|
 |
| | | Author: | bb442684  | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 16:28 | | Subject: | BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 221 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Brettj666 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 16:41 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
While I agree that the more options would be better for sellers, it's probably
not better for Brinklink.
Multiple payment sources means multiple reconciliations.
Personal cheques can bounce, mailed payments can take time and what
If "I sent in payment" is used as an excuse to avoid fees while some dishonest
seller.
Since most sellers take Paypal, it's more likely that its what they use and
the one revenue source and convenience is probably worth the 3%.
I think most people would love a true competitor to PayPal, but also, in a society
that still requires money, I think few of us, if we were owners of PayPal, would
see a reason to reduce revenue by reducing fees.
It's simply a cost of doing business
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 16:57 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | I think most people would love a true competitor to PayPal, but also, in a society
that still requires money, I think few of us, if we were owners of PayPal, would
see a reason to reduce revenue by reducing fees.
|
I have been having a very excellent experience receiving payments via Google
Wallet for BrickLink orders. It may prove to be a potent competitor to PayPal.
--Todd
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | I think most people would love a true competitor to PayPal, but also, in a society
that still requires money, I think few of us, if we were owners of PayPal, would
see a reason to reduce revenue by reducing fees.
|
I have been having a very excellent experience receiving payments via Google
Wallet for BrickLink orders. It may prove to be a potent competitor to PayPal.
--Todd
|
You mean 1 excellent Google Wallet experience out of 10 BL orders, 8 choose Paypal:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=781325
Doesn't sound like a potent competitor at all. 
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:56 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Brickwilbo writes:
Well, the count is now 3 excellent Google Wallet experience  out of 28 BL orders,
with 4 choosing personal check and the remaining 21 choosing PayPal.
PayPal is amazingly well entrenched (largely because of its historical foothold
in eBay, I'm told), but I wouldn't count out competitors like Google
Wallet and Amazon WebPay[*] just yet.
--Todd
[*] I had one buyer request that I accept payments via Amazon WebPay. I didn't
have that option available, so they sent a personal check, which I was completely
happy with.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Kevin.NXT | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
Isn't it up to Bricklink to decide how to accept payment. I think it is very
practical they take PayPal, as most of all transactions are with PayPal.
I would imagine to admin costs of managing lots of different payment streams.
The current system is mostly automated, only payments that don't go through
the form need a human.
There have been estimates by others that Bricklink Limited gets about $1 million
per month. Most likely they have some better contracts with PayPal than the average
seller.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:02 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Kevin.NXT writes:
| | Isn't it up to Bricklink to decide how to accept payment.
|
Hi Kevin,
Do you mean that BrickLink entered into a non-compete agreement with PayPal,
such that BrickLink is disallowed from accepting payments via a competing service
such as Google Wallet? Or that in terms of the PayPal agreement specifically,
PayPal mandates the terms under which BrickLink may accept payment?
| | I think it is very
practical they take PayPal, as most of all transactions are with PayPal.
|
It is very handy, for sure!
| | There have been estimates by others that Bricklink Limited gets about $1 million
per month. Most likely they have some better contracts with PayPal than the average
seller.
|
Wow, awesome! $12M yearly revenues?! That is seriously cool!!
--Todd
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Kevin.NXT | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:16 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | In Suggestions, Kevin.NXT writes:
| | Isn't it up to Bricklink to decide how to accept payment.
|
Hi Kevin,
Do you mean that BrickLink entered into a non-compete agreement with PayPal,
such that BrickLink is disallowed from accepting payments via a competing service
such as Google Wallet? Or that in terms of the PayPal agreement specifically,
PayPal mandates the terms under which BrickLink may accept payment?
|
I forgot to add a question mark at the end of that. It was meant to be a rhetorical
question stating that it is up to Bricklink to decide how they get their fees.
| |
| | I think it is very
practical they take PayPal, as most of all transactions are with PayPal.
|
It is very handy, for sure!
| | There have been estimates by others that Bricklink Limited gets about $1 million
per month. Most likely they have some better contracts with PayPal than the average
seller.
|
Wow, awesome! $12M yearly revenues?! That is seriously cool!!
