Slashdot Mirror


eBay's Plan to Force PayPal Rejected Down Under

Jm_aus writes "eBay's plan to force all users to use PayPal only has been rejected by Australia's competition regulator, the ACCC. This followed 650 submissions from eBay users as well as from Australian banks, other payment services, the Australian Reserve Bank, and (anonymously) Google, which aired a lot of dirty laundry about PayPal's unresponsiveness and failure to sign up to the local banking code of conduct. Apparently the public benefits from eBay's 'Bad Buyer Experience' elimination program are likely to be 'minimal.' There is a period for appeals."

181 comments

  1. elimination program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that ""Bad Buyer Experience" elimination program" ?

    If you leave negative feedback, they send ninjas to kill you, thus imporving the "good experience" rate?

    1. Re:elimination program? by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's that ""Bad Buyer Experience" elimination program" ?


      If my personal experience is any indication, it's the process whereby upon reporting being victimised by an eBay "power seller" eBay threatens to find you guilty of being a "bad buyer" and threatens to place sanctions on your eBay and Paypal accounts unless you pay up. The workaround I found was to change all my eBay user info to the crooked seller's email address and a fictitious physical address and I canceled my paypal account. :P

      It probably helped that I did this within an hour of eBay finding in favor of the dishonest seller (item was a Chinese counterfeit and did not function properly, also they attempted to charge for two items when I only bought one item). This was about three months ago, I've not heard anything about the matter since. Obviously, eBay lost me as a customer.
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:elimination program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was about three months ago, I've not heard anything about the matter since. Obviously, eBay lost me as a customer.

      They've lost me as a customer as well, and I have never once used the service. Their bad reputation and the fact that I keep hearing stories like this (enough that even if 90% of them are complete lies, the 10% that remain ensure that I still would never do business with them) is the reason why. If an online merchant will only accept Paypal, then I simply refuse to do business with that merchant at all. Nothing that anyone is selling online is so indispensable that I am even remotely tempted to open myself up to this kind of bullshit. Doing business in good faith and getting screwed is one thing but dealing with an entity when you know it has quite a reputation for screwing its own customers is just plain stupid.

      I just don't understand why some people/entities really seem to get their jollies from inflicting or perpetuating injustice without provocation but PayPal (and to a lesser extent, eBay) seem to be filled with people who do this and cowards who do nothing about it in my personal opinion. I really do hear negative stories about Paypal all the time. The fact that their upper management isn't swiftly putting a stop to it tells me that apparently they are either incompetent or malicious, because anyone in charge with a shred of honor would neither do this nor allow it to occur on their watch.
  2. Right, because PayPal's better... by autocracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a buyer, I really want to use my credit card directly. PayPal, last time I used it, only covered a $200 return or so. I went straight through to my credit card company (which is linked to my PayPal account) and did a chargeback through them. PayPal sent me a nastigram saying if you keep that up, we'll cut you off.

    Yeah, thanks but no thanks EBay.

    --
    SIG: HUP
    1. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Your a dumbass for dealing with Paypal in the first place. Do you never research a company a bit and see if people are dissatisfied with them, and if so why, before doing business with them? If so you'd know that this is a common practice. Oh, and you'd do well not to ever keep any money in any of your accounts with them.

    2. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by autocracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did my homework, and that's why they have my credit card on the back end (which, thankfully, can tell them to get stuffed). You're right about linking to any account that keeps cash on hand in it. PayPal also has a long history of locking cash in its customer accounts. Really, they're just terrible to everybody involved. I don't believe I've bought anything with my account since that time.

      From a seller's point of view: The EBay style of charging the seller commission, then charging the seller a percentage of PayPal too kinda gets me. Sure, they're treating them like the separate company they used to be, but come on. I suppose you get what you get for having something less than a true credit card merchant account (which costs).

      As an aside rant, I'm sad that nobody does a cash discount anymore. I'd happily pay you on a 2% reduction to save you the 3% or whatever my CC company charges. Well, really to save myself 2%, but you'd profit as a vendor!

      --
      SIG: HUP
    3. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason why you don't get cash discounts anymore is that it's against Visa/MC/AmEx merchant terms and conditions.

      It's even disallowed to require the transaction to be over a certain value to accept payment via credit cards.

    4. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by travdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody does a cash discount anymore because it's against eBay policy. eBay is all about making the seller unable to get around eBay's exorbitant fees in any way possible. That is their entire basis for forcing PayPal.

      To give an example of their total fee structure: after selling a small item for $30, you're only going to see around $24.50 for it after fees, and then you still have to pay to ship it.

      --
      Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    5. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lots of places still do minimum limits, though. "Your transaction must be at least $3.00 to use a credit card here."

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    6. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similar experience. I bought a $600 laptop that never shipped. Paypal used the $10 balance in my account and covered the rest through a credit card. Paypal gave back $200, but the credit card returned all $590. Of course when Paypal processed that (fair enough), they took back all $200, so Paypal shorted me $10. I emailed a half dozen times explaining how they owe me $10 but all I got were patronizing explanations back. They're the only ones with contact with the original (con artist) seller, but it's just not worth $600 to them, I guess. If eBay forces us to use PayPal, that'll make me mad, but at least you can still use a credit card through PayPal and get your card's protection.

    7. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebay/Paypal screwed up an auction that I did a "buy it now" on. My paypal account was billed, but the auction did-not-close. In other words it continued, and I was not shown as the winner. I called ebay, they said it was paypal's fault. I called ebay, they said it was ebay's fault. Since it was out of my paypal balance, I had no recourse except to beg the seller to honor the sale. I of course had no feedback leverage or anything at all, since the auction was still shown as running. Had I paid this with a credit card, I would have made a phone call to my bank, with which I have a nice relationship with, and they would have given me my money back.

    8. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lots of places still do minimum limits, though. "Your transaction must be at least $3.00 to use a credit card here."


      That's against the terms of the merchant agreement to require a lower limit.

      What you might be thinking of is the similar "Minimum $3 charge if using credit card". Your quote implies that if you buy a $1 item, you can't pay by credit card. My quote says if you want to buy a $1 item, you will be charged $3 for it instead if you use a credit card.

      It's a very subtle thing - it implies a cash discount (buy item for $1 via cash, or $3 via credit card), but it also isn't (if you buy 3 $1 items, it's $3).

      What I want to know is if merchant accounts don't allow cash discounts, why don't they go after the tons of people who advertise prices, then say "price is after 3% cash discount"?
    9. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by creepynut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Merchants are not allowed to set minimum or maximum amounts for transactions on Visa. I'm too lazy to find it, but I know Mastercard has a similar rule.

      In response to the Anonymous Coward, they are allowed to give cash discounts, but it has to be clearly stated to the customer before hand. A couple of the local computer stores here do this, but they have labels all over the store saying "All prices are 2% cash or debit discounted"

      Source:
      For the US (I'm in Canada, but I can't find the doc on visa.ca). See Page 9/10:
      http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card_acceptance_guide.pdf

    10. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      eBay is all about making the seller unable to get around eBay's exorbitant fees in any way possible. That is their entire basis for forcing PayPal. eBay takes a fee on items sold. This fee is based on what the item sells for, not what it costs to ship it (buyer pays that).

      Ofcourse if you pay through PayPal, PayPal will also take a fee, this time depending on the total amount (item price + shipping).

      With eBay & PayPal being 2 hands on one belly, making PayPal compulsory is something I read as an attempt to double the standard eBay fees, and grab a bit of the shipping costs as well.

      Not that I care much. Read carefully what you sign up for if you sell items through eBay. Read even better what you sign up for when you open a PayPal account. Use both for what they're good for, not for everything. PayPal is just a payment option. I'd quickly drop eBay if that was not the case.
    11. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      PayPal does indeed suck for sellers as well as buyers.

      Really I don't object to them charging a percentage on transactions - it's still cheaper than a full merchant account. What I very much do object to is them charging twice what Google Checkout does for an equivalent transaction. What I object to even more is being forced as a seller to use PayPal - incidentally does anyone know who in the UK I should make a complaint about this to? It reeks of anticompetitive behaviour, as the Australians have realised.

      eBay actually has Google Checkout listed as 'Not permitted' on their Accepted Payments page, and anyone who has ever tried to email eBay's support team to question this will know how hard it is to get an answer (they normally just spout irrelevant canned responses until you give up) but I did finally get an email from eBay explaining that I am allowed to use it but that I must offer it alongside PayPal and outside of the eBay checkout process.

      I won't even go into PayPal's dubious dispute processes and lack of safeguards - they are well documented elsewhere, but again the argument of "don't use them" is rendered moot by eBay's policies.

    12. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Merchants are not allowed to set minimum or maximum amounts for transactions on Visa. I'm too lazy to find it, but I know Mastercard has a similar rule. Right, but that doesn't mean that they don't do it. Here in Maine, I would say that more stores have minimums than don't.
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    13. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is very exaggerated, even with the extra 50 cents or so it is for international payments. I received a payment of $38.00 a few days ago and the fee was only $1.78, not $5.50+ :S It's still kind of high, but not that high.

      Paypal is nice for allowing sellers to allow credit cards and offer a convenience to their customers for a minimal amount and without getting a merchant account.

      According to https://www.paypal.com/row/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-receiving-fees-outside for payments under $3,000 the fee is 2.9% + $0.30

    14. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's against the terms of the merchant agreement to require a lower limit. I know. But up here at least, it still happens.

      What you might be thinking of is the similar "Minimum $3 charge if using credit card". Your quote implies that if you buy a $1 item, you can't pay by credit card. My quote says if you want to buy a $1 item, you will be charged $3 for it instead if you use a credit card. That would also be against the rules of the CC companies. And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm quite literally talking about a hand-lettered sign on the register saying "Your transaction must be at least $3.00 to use a credit card here, sorry for the inconvenience."
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    15. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paypal is fine, provided you always fund by credit card and never keep a balance in your PP account. Remove all money immediately.

