal or Venmo or Apple Pay. If you CHOOSE a specific service, then accept the terms and conditions that come with it. If you don't like the 3% PayPal fee, don't use PayPal.
There is 1 defense for this. It only works if you use your Paypal Balance or Bank Balance. While interest rates are low right now, they still earn something on the money sitting in Paypal accounts. There are no costs to Paypal other than the minor use of their infrastructure.
@OKbustchaser said:
Yes, it's unethical...what's the difference between ripping off Paypal and ripping off a customer? The amount of money involved?
Amount involved is irrelevant between friends. Just today I received a fee free payment of 2362.50 for coins from a trusted friend who trusts me. Maybe those who receive fee free payments from friends don't consider it a ripoff. The ripoff is paying paypal the 2.9% for protection when protection is not needed. Even paypal recognizes the need to offer fee free, protection free transfers.
IMO, paypal is ripped off for a transaction like this - they supply a service, do you expect the dentist, who supplies a service of cleaning your teeth, to do it for free? Of course not, and neither should one expect PP to supply a free service for an electronic transaction. If you don't want to pay the service fee, then use a check between friends.....
@OKbustchaser said:
Yes, it's unethical...what's the difference between ripping off Paypal and ripping off a customer? The amount of money involved?
Amount involved is irrelevant between friends. Just today I received a fee free payment of 2362.50 for coins from a trusted friend who trusts me. Maybe those who receive fee free payments from friends don't consider it a ripoff. The ripoff is paying paypal the 2.9% for protection when protection is not needed. Even paypal recognizes the need to offer fee free, protection free transfers.
IMO, paypal is ripped off for a transaction like this - they supply a service, do you expect the dentist, who supplies a service of cleaning your teeth, to do it for free? Of course not, and neither should one expect PP to supply a free service for an electronic transaction. If you don't want to pay the service fee, then use a check between friends.....
Do you know how much it actually costs PayPal to process a F&F transaction? Essentially nothing! PayPal built their business on sophisticated algorithms to detect fraud, and the main service they offer is seller/buyer protection, for which they are very well-compensated. Again, check the history of their stock price. I've paid them thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years and have never filed a claim. Is it unethical for them not to offer me some sort of "excellent customer" rebate?
And lastly, how many of the "yes" voters have never knowingly exceeded the speed limit, or violated any sort of ordinance? I'd argue that the former is more unethical because it may actually endanger people and property.
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@amwldcoin said:
Personally I think the states should have to pay the Paypal fees to collect their tax. It's only fair, but what's fair about anything the governments do?
@Connecticoin said:
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
With due respect, I think this is a strawman.
NY doesn't force me to use PayPal to collect my payment (including taxes). I choose to use it and so I pay for the service. From the State of NY's perspective, I am free to only accept cash payments and not accrue the fees. The business chooses to accept credit cards or PayPal and, therefore, the business chooses to pay the fee for the ease of collection.
And, before you mention eBay, it is also MY CHOICE to use eBay and its terms and conditions which include accepting PayPal and associated fees. If I don't like the terms, I don't use the service. I don't use the service and then try to avoid the terms.
@amwldcoin said:
Personally I think the states should have to pay the Paypal fees to collect their tax. It's only fair, but what's fair about anything the governments do?
@Connecticoin said:
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
With due respect, I think this is a strawman.
NY doesn't force me to use PayPal to collect my payment (including taxes). I choose to use it and so I pay for the service. From the State of NY's perspective, I am free to only accept cash payments and not accrue the fees. The business chooses to accept credit cards or PayPal and, therefore, the business chooses to pay the fee for the ease of collection.
And, before you mention eBay, it is also MY CHOICE to use eBay and its terms and conditions which include accepting PayPal and associated fees. If I don't like the terms, I don't use the service. I don't use the service and then try to avoid the terms.
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
They are very clear that option is not to be used for purchasing goods and services, and they will freeze your account if they catch you doing it. You agreed to that rule when you created a PayPal account. How can you possibly not understand that it is wrong? Come on man.
This whole thread is filled with people trying to justify why this is okay....why it’s okay to break an agreement you made. Do people not see breaking an agreement as wrong anymore?
Yes, people choose to do the wrong thing all the time. People choose to be unethical all the time. I include myself in that group. But, choosing to do the wrong thing doesn’t somehow make it not wrong.
@Connecticoin said:
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
True but the merchant gets the tax and usually gets a "commission" when they submit it to the taxing authority. At least that's the way it works when a submit my GA Sales and Use Tax return. I don't even get the tax that eBay collects, even for sales in GA, yet I pay the fee on the tax.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
No, unethical. The fee is for protection, not the transfer of money.