--Todd
|
That's not coming from me and is just an estimate, so it isn't actually
known if that is correct.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Kevin.NXT writes:
| | In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | In Suggestions, Kevin.NXT writes:
|
I forgot to add a question mark at the end of that.
|
Aha!
| | It was meant to be a rhetorical
question stating that it is up to Bricklink to decide how they get their fees.
|
Of course! Hence the request in Suggestions (for BL 2.0) rather than a crazy-talk
demand.
Whatever BrickLink decides, I will happily adhere to. I thought it would be ok
to suggest alternatives.
Cheers,
--Todd
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Daave | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:04 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| How many times a week would our multi-billionaire owner take a trip to the bank
to pay in is stack of $10 cheques?
It would cost more than the PayPal fees amount to monthly to start up his helicopter.
Your naive conclusion that they care about the PayPal fees seems to be fuelled
by some kind of anti PayPal attitude..
Anywhere online that creates that much traffic through PayPal probably gets a
discount anyway..
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Wattsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Daave writes:
| | How many times a week would our multi-billionaire owner take a trip to the bank
to pay in is stack of $10 cheques?
It would cost more than the PayPal fees amount to monthly to start up his helicopter.
Your naive conclusion that they care about the PayPal fees seems to be fuelled
by some kind of anti PayPal attitude..
Anywhere online that creates that much traffic through PayPal probably gets a
discount anyway..
|
They get a substantial discount.
If you go to payPal fees page here:
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees
Look at the very top right corner, there is a link that says "request a quote"
if you have annual sales over $100,000. If you click it, BrickLink would be under
the highest bracket of $1MILLION annual sales under the drop box selection.
BL gets a nice discount for sure.
Chris
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 18:39 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, budgetkids writes:
| | Look at the very top right corner, there is a link that says "request a quote"
if you have annual sales over $100,000. If you click it, BrickLink would be under
the highest bracket of $1MILLION annual sales under the drop box selection.
|
That is so awesome!! Go AFOLs!!!
Man, I remember when there were just a few hundred of us (in rec.toys.lego),
and before that just a few dozen (in alt.toys.lego). Coming here and seeing 280,000+
registered members and 200+ MILLION parts parts available in 7600+ stores blows
my mind! Waycool. Dan built a very impressive empire.
--Todd
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 19:58 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, budgetkids writes:
| | In Suggestions, Daave writes:
| | How many times a week would our multi-billionaire owner take a trip to the bank
to pay in is stack of $10 cheques?
It would cost more than the PayPal fees amount to monthly to start up his helicopter.
Your naive conclusion that they care about the PayPal fees seems to be fuelled
by some kind of anti PayPal attitude..
Anywhere online that creates that much traffic through PayPal probably gets a
discount anyway..
|
They get a substantial discount.
If you go to payPal fees page here:
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees
Look at the very top right corner, there is a link that says "request a quote"
if you have annual sales over $100,000. If you click it, BrickLink would be under
the highest bracket of $1MILLION annual sales under the drop box selection.
BL gets a nice discount for sure.
Chris
|
That would have to be 100k in monthly sales though
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Daave writes:
| | How many times a week would our multi-billionaire owner take a trip to the bank
to pay in is stack of $10 cheques?
|
Probably about zero. That's what interns are for. 
By the way, I just deposited two checks today while sitting at my desk — using
my cell phone to take a photo of the front and back of the checks using my bank's
iPhone app. Took about 1 minute each. I love modern technology!
| | It would cost more than the PayPal fees amount to monthly to start up his helicopter.
|
Hahah, true dat.
| | Your naive conclusion that they care about the PayPal fees
|
I assume they don't care about the PayPal fees. But for all I know, accepting
Google Wallet (for example) might still be something they might consider. I figure
it's worth asking. As it happens, I currently have more funds in my Google
Wallet account than I do in my PayPal account, because I just swept my balance
clear on my PayPal account. So as of right now, paying via Google Wallet is more
convenient for me. I would imagine the same for some others. I also know of at
least one person who doesn't have PayPal but does have Google Wallet (which
is how I found out about Google Wallet and was encouraged to sign up to accept
payments via Google Wallet).
| | seems to be fuelled by some kind of anti PayPal attitude..
|
Well, true...somewhat...but it's (as noted above) it would also be more convenient
for me to pay via Google Wallet at least some of the time.
| | Anywhere online that creates that much traffic through PayPal probably gets a
discount anyway..
|
I would hope so!!