    16. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The post mentioned total fee structure, not just the PayPal fees. On your $38 auction you would be paying at least another $2.74 in eBay fees, and that's just going on the bare minimum amounts.

      There's also the fact that there are services equivalent to PayPal that charge 1.5%+$0.30, so its service simply can't compete on value. That's precisely why eBay are now choosing to force sellers to offer it - in order to prevent them from using more economical options.

    17. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by creepynut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Report them to your bank/card issuer! Nobody will stop doing it if we let them get away with it.

      I was once told I couldn't use my credit card for a small transaction (there was no posted minimum either). I wasn't sure at the time about these things so I didn't put up a fuss and paid cash. I checked into it, once I learned that they were violating the merchant rules I filed a complaint with my bank (the card issuer).

      I received a reply a few days later that Visa was looking into it. Strangely enough, I haven't had any issues using my card there since.

      RBC Royal Bank has a web based form to send them your thoughts. I'm sure other banks have similar contact forms, but even if they don't, pick up the phone and complain. They (the merchants) are the ones breaking the rules, why should we let them get away with it?

    18. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Report them to your bank/card issuer! Nobody will stop doing it if we let them get away with it. Why? I don't use credit cards there, and I understand why they do it--below $3.00, they lose money on the transaction.

      It's a bad rule that shouldn't exist, IMO, and serves only to force business owners to make a tradeoff: take a loss or have a sign there that gets a customer to buy a pack of gum?
      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    19. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by ryanhull · · Score: 1

      Report them to your credit card company if they forced a minimum. Do it now, not after a nap!

      Usually a phone-call to the number on the back of the card to the issuing bank is enough to get the Hand 'o' Doom moving.

      And just for everyone else, if you see those signs, ($x.xx minimum for CC purchases.) That's illegal, and against the merchant agreement. Report them!

      I had a merchant charge me 5% for a purchase I made, (>$1000) and I accepted it, called Discover when I got home, and they did a chargeback immediately.

      Works everytime. Just report them, and you get your money back, and they get a nasty-gram letting them know that their shoddy business practices aren't winning them too many friends...

    20. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      I'd hardly say your solution was ethical, either. "Hey, I'll accept this purchase/charge, knowing full well I intend to charge back the transaction as soon as I get home."

    21. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      The places I've seen that do this have specific wording that calls it a "convenience" discount that applies to cash or debit cards only.

      I'm not sure how that changes things but it never is called a cash discount, perhaps that's just how the agreements (or state laws perhaps, in this case, since I see it in south carolina but not north carolina) are written.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    22. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I've said in other posts: They knew the rules of the game before signing with a CC clearinghouse.

      If they feel they can't profit on taking a CC transaction below a certain amount, they should either: Find a processing provider with better rates, not take CCs at all, or raise their prices such that larger purchases offset some of the cost.

      Their profit margins aren't my concern, and it's silly to be expected to carry cash to make small purchases.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    23. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately in the UK banks are no longer required to help you out or issue chargebacks in cases involving PayPal. The reason is that the banking code only requires them to do anything when you have a dispute with the person you had a transaction with, which in this case is PayPal. You send the money to PayPal, and then in a separate transaction they send it to the seller. So, if you problem is with the seller, they don't have to help.

      I started a petition to get the law changed: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/3partyccs/

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by vicferarri · · Score: 1

      The reason why you don't get cash discounts anymore is that it's against Visa/MC/AmEx merchant terms and conditions.
      You're mistaken. From Visa's Card Acceptance and Chargeback Guidelines:

      Always treat Visa transactions like any other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for cash transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment.
      "Discount" okay, "surcharge" not okay. It's all in the wording.
    25. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get the feeling that you've never lived in a rural area. The situation is considerably more complex than you assume.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    26. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you do not own a business obviously. THERE ARE NO BETTER TERMS. Everybody has that clause. You want the business owner to take it up the ass so you dont have to carry around a few dollars? You want the business owner to lose money on the transactions that are less than $3 or whatever arbitrary amount they set? Get in touch with reality, I am in business to make money, and if I am not going to make money doing business with you, YOU can go do business somewhere else. The minimums in the CC acceptance contracts are there for the CC company benefit, so THEY make money on every transaction. NO SLIDING SCALE, they make some base fee plus a percentage on EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION. How are you upset with the small business owner for protecting his profits and not with the CC clearinghouse for doing WORSE? get called a hypocrite much?

      --
      Chuck
    27. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 1

      It is NOT "illegal" its against the terms of their contract with the credit card company. The CC clearinghouse forces these rules on you if you want to accept credit cards. For small businesses they really create financial havoc. Why should the business owner lose money on a transaction with you just because you want to pay with a credit card?

      --
      Chuck
    28. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by GeckoAddict · · Score: 3, Informative
      When I worked for a large bank , the rule was that they were not allowed to specify different pricing for CC vs cash. A discount for using a particular method was allowed under the regulations.
      It looks like that's still the rule. Page 10 of the Visa Merchant Card Acceptance Guide

      Always treat Visa transactions like any other transaction; that is, you may not impose any surcharge on a Visa transaction. You may, however, offer a discount for cash transactions, provided that the offer is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment. And Page 9:

      Always honor valid Visa cards in your acceptance category, regardless of the dollar amount of the purchase. Imposing minimum or maximum purchase amounts in order to accept a Visa card transaction is a violation of the Visa rules. Mastercard regulations are similar:

      5.9.3 Minimum/Maximum Transaction Amount Prohibited
      A Merchant must not require, or indicate that it requires, a minimum or maximum Transaction amount to accept a valid and properly presented Card.

      5.9.1 Discrimination
      A Merchant must not engage in any acceptance practice that discriminates against or discourages the use of a Card in favor of any other acceptance brand.
    29. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by ryanhull · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hardly an issue with ethics on the part of the consumer, when the business chooses to employ the same wayward ethical standard toward the consumer when they charge these fees.

      When owning a business, and you need to sell your goods, you include in your cost of goods whatever expenses you need to cover as well the cost of the goods in the price that you sell it for.

      It's no different than any other charges a retailer faces. If their electrical costs go up, or their heating costs go up, business licensing for local municipalities, etc, they pass those costs on to the consumer in the form of higher prices overall on all products.

      The fact that they accept credit cards as payment for goods is just another cost of doing business. They must accept this fact if they want to offer consumers the option of using this method of payment.

      Your argument could also mean that if they use a new shiny Point of Sale software package to track inventory, sales, shipping, etc, that they should be allowed to charge the customer more to do so. But if the customer preferred the old ledger method, and hand-written receipts, then that cost could be avoided.

      Nonsense.
      Every decent retailer knows ahead of time that accepting CC transactions will cost them more. They should do the same thing that they would do if they incurred any other costs associated with doing business. Raise the cost of the goods.

      Meanwhile, decent businesses survive well by including these costs already in the price of goods, and allow cash discounts to buyers who don't need the service.

      I think a lot of people need a bit of a reversal of thinking. The retailer is not doing the consumer a FAVOR by accepting CC payments.

      The whole transaction between the retailer and consumer is easily describer as a symbiotic relationship.

      The Consumer needs something, and is willing to pay $x for it.
      The retailer wants to make money by selling the product to the consumer.

      Somewhere in the middle of that, there exists the happy medium in which both parties agree and business rolls on.

      Calling it unethical on only the part of one party of that transaction is the same as condoning the behavior on the part of the other.

      If the retailer wants to play dirty, then why not extend the same right to the consumer.?

    30. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason why you don't get cash discounts anymore is that it's against Visa/MC/AmEx merchant terms and conditions.

      It's even disallowed to require the transaction to be over a certain value to accept payment via credit cards. That's country dependent. In Australia both those things are OK (after the Govt stepped in eventually on the discount for cash issue).
    31. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      In Australia, Paypal cant do as they please thank god. :)

      The ACCC does great work over here.
      They have more common sense than every other government department in the world combined.

    32. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats incorrect in Australia. Merchants have the right to charge the Credit Card transaction fee from you. So in effect you pay less if you pay by cash. If you buy online tickets with Qantas or Jetstar they will slug you with credit card fees. The alternate option is to pay by bank transfer which is free and I always do that. Most utilities, Telstra also charges the credit card transaction fee.

    33. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      The reason why you don't get cash discounts anymore is that it's against Visa/MC/AmEx merchant terms and conditions.

      Interesting. What do they think of the many gas stations that now have separate "credit" and "cash" prices for a gallon of gas?

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    34. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Considering that #1 isn't possible, you would actually prefer they do #2 or #3? Neither of those benefit consumers. #2 means you still have to carry cash, but now for ANY size transaction. #3, well, nobody likes higher prices. And either one would put the store at a serious disadvantage that would almost certainly put them out of business. This isn't Wal-Mart we're talking about - the big corporations can afford to lose out on the pack of gum you put on your charge card. These are the few mom & pop stores left, or the locally-owned franchises that make up many gas stations and convenience stores.

      You may find it silly for them to expect you to have cash, but I'm sure they find it silly for you to expect them to go out of business over something that's a minor inconvenience to you. If you don't like it, go shop at one of the bigger chains that can afford to lose money on your purchase. Don't help force the little guys out of business just because the current rules are basically set up to be lose-lose-lose for them no matter what they do.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    35. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, merchants are able to specify a minimum purchase amount to use EFTPOS (which is any form of card, not only credit). This minimum must be specified up front (usually by way of a sign stating it). If the merchant fails to tell the customer this before they start the transaction, the minimum doesn't apply.

      As previous posters have mentioned about the US, in Australia, prices cannot be varied based on payment option, but a surcharge can be levied from a CC purchase if that is notified up front.

    36. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      What a joke. You're honestly attempting to justify this with all that?

      The merchant was not entitled to charge you extra for the ability to pay by credit card - this is between the merchant and the merchant provider. YOU accepted the charge, knowing that it could lead to you being able to dispute the transaction with the card provider, which you did. Your liability was from the merchant in the tune of $50, not $1,050.