They are very clear that option is not to be used for purchasing goods and services
when I use it I'm not making a purchase, I'm simply exchanging money for a lesser amount of money. it is similar to the way coin purchases are exempt from Tax by many States. How can you possibly not understand that??
I won't pay for an item as if I were giving a gift when , in fact, I am buying a product/item.
However, I currently don't think that those who do use the gift payment option for goods are acting unethically just because they have a different sense of fairness then I do.
.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I am trying to use PayPal less and less because of their terms of service. Their fees are too high for the service they provide. There are other options out there.
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@keets said:
when I use it I'm not making a purchase, I'm simply exchanging money for a lesser amount of money.
Seriously? You can't even admit that when you exchange money for a collectible coin that you are buying the coin? You never refer to "buying" coins? You never use that language?
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@neildrobertson said:
I am trying to use PayPal less and less because of their terms of service. Their fees are too high for the service they provide. There are other options out there.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
They are very clear that option is not to be used for purchasing goods and services, and they will freeze your account if they catch you doing it. You agreed to that rule when you created a PayPal account. How can you possibly not understand that it is wrong? Come on man.
This whole thread is filled with people trying to justify why this is okay....why it’s okay to break an agreement you made. Do people not see breaking an agreement as wrong anymore?
Yes, people choose to do the wrong thing all the time. People choose to be unethical all the time. I include myself in that group. But, choosing to do the wrong thing doesn’t somehow make it not wrong.
Yeah I think I have to go along with this. The personal payment definition is more specific than I initially remembered.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
Do you know how much it actually costs PayPal to process a F&F transaction? Essentially nothing! PayPal built their business on sophisticated algorithms to detect fraud, and the main service they offer is seller/buyer protection, for which they are very well-compensated. Again, check the history of their stock price. I've paid them thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years and have never filed a claim. Is it unethical for them not to offer me some sort of "excellent customer" rebate?
And lastly, how many of the "yes" voters have never knowingly exceeded the speed limit, or violated any sort of ordinance? I'd argue that the former is more unethical because it may actually endanger people and property.
OK I confess, PayPal is on my hotlist for stocks. While you make some good points here, nevertheless, if a sales transaction takes place, and one uses PP, then one should go the normal route and incur the 3% fee. A sales transaction is not sending money to your friend or family, it is a sales transaction. Your point about s/b protection is the very reason to do so, and as I noted, use a check if you don't like their sales transaction service. You can offer the rebate if buyer uses a check. That is how I do it with several well respected and well known dealers........
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
In case anyone finds your argument at all persuasive, please note that PayPal is not at all interested in going back and collecting fees that would have been due under the current agreement then. You have the option, every time they change their terms of service, to cease to use their service. Similarly, you can't expect your grocer to sell you gallons of milk in perpetuity for $2 just because that was a term of service twenty years ago.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
In case anyone finds your argument at all persuasive, please note that PayPal is not at all interested in going back and collecting fees that would have been due under the current agreement then. You have the option, every time they change their terms of service, to cease to use their service. Similarly, you can't expect your grocer to sell you gallons of milk in perpetuity for $2 just because that was a term of service twenty years ago.
We actually have the option to continue to ignore everything and just keep going along the way we have been.
You know what else , I tore the tag off a mattress the other day . I'm out of control and I don't care who knows it!
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
Yes, unethical. All purchases made via paypal should result in a seller paid fee.
@bronco2078 said:
if you nattering old women screw up the friends and family deal , I'll have to go back to trading my black market AK-47's for cocaine
Nobody wants that!
You can use cash. Only an idiot would sell an AK-47 in a traceable transaction.
@keets said: But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men ( ) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
it seems like you are treating ethics and morals as synonymous ?
Also I can absolutely refuse to pay child support , I don't have a child( that I know about heyyyyyyyyohhhhhhhh )
@bronco2078 said:
if you nattering old women screw up the friends and family deal , I'll have to go back to trading my black market AK-47's for cocaine
Nobody wants that!
You can use cash. Only an idiot would sell an AK-47 in a traceable transaction.
in the early days you could find both listed on ebay
Comments
Lets make a master list of 3%'ers
we could sticky a thread possibly? we wouldn't all that virtue to roll off the top of page 1
PayPal offers much needed buyer protection. Anyone who’s been burned by a “friend” can attest to that. It’s ridiculous to expect a buyer to give up that protection. You can, of course, feel free to give up that protection and send your money to someone out of blind faith.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
10 Commandments of Smuggling Food into the Movie Theater
https://www.thekitchn.com/10-commandments-of-smuggling-food-into-the-movie-theater-233471
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
What is unethical is Paypal not refunding their fees on an ebay return.