Kind regards,
--Todd
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | therobo | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 17:30 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
Have you checked if your suggested payment methods are available in HongKong?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, therobo writes:
| | Have you checked if your suggested payment methods are available in HongKong?
|
I believe Google Wallet is available in Hong Kong. (Unless I'm reading Google's
help pages wrong.)
I suppose Money Orders and checks could get complicated over international borders,
in the absence of a U.S. subsidiary for payment processing, which may or may
not be feasible.
Anything is possible, if there is enough demand for it to make it happen!
It's hard for me to imagine any BL seller not accepting payment via PayPal,
but since I've dealt with two buyers already who don't have PayPal, it's
not impossible for me to imagine.
--Todd
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | ...it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else.
|
I don't understand this.
I *always* use my Paypal balance to pay for stuff. If I don't have a balance,
I don't buy it. Are you saying that the people I buy from should not have
to pay Paypal a fee?
--
Marc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 19:42 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | I don't understand this.
I *always* use my Paypal balance to pay for stuff. If I don't have a balance,
I don't buy it. Are you saying that the people I buy from should not have
to pay Paypal a fee?
|
No, I certainly wouldn't presume to dictate what fees people should and should
not have to pay to PayPal. I am simply saying that the fees PayPal collects on
certain types of transactions make me uncomfortable on moral and philosophical
grounds, and for that reason I personally prefer to avoid PayPal as much as I
am able to. Note that Google Wallet does not levy fees for a pure money transfer
as PayPal does.
So I find Google's rules to be fair, and I find PayPal's rules to be
unscrupulous. That is just my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.
Here is a better explanation of why I feel what PayPal does is unfair to its
users:
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=782670
--Todd
p.s. Is there a way to direct followups to the Payment Methods forums? It wasn't
my intention to cause a discussion in the Suggestions forum.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Made_In_Bricks | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 19:42 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I think I would use the system for more than a month to get a good idea of how
everything works and also realize forum posts don't amount to much unless
they tick off an admin or maybe I missed something
Ken
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
Voted No. Bricklink's business, BL's choice. If that choice turns people
away, so be it. When we use the site, we agree with their choices and policies.
Scott
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 20:30 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
| | Voted No. Bricklink's business, BL's choice. If that choice turns people
away, so be it. When we use the site, we agree with their choices and policies.
|
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that PayPal was turning me away. It isn't.
I'll use PayPal if that is what BrickLink wishes. I simply was writing into
Suggestions to request consideration of an alternative. (Not for BL to stop accepting
PayPal, but for BL to entertain the idea of accepting Google Wallet in addition
to PayPal.)
I agree — if PayPal turns people away, so be it.
Cheers,
--Todd
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | QCBricks | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 20:40 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | In Suggestions, QCBricks writes:
|
Voted No. Bricklink's business, BL's choice. If that lack of
choice turns people
| | | | away, so be it. When we use the site, we agree with their choices and policies.
|
|
Fixed my original.
Scott
| | I'm sorry if I gave the impression that PayPal was turning me away. It isn't.
I'll use PayPal if that is what BrickLink wishes. I simply was writing into
Suggestions to request consideration of an alternative. (Not for BL to stop accepting
PayPal, but for BL to entertain the idea of accepting Google Wallet in addition
to PayPal.)
I agree — if PayPal turns people away, so be it.
Cheers,
--Todd
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | connie | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 20:13 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fibblesnork writes:
| | Dear BrickLink owners:
I think it would be really neat if BrickLink 2.0 accepted payments using other
methods in addition to PayPal — e.g., Google Wallet, Cashier's check, USPS
Money Order, etc. The more options, the better.
It's not so much a technical request; I have accounts with both PayPal and
Goggle Wallet. The reason I suggest it is because it bothers me on moral and
philosophical grounds that PayPal charges BrickLink a fee to receive money when
that money already has had a fee taken out of it when the sender received that
money from someone else. In this case (which I believe is quite common), PayPal
gets to have its lunch and eat it too. And I don't think that's fair.