      You do realize that nothing in the merchant agreement that disallowed them from doing such a thing prohibits the merchant from now initiating civil proceedings against you for the recovery of the goods, be they tangible, or compensation to the tune of the retail cost (that $1,000)?

      You're not even close to being on remotely ethical or moral grounds, and your attempts to justify things along the lines of "well if the retailer wants to play dirty...". You saw a loophole. You knew you could exploit it, you went ahead and did it, and rather than the merchant "ripping you off" to the sum of $50, you've justified your "ripping them off" to the sum of $1,000 along the lines of two wrongs make a right.

      How utterly pathetic.

    37. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this decision was brought to us by the very same ACCC who has now stomped on Ebays monopolistic practises. You chose the wrong country to experiment on this time Ebay, since the ACCC is one of the few government entities that has real teeth. If they can pull the credit card companies into line, pulling Ebay into line will be a trifle. One of the few times, since 1996, I've been proud to be an Australian.

    38. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Well put. Although in my area, there are a lot of mom-and-pop stores left. Oh, the "benefits" of being in hicksville.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    39. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      This was outlawed here in Australia a few years ago, so merchants are now free to charge a fee for credit card purchases (which some would call offering a discount for cash).

      The main reason for doing this was to make the costs of buying by credit card transparent. Under the old system, credit card providers charged a fee to the merchant, but the fee was hidden from the consumer. The merchants had to absorb this cost by raising prices slightly across the board. That meant that the banks were effectively applying a small sales tax to nearly all retail sales. Estimates varied, but it was generally thought to be around 1% to 2%. It doesn't sound like much, but across every sale in the country, it's a huge amount.

      Most big retailers continue to do this, but smaller retailers either have a mimimum amount for credit card purchases, or tack on a fee of around 3%.

    40. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way...you might just wish to verify who sits on the board of directors of what seems to be independent companies like Visa and Mastercard.

      I guess it may not come as any big surprise but the last time I checked I found the Mastercard and Visa BODs were populated by none other than the friendly CEO's of the various large financial institutions.

      Wow! talk about the fox guarding the hen-house! Is this a major conflict of interest or what?

    41. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      Since the article is about Australia it's worth pointing out that in the last few years those terms and conditions were legislated obsolete.

      Vendors can (and often do) pass on the direct amount charged. This happens always at small markets and fairs (specifically the computer markets) but JB-HIFI (think the best buy of aus) charges an extra 1-2% for amex.

      In the US they still stand, though.

    42. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      By your reasoning they should also charge the same cost per item in the store, since the stocking cost is the cost of doing business. People are buying ITEMS, so any ITEM should be X$ no matter what payment method or item.

      Should stores lose money selling beer since per ounce there are more taxes on it than on milk, and that's also "just the cost of doing business" (or charge the same for milk and beer?)

      What you've said makes no sense.

    43. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by rmerry72 · · Score: 1

      Their profit margins aren't my concern, and it's silly to be expected to carry cash to make small purchases.
      And your inability to carry a couple of coins or small notes is not my concern. If you want to use your credit card for every purchase, be expecting to pay handsomely for the privilege.
      --
      We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
    44. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      What I very much do object to is them charging twice what Google Checkout does for an equivalent transaction.

      Unhelpfully, Australia doesn't have Google Checkout yet.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    45. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Their profit margins aren't my concern, and it's silly to be expected to carry cash to make small purchases. I don't think I want small stores to increase the price of a cup of coffee by a few dollars so you aren't "inconvenienced" by having to carry change.
    46. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Airlines get away with charging extra for a CC transaction, why quibble over shops?

    47. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Grew up in just about as rural as North Carolina gets, so please expand on your comment :)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    48. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Up here in Maine at least, profit margins are about as razor-thin as it gets in a lot of these rural mom-and-pop stores. They have to accept credit cards because tourists want to use them and often won't shop if a store doesn't accept them (locals rarely use them), but credit card companies are expensive as all hell and shoot their profits down. They can't raise prices--the locals will go elsewhere. They can't refuse credit cards--the tourists will go elsewhere. In order to maintain a profit, they essentially have to bend the credit card rules.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    49. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by ryanhull · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear in my description of the backcharge. I did not backcharge the entire transaction. Only the fee amount is what was backcharged to the retailer.

      You are correct in saying that if someone were to do such a thing, that the merchant would have cause for bring suit toward that individual for recompensation.

      I have no beef for paying a fair price for goods or services. But paying the CC fees for a retailer is nonsense. The offer the payment method as a convenience to the customer, and as a way to make sure the customer feels like the retailer is giving them a value for their money.

      Meanwhile, a lot of customers do not shop at retailers who do not allow CC transactions. I know I do not. Their prices are in-line with the other retailers. You would think that their prices would be lower, since they do not have to incur that additional cost of doing business, but they don't.

      I avoid them as often as possible, as I like the idea of carrying plastic only, and not risking the loss of Physical currency if my wallet were lost/stolen/ etc..

      Sorry for the confusion.

    50. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I'm very well aware of how the fee system works as well thanks, as I actually have been involved with several extremely successful small businesses (as a high level employee, not an owner) one of which wasn't happy with his CC clearinghouse's rates, so guess what? he went shopping and managed to get a better deal because (obviously) the other vendors he spoke with wanted him as a customer.

      My question to you is this: If the CC clearinghouse's fees are so predatory, why does EVERY mom and pop store not have the same problem? Plenty apparently don't, or find a way to deal with it other than violating the terms of the contract they signed and setting up minimum purchases.

      That observation leads me to believe that if a business is in a position where they feel like they "have" to set a minimum purchase to use a CC, there is something wrong with how they operate.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    51. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by ryanhull · · Score: 0

      Allow me to make more sense of it then.

      If you're a retailer, and you buy goods to sell, you have a fixed cost of those goods.

      Example,

      Milk: Cost=$2.75 / gallon

      Now you have overhead to cover. Utilities, wages, benefits, rent, insurance, etc. etc.

      On average, you could factor in what those overhead items will cost you per month. You would then easily factor in what you would have to mark the product up by percentage wise, to cover your costs, as well as the product cost.

      So you bought milk for $2.75 gallon, and you sell it for $3.35 gallon. This covers your overhead, and nets you a nice profit per item. The same is done for everything in the store.

      Now mind you, this percentage increase to cover overhead is certainly not a blanket increase. I'm not so naive to think that. Most retailers have what they call loss-leaders in their stores to entice shoppers to stop by. The hope is that the shopper picks up more than that item is what drives the practice. Hopefully, the consumer picks up a few other higher-markup items to balance everything out. Sometimes it doesn't work, but on average, the retailer makes up the cost of the loss-leader on other higher-markup items.

      My point was simply this; If the retailer knows, (and they do,) that accepting credit cards will increase the amount they pay a merchant for the transaction fees, then they should build that cost into the price of the items.

      Example: If the merchant agreement states that there is a 3% fee for all transactions using Credit Cards, (YMMV) and the merchant knows they do appx. $150,000 worth of CC transactions in a month, then they can easily figure out the amount they will owe the merchant in fees. ($4500)

      If that cost is treated like any other cost, (i.e. Gas Bill, Electric Bill, etc,) then the merchant simply has to apply that increase across all products to ensure that if someone buys an item with a CC, they already have the cost of the transaction built into the price.

      Additionally, they could offer a discount for cash right there at the register. If they don't have to pay for merchant fees, then the consumer benefits from a discount. It doesn't have to be a large discount, but that sort of practice COULD encourage regular customers to use cash. Win-WIN for everyone involved.

      The bottom line is that retailers need to make a fair profit to keep the doors open and the lights on. If they treat CC transaction fees differently from any other direct cost, then they are not looking at the business method correctly. No retailer would assume an additional cost to do business and not pass it on to the consumer in some way. That's foolish, and they wouldn't be open very long.

      I guess the moral of this is that consumers DO end up paying the merchant's fees when they buy goods and services if the retailer already has that cost built into the price.

      But tacking on fees or minimums to compensate for a convenience doesn't make for happy customers. It just shows poor business planning.

      I hope that clears it up for everyone.

    52. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by ryanhull · · Score: 0

      Get in touch with reality, I am in business to make money, and if I am not going to make money doing business with you, YOU can go do business somewhere else. Wow! Someone has to reference the Soup Naziâ with that sort of mentality. Do you actually yell at them for not trying to protect your profits? This isn't a socialist country. Consumers aren't there to ensure your business stays open.

      No consumer cares about your profit when they walk into your store. They just want to buy something. If your price is right, they buy it. If not, they walk.

      I don't remember reading in school that we as consumers have an obligation to ensure retailers make a certain Profit Margin.

      Nor do I think, as a business owner, that any consumers should be responsible to make me money. Making money is my job. And if I can balance making money with making consumers happy, then I am a happy business man.
    53. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      it's silly to be expected to carry cash to make small purchases.
      What, you should only be expected to carry cash to make large purchases, like cars and houses?

      Have you just fallen through from an anti-universe or something?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    54. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Consumers are there to consume. Retailers are there to profit from providing the consumables. No consumer is obligated to protect the merchant profit, that is the merchants' job. He does that by setting a fair price for his product. He accepts differing forms of payment for his products. If one form of payment costs him more to accept, he simply raises prices ACROSS THE BOARD to compensate. So higher fees just get passed right along to the consumer as a cost of doing business. At the margins, the low end in particular, the high transaction cost of precessing credit cards makes setting this margin of profit problematic. Hence the desire for minimum transaction amounts. If you are upset about the minimum transaction amount for using a particular form of payment, bitch to the payment processor that causes it to be this way, not the merchant who is just the middle man, he is just trying to pass along the cost of doing business in a fair manner, that the CC processors do to him and you want him to eat and take a loss on for your convenience. If it costs to do something why are you not willing to pay it, but want another person to come out of pocket for?
      The whole point of a convenience store is to make money off of your laziness in not wanting to go to walmart to get that candy bar. Convenience stores charge $1 for what walmart sells for $0.33 (hershey chocolate bar). If you are in there in the first place you already agree to be charged for a convenience factor, but bitch about being charged for the convenience of paying by CC? (which costs the merchant even MORE!)