It's a question of willingly paying a fee for a service, regardless of what the service is.
Put yourself on the other side of that. Is it okay if your customer doesn't want to pay you to mow their lawn?
If you charge $50 for coin appraisals, is it ok for a customer to refuse to pay the $50?
You can choose to NOT use the service. But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
FOOD IS A HUMAN RIGHT. How dare the grocery store charge for it?!?!?!
It could be.
What do you call it if you go to an upscale restaurant with dinner in your pocket and sit down and spend 2 hours eating it?
PayPow. About ethics ? You're kidding, right ?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Thats not stealing either .
It is a good idea for an episode of some hidden camera show.
Stealing is taking a "thing "
Go to that restaurant , eat .
, then sneak out without paying and that is stealing
Sitting in a chair is not stealing , it might be trespassing ?
Smuggling a 2-Liter into a Movie Theater
https://youtu.be/05OCOa1Oj7U
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
PayPal stock just hit an all-time high. So I'm not going to feel any guilt for not paying for a service (protection) I'm not using when I don't need it. I say this as a shareholder myself. As messydesk pointed out earlier, it's smart business to keep engagement on the platform as high as possible.
Let me answer simply: I don't have friends and family here, or on the BST. I pay the fees because it's part of the TOS as a matter of principle and business.
I did not vote. Last time I voted was for a loser.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
And even more unethical is charging fees on sales tax.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
I belive that buyer pays the 3% fee IF he/she so chooses to use GS.
I don't know. It represents a "taking" - you've tied up a table and prevented them from earning money.
Why can't I steal a service as well as a "thing"? You mean I can't "steal cable"?
A. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
B. If the "fees" are charged based on the amount of money transferred, it makes no difference where that money is going. Credit card fees are based on the total cost of the transaction, they do not exempt the sales tax.
cable is covered under the "robin Hood " exemption.
It is in Seattle now.
IMO, paypal is ripped off for a transaction like this - they supply a service, do you expect the dentist, who supplies a service of cleaning your teeth, to do it for free? Of course not, and neither should one expect PP to supply a free service for an electronic transaction. If you don't want to pay the service fee, then use a check between friends.....
Personally I think the states should have to pay the Paypal fees to collect their tax. It's only fair, but what's fair about anything the governments do?
This!
If someone wants to talk about eBay forcing you to use PayPal, that might be a different argument. In that instance, your choice of payment method is removed. But on the BST, you have numerous options from wire transfers to checks to cash in an envelope to PayPal or Venmo or Apple Pay. If you CHOOSE a specific service, then accept the terms and conditions that come with it. If you don't like the 3% PayPal fee, don't use PayPal.
Everything else is just a rationalization.
There is 1 defense for this. It only works if you use your Paypal Balance or Bank Balance. While interest rates are low right now, they still earn something on the money sitting in Paypal accounts. There are no costs to Paypal other than the minor use of their infrastructure.
Do you know how much it actually costs PayPal to process a F&F transaction? Essentially nothing! PayPal built their business on sophisticated algorithms to detect fraud, and the main service they offer is seller/buyer protection, for which they are very well-compensated. Again, check the history of their stock price. I've paid them thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years and have never filed a claim. Is it unethical for them not to offer me some sort of "excellent customer" rebate?
And lastly, how many of the "yes" voters have never knowingly exceeded the speed limit, or violated any sort of ordinance? I'd argue that the former is more unethical because it may actually endanger people and property.
With due respect, I think this is a strawman.
NY doesn't force me to use PayPal to collect my payment (including taxes). I choose to use it and so I pay for the service. From the State of NY's perspective, I am free to only accept cash payments and not accrue the fees. The business chooses to accept credit cards or PayPal and, therefore, the business chooses to pay the fee for the ease of collection.
And, before you mention eBay, it is also MY CHOICE to use eBay and its terms and conditions which include accepting PayPal and associated fees. If I don't like the terms, I don't use the service. I don't use the service and then try to avoid the terms.
Ebay pretty much does! They want tax on internet sales, they can share in some of the burden IMHO!
But if you choose to use the service, you are accepting the terms and conditions of that service.
exactly, and currently PayPal has an option to use their service for free. how anyone can find that wrong or unethical makes no sense to me.