I may be in the minority, but I would be more than happy to spend ~$.50 on a
postage stamp and ~$1.00 on a Money Order to send BrickLink a check through the
mail, in orer to avoid BrickLink being charged a fee by PayPal.
Naturally, there are cases when PayPal legitimately needs to charge a transfer
fee — for example, if someone pays BrickLink using their linked credit or debit
card — but in many (most?) cases, a sender/seller will already have a pre-existing
PayPal balance... and in my view it is reprehensible of PayPal to slap BrickLink
with a fee to receive the money in those cases.
Sincerely,
--Todd Lehman, very satisfied BrickLink user
|
Where to start..... First when I had a storefront the amount I paid to process
a credit card + a per transaction fee was a lot more then Paypal charges. Then
there was the bank charges per deposit on a business account.
Don't know where you can find a money order for $1.00. I did find it rather
amusing to see that you offer people a discount if they use a money order or
cashier's check when the cost and time to get those, plus mail it out is
a lot more then 3%. IMO
As for double dipping....ever met the Federal, state and local governments?
One receives a paycheck for say $100.00 gross. Taxes come out leaving say $80.00.
Wait, it is 2014 now so lets say $75.00. He takes that to a store to buy some
ice melt and has to pay a sales tax. The store receiving the money has to call
some of it income and thus he gets to pay Fed./state/local taxes on that. Should
you decide to put some of what's left into a savings account you can have
the honor of paying taxes on the interest. Should you die on the way to the
bank then your surviving whoevers get to pay about 1/2 of what's left in
taxes.
So that is the way the game is played. Everyone gets their lunch and eat it
too except the poor person doing the actual work. That poor orginal $100.00
gross income was cut 100 ways in paying taxes and buttering everyone's bread.
Connie
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb442684 | | Posted: | Jan 3, 2014 20:55 | | Subject: | Re: BL 2.0 suggestion for seller fee collection | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, connie writes:
| | Where to start..... First when I had a storefront the amount I paid to process
a credit card + a per transaction fee was a lot more then Paypal charges. Then
there was the bank charges per deposit on a business account.
|
Interesting!
| | Don't know where you can find a money order for $1.00.
|
I didn't have the exact handy at the time so I rounded down (which is why
I wrote "~$1.00" rather than "$1.00" ).
You can find a domestic money order at the USPS for $1.20 (up to $500).
| | I did find it rather
amusing to see that you offer people a discount if they use a money order or
cashier's check when the cost and time to get those, plus mail it out is
a lot more then 3%.
|
But comparing percentages with fixed costs is kind of like comparing apples and
oranges, isn't it? For example, if you're paying $4 (at TD Bank) for
a cashier's check in the amount of $50, then $4 is a lot more than 3% of
$50 (= $1.50). But if you're paying $10 (at BoA, Citibank, Wells Fargo, etc.)
for a cashier's check in the amount of $1000, then $10 is a lot less than
3% of $1000 (= $30.00). So it swings both ways. Additionally, some checking accounts
offer a small number of no-fee cashier's checks per year, so cashier's
checks do not necessarily always incur a fee. I agree with you that money orders
and cashier's checks are more work for the sender in almost all cases, though.
Certainly a cashier's check is no simple task, unless you already happen
to be making a trip to the bank to talk to a teller. But everyone leads different
lives, and it's tough to know what's hard or easy for everyone. I have
always been a fan of options.
| | IMO
As for double dipping....ever met the Federal, state and local governments?
One receives a paycheck for say $100.00 gross. Taxes come out leaving say $80.00.
Wait, it is 2014 now so lets say $75.00. He takes that to a store to buy some
ice melt and has to pay a sales tax. The store receiving the money has to call
some of it income and thus he gets to pay Fed./state/local taxes on that. Should
you decide to put some of what's left into a savings account you can have
the honor of paying taxes on the interest. Should you die on the way to the
bank then your surviving whoevers get to pay about 1/2 of what's left in
taxes.
So that is the way the game is played. Everyone gets their lunch and eat it
too except the poor person doing the actual work. That poor orginal $100.00
gross income was cut 100 ways in paying taxes and buttering everyone's bread.
|
That's a nice example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Minnesota
Canada, Ontario
Netherlands, Gelderland
United Kingdom, England
Lithuania, Panevėžys
Germany, Berlin