      --
      Chuck
    55. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Not every mom and pop store is perfect, some make more than others, and some make less or go out of business.
      The obvious solution to this is to abolish the per-transaction charge on CC and just make it a flat percentage so that this eliminates this fringe problem.
      But CC are unwilling to do this, because it benefits them by getting paid a minimum amount for a transaction.
      And there is opposition to structuring the fee to the consumers in the exact same way? Why? Seems to me the bitching should be directed at the credit card companies for this and not the merchant for merely passing along his cost to the consumer transparently, and not asking customers to pay higher costs on other transactions to subsidize the transaction costs of purchases where he loses money by doing the consumer a favor and accepting the card.
      Hey lets get the guy spending more per transaction to pay a lil more so the guy spending less can use his card to make the purchase. How the hell does this make sense?

      --
      Chuck
    56. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 1

      Their prices are in-line with the other retailers. You would think that their prices would be lower, since they do not have to incur that additional cost of doing business, but they don't. I avoid them as often as possible, as I like the idea of carrying plastic only, and not risking the loss of Physical currency if my wallet were lost/stolen/ etc.. Sorry for the confusion. BS. I was consulting for the local McFranchise when the revolution over to CC happenned. They charged lower prices before the CC and raised the food prices directly the amount of the CC transaction fees projected impact to cover it. So EVERYONE pays higher prices so some can have the convenience of using CC. CC charges are just viewed as a cost of doing business and are passed right along to the consumer. We worked for several days at coming up with an amount that was deemed a fair increase to try to balance the two.
      --
      Chuck
    57. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Lershac · · Score: 1

      The problem arises in the margins, particularly the lover end of the spectrum. At lower margins the per-transaction charge (usually between $.20 and $.50 PER TRANSACTION) becomes the overriding factor in the transaction. sometimes becoming more of a cost in teh transaction that the cost of the product.

      If the merchant does alot of this business, it becomes a serious problem, where his own personal ethics might interfere with him substantially raising the price of goods across the board (subsidizing these customers who pay for losing transactions).

      --
      Chuck
    58. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cash discount? Not on eBay, for sure!
      As a seller I tried to offer a discount for cash or bank transfer payments.
      eBay Australia cancelled my listings because I was not allowed to discourage buyers from using PayPal!

    59. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the guy who sent that, but I'm just curious... how does posting as anonymous make it any more cowardly than posting as creepynut or fishwithahammer. Either way it's 'anonymous', now you just have a stupid made up nickname.

    60. Re:Right, because PayPal's better... by creepynut · · Score: 1

      Have you read a post by an anonymous person before? It says "by Anonymous Coward" ... I'm not calling someone a coward, it's just the nickname /. gives anonymous posts.

  3. Can somebody explain? by muellerr1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In most countries, why is PayPal allowed to act like a bank without being regulated like a bank? I've never understood how they get away with that.

    1. Re:Can somebody explain? by PoliTech · · Score: 5, Funny

      For the same reason that Ebay acts like a fencing operation for stolen goods, but is never charged as such.

    2. Re:Can somebody explain? by Paranatural · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's because PayPal is fairly undefined. It does seem like it's a bank and so people unthinkingly treat it as if it is one, but of course it has no actual bank foundation. And, of course, they have no imperative to become a bank, because then they'd have to follow the rules.

      I'm just hoping that all countries everywhere enact similar rulings. Paypal gets on my damn nerves.

    3. Re:Can somebody explain? by LordKaT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they've settled out of court for large sums of cash before things ever went to trial.

      eBay has done its homework on PayPal and knows it cannot turn nearly as huge of a profit as it does if PayPal has to comply with all of the banking regulations.

    4. Re:Can somebody explain? by joaommp · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I wish I had some mod points for you...

      good one!

    5. Re:Can somebody explain? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. It is more counterfeit than stolen.

      2. The french have actually charged eBay with both on a number of occasions.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:Can somebody explain? by mpapet · · Score: 2, Informative

      At best, they would argue they are a payment processor. A Bank does many other types of cash and lending operations.

      FYI: You can start your own payment processing service like any business. Where you are going to get screwed, is when you need to connect to banks for electronic funds transfers. ACH rates are low, but getting into the network is not cheap or easy.

      Payment processing is one of the monopolies absolutely no one cares about despite the broad harm to consumers. F*i*r*s*t D,a,t,a and V^i^s^a.

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    7. Re:Can somebody explain? by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because PayPal is not a bank. It doesn't offer loans, it doesn't pay interest, it doesn't have a required holdings (no loans = 100% cash on hand), etc, etc.

      PayPal is as much of a bank as Chuck E. Cheese is a bank for handing out those game tokens and tickets. It's just a convenient way for you to give money to eBay before you spend it on an actual good (the appeal of which I have yet to understand.)

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    8. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The real question to ask is how the government can get away with forcing any person or company (bank or otherwise) to do with their property other than they wish.

    9. Re:Can somebody explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But they are a bank, they hold a banking licence in Luxembourg

    10. Re:Can somebody explain? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      The short answer is because the government has the guns. It is important to remember that all powers of any government are backed up by the implicit (or sometimes explicit) threat of overwhelming violence against those who do not submit (rarely physical, although it does sometimes come to that). Those who advocate more taxes, more government, and more regulation would do well to remember that.

    11. Re:Can somebody explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks create money, PayPal doesn't.

    12. Re:Can somebody explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason the church of scientology is allowed to act like a religion without being a religion. This mutual above-the-lawness is also why Paypal let the SoC be a partner member in VERO ;)

    13. Re:Can somebody explain? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      PayPal doesn't just do payment processing. When you create an account with them (which you need to do in order to pay someone), you put money into this account and then transfer it to the seller's account. You can either do this in one step, or put the money in the account first and leave it there for a while. The seller can then keep the money in their account or transfer it elsewhere. If they leave the money in there (or if you put money in your account and leave it there for a while without sending it to someone), then PayPal do pay interest.

      They give you an account, into which you can put money. They look after money for you and pay interest on it. Sounds a lot like a bank to me...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Can somebody explain? by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Interesting - I wasn't aware that they do offer interest on deposits, which puts them more towards bank status.

      However, storing money in an account is just delayed payment processing. And, they're not FDIC insured. They also don't offer any "bank" services, other than giving the money to another PayPal account.

      If you could withdraw money again, I'm guessing it would also be a different situation. And, they still have to comply with Regulation E whether they're a bank or not.

      So, to further obfuscate my metaphor, your PayPal balance is Chuck E. Cheese tickets. But, they'll give you more tickets as you hold a balance.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    15. Re:Can somebody explain? by bitrex · · Score: 1

      One of the principles of the social contract that one becomes a part of in a theoretically democratic society is that one concedes the monopoly on force to the government. The principle advantage of this in a properly functioning democratic society is that while the government has the sole right to use violence (both against its own citizens who do not obey the rule of law and against external threats), its citizens also have the power to exercise their will as to exactly how that power is used. Your argument cuts both ways, one could as easily say that one who advocates less government are risking the overwhelming violence of the Hobbesian "war of all against all"; in other words the overwhelming violence of anarchy and mob rule where the strong dominate the weak 100% of the time. It's a delicate balancing act - I don't believe putting one's foot down and saying "More government, good!" or "More government, bad!" accurately reflects the complexities of maintaining a stable society.

    16. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "One of the principles of the social contract that one becomes a part of in a theoretically democratic society..."

      When did I sign this contract? When I was born? Am I agreeing to this contract every second (since birth) that I do not quit my job, take all of my property on a plane, and spend my life savings moving to another country? Is that how the contract works in a "democratic society"? If so, where is this explanation written down, and how does it justify the violation of everyone's natural rights as rational beings?

      "Your argument cuts both ways, one could as easily say that one who advocates less government are risking the overwhelming violence of ... anarchy...

      I am not advocating no government or even less government. I am advocating that the government only function according to its original intended purpose - to uphold the rights of the citizenry; this is done through the use of force, when necessary, by the courts and the military/police. Whether such a move results in more or less government is of no concern. What the government has become instead is a rights-violating machine.

    17. Re:Can somebody explain? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I could be mistaken, but I remember them getting in trouble a while back when it was discovered that they were taking that money sitting in all the accounts and investing it in other places, just like a bank.

    18. Re:Can somebody explain? by Kashra · · Score: 1

      Last I used paypal, and this was a long time ago, I remember earning interest on the money that was in my paypal account.

      --
      If you can't find a real troll, just mod down whoever you don't agree with!
    19. Re:Can somebody explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paypal Does pay interest.
      They have for years.
      Look into their money market accounts.

    20. Re:Can somebody explain? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Am I agreeing to this contract every second (since birth) that I do not quit my job, take all of my property on a plane, and spend my life savings moving to another country? Basically, yes. The purpose of a social contract (in a grossly over-simplified way) is that every member of the society agrees to it, which greatly lessens the threat of arbitrary violence. If you don't wish to agree to a social contract, you're free to leave the society; if you break the contract, society can remove you by force (e.g. put you in prison).
    21. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      And you did not answer the two conditional questions I posed immediately after that sentence you quoted.

      Also, my purpose here is not to simply say "I don't like it" and leave, but to get discussion going that can eventually lead to candidates being elected who would rather uphold rights than violate them, eventually overturning the laws that do violate our rights.

    22. Re:Can somebody explain? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      And you did not answer the two conditional questions I posed immediately after that sentence you quoted. Assuming the two questions you mean are:

      1) Where is it written down? Wikipedia's article has decent information about the general concept, and you can probably find some books from the original philosophers in your local library.

      2) How does it justify everyone's natural rights being violated? Well, like I said, the purpose of a social contract is that you give up certain natural rights (e.g. the natural right to kill someone and take their stuff) in exchange for protection from other people exercising those same natural rights.