The "yes" men (
) will argue that there's a clause in the user agreement against it when goods are traded, which brings up the point that since I signed up for PayPal about twenty years ago, the user agreement has been changed several times unilaterally by PayPal. After initially allowing it, there was no option to send free payments at all for a number of years. Seems a bit "unethical" on their part, no?
They are very clear that option is not to be used for purchasing goods and services, and they will freeze your account if they catch you doing it. You agreed to that rule when you created a PayPal account. How can you possibly not understand that it is wrong? Come on man.
This whole thread is filled with people trying to justify why this is okay....why it’s okay to break an agreement you made. Do people not see breaking an agreement as wrong anymore?
Yes, people choose to do the wrong thing all the time. People choose to be unethical all the time. I include myself in that group. But, choosing to do the wrong thing doesn’t somehow make it not wrong.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
True but the merchant gets the tax and usually gets a "commission" when they submit it to the taxing authority. At least that's the way it works when a submit my GA Sales and Use Tax return. I don't even get the tax that eBay collects, even for sales in GA, yet I pay the fee on the tax.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
They are very clear that option is not to be used for purchasing goods and services
when I use it I'm not making a purchase, I'm simply exchanging money for a lesser amount of money. it is similar to the way coin purchases are exempt from Tax by many States. How can you possibly not understand that??
I did not vote.
I won't pay for an item as if I were giving a gift when , in fact, I am buying a product/item.
However, I currently don't think that those who do use the gift payment option for goods are acting unethically just because they have a different sense of fairness then I do.
.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I am trying to use PayPal less and less because of their terms of service. Their fees are too high for the service they provide. There are other options out there.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Seriously? You can't even admit that when you exchange money for a collectible coin that you are buying the coin? You never refer to "buying" coins? You never use that language?
I can't tell if you were making a joke or not.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
This is the proper way to handle it.
Yeah I think I have to go along with this. The personal payment definition is more specific than I initially remembered.
You agreed to it when you signed up for the T&Cs. Follow the rules or use another method.
Unethical.
... except for that one caveat : "Goods/Services'', are not to be "fee free"
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
The yes men are reading the agreement thats the problem. I signed an agreement with paypal 20 years ago which is substantially different than what they think the agreement is now. I'm going by what I signed and I don't care what changes they think they made.
Do what thou wilt is what my agreement says. They can fire me if they want or maybe I'll fire them . That is the only recourse either side has.
payment processors process payments , its what they do.
I'm sure the boys at paypal are touched by your collective level of concern for their bottom line but they know exactly what everyone is doing and they are fine with it.
Where is that dang disagree button
Latin American Collection
forum sheriffs are this guy
By the way - great poll topic! We need more threads like this to keep things interesting.
if you nattering old women screw up the friends and family deal , I'll have to go back to trading my black market AK-47's for cocaine
Nobody wants that!
OK I confess, PayPal is on my hotlist for stocks. While you make some good points here, nevertheless, if a sales transaction takes place, and one uses PP, then one should go the normal route and incur the 3% fee. A sales transaction is not sending money to your friend or family, it is a sales transaction. Your point about s/b protection is the very reason to do so, and as I noted, use a check if you don't like their sales transaction service. You can offer the rebate if buyer uses a check. That is how I do it with several well respected and well known dealers........
Best, SH
In case anyone finds your argument at all persuasive, please note that PayPal is not at all interested in going back and collecting fees that would have been due under the current agreement then. You have the option, every time they change their terms of service, to cease to use their service. Similarly, you can't expect your grocer to sell you gallons of milk in perpetuity for $2 just because that was a term of service twenty years ago.
We actually have the option to continue to ignore everything and just keep going along the way we have been.
You know what else , I tore the tag off a mattress the other day . I'm out of control and I don't care who knows it!
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Embedded in the original terms that YOU AGREED TO was the right for them to notify you of changes to the TOS. So, like all TOS, you agree to the initial terms of service and subsequent changes. They notify you of all changes as they happen. You also have the right to end your use of the service at any time.
You can do it if you want, but it is a clear violation of the contract between you and PayPal. It is as ethical as refusing to pay child support.
You can use cash. Only an idiot would sell an AK-47 in a traceable transaction.
it seems like you are treating ethics and morals as synonymous ?
Also I can absolutely refuse to pay child support , I don't have a child( that I know about heyyyyyyyyohhhhhhhh
)
in the early days you could find both listed on ebay
I have to give Bronco sone kudos for a few laughs.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5