      Also, my purpose here is not to simply say "I don't like it" and leave, but to get discussion going that can eventually lead to candidates being elected who would rather uphold rights than violate them, eventually overturning the laws that do violate our rights. Depends on how you define "rights". I'm perfectly happy giving up my right to take someone's stuff if it means my stuff won't get taken by someone else. If you're talking about rights as defined in the United States Constitution (speech, association, religion, privacy, public trials, etc.), then I'm with you in wanting to ensure that they are protected from violation by the government.
    23. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "(e.g. the natural right to kill someone and take their stuff)"

      There is no such right. Read up on Wikipedia as well, if you'd like.

      I'm perfectly happy giving up my right to take someone's stuff"

      You don't have such a right. See above.

    24. Re:Can somebody explain? by immcintosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good ol' French. When you need somebody to say, "Fuck you all, we do our own shit," they can always be counted on.

    25. Re:Can somebody explain? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1
      From Wikipedia's entry on Social Contract:

      According to Thomas Hobbes and canonical theory, the essence is as follows: Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. You're using a different definition of "natural right" than I am. I'm talking about natural rights being the same behavioral freedom that animals in nature have, while you're talking more about what I would usually call human rights (which I completely support, of course). Since there is no single definition, though, neither one of us is really wrong.
    26. Re:Can somebody explain? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1
      I disagree with you, but I clicked the above just to read:

      The first philosopher who fully made natural rights the source of his moral and political philosophy was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes argued that it is human nature to love one's self best and seek one's own good (this is a view known as psychological egoism). Since it is unavoidable ("necessity of nature") for human beings to follow their nature, it becomes a right to do so. According to Hobbes, to deny this right is to deny that we have a right to be human, which would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to demand that carnivores reject meat or that fish stop swimming. However, this was not a right in the conventional sense of imposing obligations on others, but merely a "liberty." Therefore, we have no obligations by birth or nature, but only unlimited rights -- leading to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings have to kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive. Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, causing human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract.


      It is my natural right to take whatever I damn well please from whoever I damn well please. For proof, please watch Animal Planet. Or, read some Leviathan, and let Hobbes convince you.
    27. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      Being that we are humans, I thought it was clear what I meant. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These are rights that we all have as rational beings, and it is immoral for one person to use their liberty to violate the rights of another.

    28. Re:Can somebody explain? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      They also don't offer any "bank" services, other than giving the money to another PayPal account. If you could withdraw money again, I'm guessing it would also be a different situation.

      They also offer a Mastercard debit card that you can use to draw upon your PayPal balance when buying at brick-and-mortar stores and that you can even use at ATMs. Sounds like a "bank service" to me, and a way to withdraw your money without transferring it to a real bank.

      I really have no earthly idea why they aren't classified as a bank. And not being FDIC insured doesn't make them not a bank - it's one of the requirements once you are classified as a bank and it's one reason they (IMO) shouldn't get away with not being classified as a bank.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    29. Re:Can somebody explain? by Merusdraconis · · Score: 1

      The real real question to ask is how PayPal can get away with forcing any person or company (bank or otherwise) to do with their property other than they wish.

      I always wonder how come the government's motives always seem to be questioned when corporations never are, despite infringing on people's rights and liberties just as much. You can't even say corporations don't have their own army - many of them do. Some of them are the army.

    30. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "The real real question to ask is how PayPal can get away with forcing any person or company (bank or otherwise) to do with their property other than they wish."

      If you don't like Paypal's terms, don't agree to them. It's that simple.

    31. Re:Can somebody explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You accepted this when you accepted the benefits of your society. Immunization from diseases killing you at age 1, a decent education, roads / electricity / clean water. You are basically taking your ball and going home while keeping every benefit that society has given you for your own success. Most people would call that 'selfish'. In your model we would be living in caves.

    32. Re:Can somebody explain? by joaommp · · Score: 1

      "Redundant"? I thought these were supposed to be COMMENTS and not fully structured thesis-like opinions. Since when is it redundant me stating that I agree with what someone else said? What? Was someone here before saying it for me? Or was it just that someone just was too lazy to use the mod points better and decided to randomly distribute them?

      Yeah, I must be new here...

    33. Re:Can somebody explain? by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      You were modded redundant because your post contributed nothing, and there's no "superfluous" moderation option so people use a somewhat expanded definition of "redundant".

      Or to put it another way, moderation is designed to make it easier for people to not waste their time reading content-free posts. A "me too" post fits that criteria, and downmodding is expected.

    34. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "You accepted this when you accepted the benefits of your society."

      What is the reasoning behind this claim?

      "Immunization from diseases killing you at age 1, a decent education, roads / electricity / clean water.

      These things can all be provided by private industry without rights violations, and competition would work to lower costs while giving customers more of what they want.

      "You are basically taking your ball and going home while keeping every benefit that society has given you for your own success.

      No, I am getting involved in discussions to persuade the public away from the constant rights violations, with the hopes of eventually leading to the nomination and election of candidates that uphold rights.

      "Most people would call that 'selfish'."

      As would I. Now you have to show why that is a bad word.

      "In your model we would be living in caves."

      A pithy, frightening claim backed up by no rationale or evidence should always be disregarded no matter how pithy or frightening.

    35. Re:Can somebody explain? by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      You're confusing animal rights with human rights. It is your natural right to do whatever you please so long as you don't violate the rights of others. Do what you want with yourself and your property, and do whatever you want with others and their property - as long as you get their permission first.

    36. Re:Can somebody explain? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      But if there's nobody around to say what property IS mine and what property's yours, how do we settle that argument? We can't. If I want it, I'm gonna take it from you.

      Hobbes wants you to see it like this: Nobody lives in his "natural state" anymore... except the heads of states. Let me give you a few examples:

      Within the United States:

      I have a giant field full of marijuana. I say that I own the land, so I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it, because it's MY PROPERTY. The DEA does not like this arrangement, based upon rules that the United States has agreed on (we will not argue the law itself in this scenario). I do not want the DEA to take my marijuana - my property. I decided to shoot anyone who enters the perimeter. Pretty soon, the National Guard is firebombing my house, and I'm a crisp, charred corpse. In other words, the United States did what it wanted with my property and body, in order to enforce its laws.

      At Pearl Harbor:

      The Emperor of Japan decides to provoke the United States into joining a war that it had not officially been part of yet. After months and months of fighting, the United States decides to round up all the Japanese in the States and put them in concentration camps. It then spends years to develop what to this day is the most feared weapon in the entire world, and drops them on innocent, unsuspecting civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In other words, we did what we wanted to the Japanese's property and to the bodies of Japanese civilians to further our cause.

      Many, many other examples are available in history. Bottom line is, without a man with a big stick telling you not to beat the shit out of your neighbor for his sack of oats, most people would do it. Those that say, "That's wrong, I would respect the right of that man to his bag of oats!" would be DEAD. In the end, the man who steals the most sacks of oats and says to everyone else, "If you give me the RIGHT to take a share of your oats, I'll make sure NOBODY ELSE does," wins.

    37. Re:Can somebody explain? by F1re · · Score: 1

      To quote Heinlien:

      "Ah yes, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?â"the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain livesâ"but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

      --
      ...there is no sig...
  4. And furthermore... by Barny · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... we would like to add, on behalf of the Australians who you are trying to blatantly extort:

    *ahem*

    "Like fuck you will"

    That was an extract from the actual brief, word for word, honest :P

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
    1. Re:And furthermore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... we would like to add, on behalf of the Australians who you are trying to blatantly extort:

      *ahem*

      "Like fuck you will"

      That was an extract from the actual brief, word for word, honest :P You mean translated from "G'day mate"?
    2. Re:And furthermore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Like fuck you will" What does Will have to do with it?
  5. You're in luck mate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a buyer, I really want to use my credit card directly.

    Just fill out the form at gday.ebay.mate/safecredit.asp and we'll get you started faster than a kangaroo can steal your vegemite sandwich.

    1. Re:You're in luck mate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That URL gives me a 404 mate.

  6. Paypal sucks blah blah by Slimee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't stand paypal. I've had an account since the earlier days before there really were options, though I so rarely use it because without PAYING for an account, I can only transfer money through a direct bank transfer. On EVERY ONE of my ebay listings I have to add a footnote alerting people that they can't pay with a credit card through paypal because paypal won't allow me to do that...

    And the only way to be able to do that is to sign up for an account where they take a percentage of all of my transactions.

    How does that commercial go? "It's my money and I want it now!"
    But seriously, I'm tired of paypal, I just wish it would go the way of the dinosaurs because it's such a frustrating site to use to transfer funds.

    1. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by aonaran · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where do you think you can get a service that allows you to accept CC payments without paying them a transaction fee?

      Merchant Visa/MC accounts with your bank will charge fees too. How do you think they make their money?

    2. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by Slimee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah but the thing is, with an account where I can't accept these transactions, people are still ABLE to attempt them.

      It's very frustrating to cancel a transaction, send an email to the person telling them I can't accept it and to send me the money through their checking account instead. It's a process that shouldn't have to happen. If I don't have the business premier account or whatever it's called, then people shouldn't be able to initiate a credit card transaction.

    3. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Then don't use it. I never have and never will.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by steelfood · · Score: 1

      How do you think they make their money? Interest.
      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      Technically, if you click the PayPal payment accepted part of the eBay auction, you HAVE to accept all forms of payment including Credit Cards. You are basically forced to upgrade your PayPal account in order to accept the CC funds, and in turn get hammered on all payments you receive in the future. That is how they got after all the people like you who had specific PayPal acceptance rules, which robbed them of their precious double dipping of fees. eBay and PayPal can go eat a dick. I will still use Craigslist until eBay (which now owns CL), somehow forces people to use PayPal for person to person transactions.

    6. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by Slimee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I've been using Craigslist more and more for things I want, and I find everything goes a bit more smoothly when there's no hidden fees and surcharges for every move you make. Ugh don't even get me started on fees....$40 to list a car on ebaymotors? BS

    7. Re:Paypal sucks blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18%+ interest rates?

  7. Inbound yeah, but not outbound... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I use Paypal to receive money with (it is hella convenient for some folks I do work for on the side to pay me that way).



    OTOH, the down side is that they extract fees that would make a bank or credit union blush for every transaction. Also, someone governmental needs to take a serious look at forcing them to be regulated and to follow the same rules as a real bank.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Inbound yeah, but not outbound... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2

      I bet it's "hella convenient" to you, too, undocumented income on the side that the tax man knows nothing about, and isn't linked to you by anything more than an email address, if you want.

    2. Re:Inbound yeah, but not outbound... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's quite documented... I can print it all out and ship it along with the tax forms. Not that it generates enough to be noteworthy, but I have a particular distaste for the IRS as it is without having them going after my wallet with lust in their eyes.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Inbound yeah, but not outbound... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's certainly the case in Australia. Both eBay Australia and PayPal have no mechanism for incorporating the local sales tax (GST) in a purchase.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  8. Don't bother by sihker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In PayPals opinion I still live with polar bears, barbarians and blood feud. In post Soviet Russia, paypal uses one way money transfers only. Once you transferred money to paypal account, you can only spend it, no transferring back :D I for once welcome our money grabbing overlords :-D

  9. Don't get me wrong, I love PayPal by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have had a PayPal account since they had that send money with no fees promotion that my now ex-wife and her friend used to rack up a couple of thousand frequent flyer miles on each others WorldPerks cards. I generally trust PayPal and I like the money market feature on my account, but it is not the only way to pay and it should not be set up that way. The world needs competition and it is going to hurt a lot of people who may just want to buy or sell one thing and don't want to set up an account for that one hassle to go through. For some things PayPal is perfect, but not for everything. On websites where you have an actually established revenue stream and are not just selling one or two things a day I think it looks bad if you are running PayPal only. I recently backed out of a deal to buy a stack of sub woofers from a company because I didn't want to deal with the creation of a PayPal account on the business card for one transaction. They lost out on a big sale, just because they were stuck with PayPal and PayPal only and I know that I am not the only one who responds to things this way.

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  10. Amazon accepts CC by computechnica · · Score: 1

    Amazon has been great for buying and selling college books on. I have basically just been paying for shipping. When I need to add money Amazon can charge my Debit card, otherwise the money from selling books goes to buying the next set.
    Other items can also be added. There is currently two Commodore 64 systems for sale for $235. Need a PalmOne m100 Handheld 9 Used & new from $11.89.

  11. What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by RaigetheFury · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was part of the massive lawsuit against Paypal back when there were plenty of scammers. One such tried to screw me and even though I provide more than enough evidence to PROVE without a shadow of a doubt this guy was scamming the system, committing mail fraud, AND on top of that was using stolen credit cards, AND i gave him his confirmed address...

    They still sided with him. However, I knew this was a possibility and I moved the money out of paypal, and blocked them from charging me back through my bank who happily sided with me.

    About 6 months later I joined the lawsuit, and provided all of the evidence to them for exhibits. If you didn't know we won... and won big. Not happy with the default settlement offering I filed for the full settlement and received my check a few months later. I framed it... and I will NEVER do business with Paypal again.

    I don't care if Ebay bought them. They do not follow banking guidelines, they consistently have proven themselves untrustworthy and generally don't abide by the law OR their own policies.

    If Ebay goes to Paypal only, I think they'll soon realize the size of the mistake they will make when other auction sites blow past them at 90mph!

    1. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they'll soon realize the size of the mistake they will make when other auction sites blow past them What other auction sites are there? I know of a few, but they all suck. They will have a hard time beating eBay who has television adverts. The other problem is most of the other auction sites are as much of a rip-off as eBay, both in the fees they charge and the stuff listed on them. Most of the other auction sites have junk that goes for above retail.... just like eBay.
    2. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by prelelat · · Score: 1

      craigslist is huge I don't know about other places but up here in canada there is kijiji which is basically a rip off of craigslist but still you can find tons of stuff on these types of sites, without having to deal with paypal.

      The part I like the best about a site like that is that you can view the item before buying it. Most of the time you meet up and pick up so can see the item and run away if you want. Cuts down on counterfits and scams. Typically you can't use credit cards but seriously it's where it's at.

    3. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by corbettw · · Score: 1

      craigslist is huge I'll use Craig's List for some stuff, but until they allow you to search all of the for sale posts, and not just the ones within a given metro area, they'll never be able to compete with eBay.

      And since eBay owns 33% of CL, that ain't ever going to happen.
      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by Doomie · · Score: 1

      Kijiji is owned by eBay.

      --
      Doomie
    5. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      CL has flipped ebay the bird several times already, thats not what is stopping them from letting you search all of it.

      CL does not get involved nor does it try to authenticate who you are buying from, hence it stays local. Its a different niche, Craig Newmark has no intention of taking on ebay or becomming a megacorp.

    6. Re:What about those of us who SUED PAYPAL and WON by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Here in New Zealand we use Trademe. It's pretty much perfect and has made its creator shitloads of monies.

      Localised auction site ftw.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  12. Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I sort of enjoyed bidding for things on eBay back when it was new and there were deals to be had, but now nearly everything is at a fixed price and the only purpose it has for someone like me is to buy/sell used computer parts, which I can do elsewhere without the risk or hassle. I feel like the new eBay is mostly for soccer moms who don't know of alternatives, or for people who have very specialized interests with no other options (usually there are other, cheaper, safer options).

    On the other hand, I never liked Paypal. As far as I could tell its sole purpose was to make it easier for sellers to scam buyers, since the only protection given to buyers is something on the order of $100. I know some people who bought Apple laptops on eBay, never received them, but were unable to get all of their ~$2000 back. If it happened to me, I'd do what another poster said today and stop the payment to Paypal from my credit card, but if it were me I wouldn't have made the purchase in the first place.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    1. Re:Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      is to buy/sell used computer parts, which I can do elsewhere without the risk or hassle. You wouldn't happen to know of a site where I can do that from the UK? In the last two months I have bought almost $200 worth of used computer parts off Ebay, none of them have worked as described and getting refunds and returns are proving such a massive headache that I'm thinking of giving up and swallowing the losses. Needless to say, I have come to hate doing any business on Ebay/Paypal, and would love to have an alternative.
    2. Re:Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil by Collective+0-0009 · · Score: 1

      I feel like the new eBay is mostly for soccer moms who don't know of alternatives, or for people who have very specialized interests with no other options (usually there are other, cheaper, safer options). Like what? Yahoo Shopping... that sucks. Ubid sucks. Craigslist is awesome, but only local and usually much less selection (I doubt I will find 100 Precision Workstations on there anytime soon). So really, what are these options you speak of?
      --
      I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
    3. Re:Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      When you are looking for a fairly rare item and/or one that was never really sold in your country ebay has two big advantages

      1: ebay is massive, this means that the chance of someone on the system having the item is pretty damn high.
      2: ebay/paypal is pretty friendly to international transactions. I can use my british ebay/paypal account to bid on auctions anywhere in the world with no hassle (sometimes I do have to contact the seller to ask for postage rates but a lot of the time sellers post a list that covers postage to the uk upfront).

      does anyone know of any other places that offer this?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Ebay is Dead to Me, Paypal is Evil by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      is to buy/sell used computer parts, which I can do elsewhere without the risk or hassle. You wouldn't happen to know of a site where I can do that from the UK?

      In the last two months I have bought almost $200 worth of used computer parts off Ebay, none of them have worked as described and getting refunds and returns are proving such a massive headache that I'm thinking of giving up and swallowing the losses.

      Needless to say, I have come to hate doing any business on Ebay/Paypal, and would love to have an alternative. I'm lucky, I guess, in that I'm used to living in Silicon Valley, where Craigslist is larely populated with tech stuff.
      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  13. Birds of a feather.... by Chas · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, but EBay is just as shady as PayPal is.

    I refuse to EVER give any more money to PayPal or EBay again.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Verfied Accounts by drxenos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I found out the hard way that when you "verify" your account, the bank account used to verify your PayPal account becomes the primary account. All payments you make through PayPal come out of it by default. I called them because all my purchases were coming out of my bank account and not my credit card. They said the bank account has to be the primary, and the only way to change it was to revert to "unverified," which I did. I like the protection I get from using a credit card. Payments extracted from a checking account has no where near the same protection.

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
    1. Re:Verfied Accounts by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 0

      This is false. Yes by default your bank account is primary, but before every transaction you send money, you can change it to send from credit card instead of bank account. I have done this for years without issue.

      I have a separate, dedicated bank account set up with a minimum balance for use only with PayPal incase I get frozen/scammed, etc.

      All purchases through PP can be made with a credit card although you have to click a few more boxes/pages in the checkout process.

    2. Re:Verfied Accounts by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Read what I said! I said it was the mandatory DEFAULT, not the only option. I don't want to have to remember to change it every time I made a payment. Show me where any part of my post was false.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    3. Re:Verfied Accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an ass or just illiterate? The OP said it used his/her bank account by default. He (or she) didn't say you couldn't change it at purchase time, just that you couldn't make it permanent. Yeah, "click a few more boxes/page." ON EVERY PURCHASE. No thanks, moron.

    4. Re:Verfied Accounts by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      I have the number for the Whaaambulance if you need it. Big deal, you have to click a a link, a radio button, and a confirm box. Stop bitching because your too lazy to click the mouse 3 more times.

    5. Re:Verfied Accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not lazy. You're just mad because you're illiterate and wrong. Great word, by the way. What, are you twelve?

    6. Re:Verfied Accounts by AbRASiON · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep, mod this up! It's an absoloute fucking scam (again) on paypals behalf.

      Once you add bank to an existing account, it opts to directly withdraw from the bank rather than credit card, you CAN'T make the credit card default.
      In Australia, this means I get charged bank fees for using my regular bank account, (maximum 5 transactions a month free, than small but annoying fees)

      The credit card obviously has no fees - they are happy with the interest you pay as a dipshit consumer in debt (which I'm not)

      Paypal have done this so that people can't do ccard chargebacks as easily.

    7. Re:Verfied Accounts by PaulCorr · · Score: 1

      Had the same problem last week. I paid for an eBay item out through Paypal, and it took the money from my bank account. I wasn't impressed as the banks over here will charge a $50 over-drawn fee on a bank account. So I paid $17, and ended up paying $67 to the bank, all thanks to Paypal. I complained about it and all I got was, sorry, you'll have to be more careful next time. A**holes!

    8. Re:Verfied Accounts by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Huh. They let you set accounts back to Unverified once they've been verified?

      I wonder how often they let you re-verify an account. Seeing as how they deposit several cents into your account totally free as part of the verification process... I smell an untapped profit opportunity! :)

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    9. Re:Verfied Accounts by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Your account automatically goes back to unverified when you delete (from your PayPal account) the bank account it is tied to. They actually make two small deposits, but they take them back after you're verified. As least, they did with me.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    10. Re:Verfied Accounts by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Really? They've never taken them back from me. That might be new - maybe people really were exploiting it.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    11. Re:Verfied Accounts by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

      After I spent some money, I hit a limit where they wouldn't do any more transactions unless I verified. I complained that I didn't want to link my account and they just laughed at me and said that was my choice, but I wouldn't be able to buy any more. I am sure this has happened to others. This is their way of forcing you to allow them access to your bank account.

    12. Re:Verfied Accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: You can select your CC for payment source when paying....but you have to do it EVERYTIME you pay. Can you say pain in the a$$. BUT at least it can use the CC instead of your bank account.

    13. Re:Verfied Accounts by drxenos · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. I've had the account for years, but just verified is recently. Or, I could be mixing them up with another company. My online broker uses the same technique to verify. Maybe it was they that reclaimed the deposits.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    14. Re:Verfied Accounts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that. The point is they don't let you make your CC the default, which is absurd.

  15. Paypal sucks by phoneteller · · Score: 1, Funny

    I got conned by a seller on ebay, I paid $90 something and the seller vanished. Paypal (owned by ebay) refused to even investigate this. They asked me to wait for 21 days, and then they wanted me to email them a complaint. They did nothing. Way to go Aussie mates, you struck them in their balls.

  16. suddenoutbreakofpithytags by qualidafial · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Jack Thompson sodomizes a kitten every time a story is tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense."

    Please tag responsibly.

  17. Paypal tried to steal $1200 from my wife by shadowofwind · · Score: 5, Informative

    Paypal claimed the seller had the money, and told the seller we (the buyer) had the money, and lied and stonewalled for months. Finally they just gave the money back without explanation after a state Attourney General inquired on our behalf.

    The previous time I posted this on /., I was modded down as a liar. But unbelievable as the stody is, it is the truth.

    In fairness to Paypal, our experience was shortly after it was purchased by EBay, so probably EBay cleaned it up some since then.

    1. Re:Paypal tried to steal $1200 from my wife by drxenos · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are lying. PayPal wouldn't give me my money back when a seller screwed me over until I threatened to just call my credit card company and do a charge-back.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    2. Re:Paypal tried to steal $1200 from my wife by anomaly256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A mate of mine got scammed once. Bought a game console, seller claimed it was AU and came with 2 games, turned out to be a Jap one with no games. I did some digging, contacted the other buyers this seller had dealt with, and they all claimed exactly the same thing happened to them. I contacted ebay through my friend's account, they investigated and found the seller to be fraudulent and locked his account. However, the seller was long gone by that stage. The mobile # he was passing around was no longer valid. Ebay refused to hand over any information regarding this person who's contact details turned out to be bogus, and paypal refused to hand over the banking information they had provided. Even after acknowledging he was a scammer. Legal proceedings to subpoena this information are in progress. Ebay/Paypal, if you're reading this: Stop protecting these people when you KNOW they commit the crime of fraud. It's only hurting you.

    3. Re:Paypal tried to steal $1200 from my wife by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, and in case it wasn't already obvious, I'm glad you didn't get your way. Your system only serves to hurt people.

  18. Is this issue PayPal or Ebay? by awjr · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I'm reading above, there is a major issue with dodgy sellers on Ebay. Paypal are just handling the payment and offer better safeguards than a transfer to a bank account. TFA is focusing on the fact it would cause a monopoly situation and the ACCC wants competition in the market.

    What actually needs to happen is the ability to have a "one click" report item as dodgy. Ebay gains too much from providing a lax vetting process to ever get serious about it.

    When governments actually get serious about this and start arresting Ebay executives and putting them in prison rather than fining them pathetically small amounts is when we will see them doing something about it.(http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604/bs_afp/franceluxurypiracytrialusebay))

  19. Never been burnt, yet *knock on Woody Allen* by macdaddy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've been using Paypal since the very beginning. I've been using eBay and Yahoo Auctions since they were first established. I was thinking about how much $$$ I've spent on auction items over the years back when I last did my taxes. My purchases peaked in 2002 with just over $16k in purchase. In total I have bought nearly $100k of crap off of them both over the last decade. Amazingly enough I have never been burnt. All of my eBay purchases used PayPal I'm sorry to say. The only time I ever had a problem I simply did a chargeback with my CC. PP got pissed and threatened me; when I said I was going to do a chargeback they transferred me internally to a guy who did the threatening. He was obviously reading prepared material from a script. They never locked my account though. That was before you had to verify yourself to send $$$.

    I moved back in 2003. That prompted me to move to a new bank as well. I was fortunate enough to have put my old bank account into Paypal when I verified my account. When I moved I sure as hell didn't update the info. It remained that way until this Spring when I accidentally forgot to change the payment method from PayPal's default of a bank account to a CC. They realized that my account was closed at that time and unverified my PP account. I had to give them my new bank account info. I hated to do it but I had to complete the purchase. I'm seriously considering signing up for a new account somewhere, using it for 6 months and then closing it just so I can get back to the way it was.

    It's amazing that I've never actually gotten burnt considering how much I've used PP. The vast majority of the equipment I buy is networking gear. I'm pretty careful who I buy from. If I have any feeling that it's not a good seller I move on. I won't buy from anyone on the West coast (too much counterfeit Cisco hardware comes from China into the West coast). I'll even read all the seller's reviews and go back through their past auctions and the buyers to see if it looks legit. I guess being careful pays off. I'm definitely not a PP or eBay shill. I lost a fair bit of money in eBay stock and I think the wannabe bank PayPal should rot in litigation hell, but I never have been burnt.

  20. Already too late for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How this has affected me...

    I used to use eBay and Paypal quite a bit and for the most part I've had good experiences. For quite a while I kept a significant amount of money (nearly $10,000) in my Paypal money market account, earning a fairly decent interest rate (one of the higher rates I could find at the time). I was aware that Paypal was not FDIC insured but I was fairly confident that Paypal wouldn't collapse. I had one eBay purchase where Paypal backed me up and I got a refund (except for shipping). I really didn't have any serious complaints.

    After hearing the news about eBay trying to force the use of Paypal, I had to rethink my position. I was concerned that such a decision would negatively impact their business and made me less secure in keeping my money there. More importantly, I felt I could no longer "invest" in the Paypal business model. Their interest rates had also been dropping so I started looking around at bank accounts. Surprisingly (or maybe not so, in hindsight) I found one that had a better interest rate and transferred my money. Paypal was more convenient and I'm sorry to miss out on that, but Paypal has lost my business (over $10,000 worth) and I'm not going back now.

  21. How CC and Merchant accounts really work.... by ryanhull · · Score: 2, Informative

    Offering a Cash discount (Discount for Cash) is not against ANY CC company or processor agreement. What is NOT allowed is charging a fee for a CC transaction, and / or a minimum / maximum limit of the transaction. Any retailer has the right to offer a discount for cash. What they can't do is list their prices in any advertisement, publication, etc without stipulating that the price shown is for cash. If it's not on the advert, then they can't charge more for a CC transaction. Furthermore, a lot of retailers DO offer a discount for cash. Usually a pittance, 1-3%, but nonetheless a discount. Also, people need to know how to use their check-card at retailers as well, so that they don't get hit with transaction fees from their bank or the retailers processing agent. If anyone has a check-card / cash-card, etc. that is labeled as MC or VISA, and is tied to a checking account, etc., make sure you choose CREDIT, and not debit as the payment method. If you choose debit, and type in your PIN, you get charges, not the retailer. YMMV. I've done POS work and have dealt with several of these terms and conditions. You'd be surprised how quickly a merchant gets rid of those minimums or fees when you complain to the CC company about their deceptive practices. When they do this sort of backhanded crap, and get reported enough times, the merchant and/or CC company will pull their merchant account, and/or fine them for violating the terms of the agreement they have in place. Works for MC, VISA, DISC. Not sure about AMEX, et al. Just an FYI.

    1. Re:How CC and Merchant accounts really work.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of the Visa/Mastercard debit cards, I still don't understand why anyone would want one. While this apparently has improved recently, you have fewer protections against fraud and less ability to charge back. Many of the protections you do have are voluntary on the part of the bank, whereas most of the protections you have with a credit card are mandated by federal law (such as a $50 maximum liability in the event of fraud). Not to mention that with a credit card, if you do a reasonable chargeback in good faith then the credit card company is generally on your side and they tend to have plenty of leverage against the merchant. I have personally never needed to do this and I suspect that the ease with which it could be done has something to do with that (i.e. something of a deterrant). If you use a credit card responsibly (that is, as a form of payment and NOT as a loan) and pay the balance in full each month, then you don't pay interest or any other fees (I refuse to carry a card with an annual fee; tell them that, and most companies will agree to waive it). Credit cards also have one other (potentially big) advantage: even if you never use one, it will increase the total amount of credit available to you which will improve the ratio of credit in use vs. credit available and this can improve your credit score (no, I am most definitely NOT a financial advisor and this is my personal opinion, not financial advice).

      I can easily see why banks like the debit cards since they get to charge a per-transaction fee (to you or the merchant). It amused me when my local bank teller offered me a debit card and I politely told her that they will never catch me carrying one because she seemed to understand why I would say that with no need for further explanation. No one really thinks that banks have been promoting the hell out of debit cards for no reason, do they? But from the perspective of a cardholder, just tell me one good reason why debit cards are worthwhile, just one thing they routinely do or one feature they commonly have that a credit card doesn't that negates their disadvantages. I really want to know.

    2. Re:How CC and Merchant accounts really work.... by ryanhull · · Score: 0

      I agree with most of your post, but there were a few things in there that need cleared up, and I'll try my best here.

      You mentioned that not even using a card, the bank will increase your credit limit. That's not always a good thing. Considering your credit score, one of the things creditors do is look at your total debt to income ratio, as well as total available unsecured credit.

      That's where it can hurt your score. You can have 5 cards, each with a 20k limit, and your score will go down. Why? Because at any time, you could choose to go 100k in the hole with those cards. It's a small part of the calculation, but nonetheless, meaningful.

      I personally only keep 2 credit cards, and ensure their upper limit never exceeds 10k. I have no use for a higher limit, and if I did, I would simply call them and have it raised temporarily for that particular purpose.

      I think the only benefit that debit-cards have are the fact that they tie directly into a bank account. Now now, most people use them in place of checks. Faster, and easier to reconcile, IMO.

      But you're correct in saying, that debit cards DO NOT have the protections of Credit Cards, and anyone who uses them really should know the risks of using them instead of a real Credit Card before making a major purchase.

  22. Misleading Title, DRAFT and PROPOSES, idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hey, This isn't a done deal yet.

    eBay can still sit on the current situation where everyone is required to offer PayPal.

    It's the banning of all other payment methods that the ACCC has PROPOSED eBay put on hold for further review.

    Like aways, slashdotters don't RTFA.

    1. Re:Misleading Title, DRAFT and PROPOSES, idiots by Jm_aus · · Score: 1

      I think "forcing users to use PayPal only" describes the behavior being examined reasonably accurately, though it is actually a proposal to force users to use only PayPal or cash on pickup.

      The notification from the ACCC states that the notice allowing third-line forcing will be withdrawn, but allows a period for a response from any interested parties. The phrase "there is a period for appeals" reflects this accurately. The notice will be withdrawn unless there is a compelling new argument from eBay.

      The title might indeed be misread as you have pointed out.

  23. So, what is the alternative? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone suggest a good alternative to PayPal? eBay seems to have banned everything else that accepts credit cards and many buyers only want to pay by cc, even when you explicitly state that you don't take them. Basically it's impossible to sell anything on fleaBay without a PayPal account I think.

    Maybe an alternative to eBay is needed. Amazon is okay for books and music, but what about other stuff? eBay actually seems like quite a good way to sell some stuff, if it just wasn't for PayPal.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  24. prepaid credit card by the+brown+guy · · Score: 1

    I used to sell perfume testers on eBay, but because I was under 18 and had no credit card (my parents wouldn't let me use theirs) I just bought a prepaid visa with $50 on it, and hooked it up to my paypal account.This way, if paypal ever really wanted my money, then they would be unable to take it from my CC like they normally do (my paypal balance is always a few dollars, and bank account is used solely for paypal). The credit card had nobodys name on it, but an expiry date and the right amount of numbers. They also deposited like $0.77 in my account and asked how much they deposited later to validate my account or w/e.
    Just an offtopic interesting note. Either or.

    --
    Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
  25. Extortionate fee system by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Informative

    Whilst I've been using PayPal for about 8 years now and find it's very useful for paying seller, one fact irks me somewhat, with a premier account they skim money off ALL transactions you receive even if the sender is using funds held in their PayPal account.

    So basically they can charge a lot of money just to make one person's account balance go down and another go up - that's never happened when I've done a bank transfer within the UK.

    Daylight fucking robbery.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Extortionate fee system by countach · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it has happened to you. It's called a CREDIT CARD. And it matters not if your balance was in debit at the time. Fees apply.

  26. I don't understand what is your problem with PP by Pentium100 · · Score: 0

    When I buy something from eBay, I use PayPal to pay for it and never encountered any problems. If the item does not arrive after ~40 days I file a dispute and get my money back. PayPal is way cheaper than international bank transfer which would take 10-20EUR depending on the destination country. Even if the seller wants 5% addition to cover PayPal charges it is cheaper than international bank transfer (usually). Also, no a lot of sellers accept credit card directly and paying with PayPal is safer than giving the seller my credit card number

    1. Re:I don't understand what is your problem with PP by ryszard99 · · Score: 1

      is way cheaper than international bank transfer which would take 10-20EUR depending on the destination country
      It costs me EUR4.50 for a "spoed" (ie fast) xfer from NL to AU with ABN-AMRO using internet banking.
      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
  27. Where is the EU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, why hasnt the EU started an anti-trust investigation as well?

  28. Taking their time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, eBay are in no hurry to update their site: http://i27.tinypic.com/8x3m6v.png [tinypic.com] (Screenshot taken 13 June 2008).

    Sellers shouldn't be forced to offer PayPal as a payment option either.

    On a side note, OZtion looks like a good alternative [oztion.com.au].

    1. Re:Taking their time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgot the HTML code: Payment options

  29. Re:Can somebody explain? I will try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends if they have changed their definition of bank in Luxembourg.
    The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was a registered bank in Luxembourg but was only a licensed money lender in the UK but they were still allowed to use the bank in their name becuse it was registered as a bank in Luxembourg.

    Now whatever happened to BCCI?

  30. Good work from the ACCC by chris-chittleborough · · Score: 1
    Those of us who submitted comments on this issue to the ACCC got email this week, with 900k of PDF documents attached. The biggest document (42 pages!) is a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the Paypal-only rule in terms of the ACCC's statutory responsibilities. It's an impressive piece of work, and makes a strong case that those disadvantages outweigh the (small, perhaps even tiny) advantages. (You can get it via this HTML page.)

    Well done, ACCC!

  31. I was one of the 650 by dazman08 · · Score: 1

    And to be honest I'm surprised there weren't more submissions. It's now up to eBay to listen to the market here, or face increasing competition as loyal eBayers jump ship to the likes of Oztion and newer startups. The PayPal move is a clear sign of "double dipping". Imagine if your department store insisted you pay ONLY using their store charge card? People would leave en masse!!

  32. Actually this reminds me of a film.. by dazman08 · · Score: 1

    It's called the Godfather, anyone heard of it? ; )

  33. email from ebay! by ThinkOfaNumber · · Score: 1

    ebay just sent me this email with the subject "Important update: Delay to 17 June changes". Look what they're saying!

    AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

    As you may be aware, a number of changes were scheduled to come into effect on eBay.com.au on 17 June 2008.

    Most of these changes have been delayed by almost one month and are now scheduled to commence on 15 July 2008.

    PayPal Buyer Protection will still increase to $20,000 on 17 June 2008.

    WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?

    SELLING ON EBAY.COM.AU
    Current policies regarding accepted payment methods still apply. This means PayPal is required on all listings on eBay.com.au. Other payment methods (i.e. bank deposit, cheque/money order) may also be offered until 15 July 2008.

    As previously communicated any listings that do not comply with eBay's Accepted Payments Policy will be removed. We strongly recommend that in order to ensure your listings comply with the Accepted Payments Policy you remove any details of payment methods other than PayPal or pay on pick up within the item description. Listings that have other payment methods offered within the payment options field will be allowed to expire as these options will not be displayed to buyers from 15 July 2008.

    There are a small number of categories where PayPal is not mandatory. There are also some categories that do not qualify for PayPal Buyer and Seller Protection. Learn more about these excluded categories.
    ? http://mail.ebay.com.au/op/c/85246396a2II2bde88a16II18bd769II88015ff01f

    BUYING ON EBAY.COM.AU
    As mentioned PayPal Buyer Protection will still increase to $20,000 on 17 June 2008.

    To ensure you benefit from PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, eBay strongly recommends you use PayPal when paying for your purchases on eBay.com.au.

    >From 15 July 2008 the available payment methods will be limited to PayPal, Visa/MasterCard, or pay on pick up.
    Please note that some of our onsite communications will still refer to changes taking place on 17 June 2008. These communications are being updated and should reflect the new date of 15 July 2008 within the coming days.

    WHY ARE THESE CHANGES HAPPENING?

    The decision to delay these changes was made by eBay following the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) draft notice issued on Thursday 12 June 2008.

    eBay released a media statement on Friday 13 June regarding the ACCC's draft notice.

    The statement reads as follows:

    ACCC draft notice undermines online consumer protection

    eBay will continue to fight for safety benefits for consumers

    13 June 2008: eBay challenges yesterday's Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) draft notice and is disappointed that the ACCC's current view delays the opportunity to provide consumers a more secure way to shop on eBay.com.au with confidence.

    eBay intends to work with the ACCC and hopes to achieve a final outcome which has the safety and security of eBay's members as its paramount objective. eBay will delay the removal of other payment methods from the site until Tuesday 15 July.

    PayPal offers consumers a range of payment choices, including bank transfer and credit cards. It's a safer and easier online payment system that significantly enhances protection for eBay buyers and sellers.

    eBay is pleased to confirm that PayPal buyer protection will jump to $20,000 on eBay.com.au for purchases paid for using PayPal from Tuesday 17 June.

    eBay believes the consumer benefits of this initiative are worth fighting for on behalf of its buyers which will ultimately benefit sellers.

    Regards
    The eBay team

    This email was sent from eBay International AG in accordance with the eBay user agreement.
    If you have a question, contact eBay here http://mail.ebay.com.au/op/c/145d5b1e25II2bde88a16II18bd769II88015ff0