reddeer
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:13:31 PM new
Ouch
Sorry, link removed due to the fact the info has changed.
[ edited by reddeer on May 17, 2001 06:57 AM ]
|
stamper
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:24:28 PM new
That Hurts!
Guess they will need one of these..
http://www.cheapskatemonthly.com/rdrp/index.html
|
jumpinjacko
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:25:00 PM new
AND THE RICH GET RICHER...
ISN’T THE BANKING INDUSTRY
WONDERFUL...?
|
jumpinjacko
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:29:00 PM new
AS MOST CC USERS WOULD SAY..
IT’S ONLY 20 BUCKS A MONTH..I CAN AFFORD IT
BESIDES I NEED THAT BEANIE BABY FOR MY COLLECTION...
|
pattaylor
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:29:48 PM new
stamper,
Just making the link clickable for you:
http://www.cheapskatemonthly.com/rdrp/index.html
Hope it works. 
Pat
[email protected]
|
eventer
|
posted on May 16, 2001 09:30:39 PM new
Wonderful..another nail in the coffin.
|
ladyfargo
|
posted on May 17, 2001 01:11:40 AM new
I went to the above link, but there was nothing that even remotely relates to what you guys are saying.
|
rarriffle
|
posted on May 17, 2001 02:31:01 AM new
I agree with ladyfargo, where is online cc info? I even bookmarked the site thinking may be I missed something?
|
copperqueen
|
posted on May 17, 2001 03:29:48 AM new
Click on reddeer's link, scroll down, left column, under Free Activity Center, click on credit card calculator.
In stamper's link, you have to sign up to use it, but it's the Rapid Debt Reduction Calculator that the article is talking about. At the bottom of the page, you can click to see an example of how it works.
Pretty scary stuff.
jumpin jack,
I saw in a past thread how much your sales were last year. 'Nuff said!
NOT copperqueen on feebay
|
paperfan
|
posted on May 17, 2001 04:43:30 AM new
Could someone please give us the Cliff's Notes version so we can all suffer together? It's now the 17th and her Thought For Today is something about divorce and financial ruin. Evidently to access the archived tips one has to pay money to join / subscribe to her newsletter. If reddeer's news is so painful, I'd better keep my money in my pocket...I may need it. So, please give us the synopsis of the Thought For Yesterday!
|
capotasto
|
posted on May 17, 2001 04:49:25 AM new
Gee why not post the url of the relevant page?
Why start a thread that's meaningless without it?
This thread, so far, is a waste of bandwidth.
|
eventer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 05:19:10 AM new
capotasto,
When reddeer posted this, the url was correct. Unfortunately, Mary's site changes each day.
IF someone is a member of this service, there's an archive of the previous Thought of the Day listings & can post the url now currently associated w/reddeer's original post.
|
eventer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 05:22:38 AM new
Yikes! I'm not paying $18.00 a year to read Mary's musings.
Anyway, the gist of what yesterday's article said was that MBNA has now stated that person to person transfers of funds using MasterCard will be treated by them as cash advances not regular credit card purchases.
If ALL the bankcard issuers follow this trend, anyone using PayPal or BillPoint to pay for an item will have their purchase charged as a cash advance & pay the interest fees associated with such.
This could have a tremendous impact on people's decision to use PP/BP or other on-line payment agencies.
|
yisgood
|
posted on May 17, 2001 06:46:51 AM new
This was Paypal's original problem. They believed that since they were not the actual merchant, the transaction was the same as purchasing a money order, therefore there could be no charge backs. The merchant banks argued that therefore it would be cash advances and subject to the charges. In order to avoid the charges, paypal had to agree to be a merchant and that allowed charge backs. Paypal also added the "quasi cash" choice on their site but made it optional.
There is now one service that is run directly by a bank and it also happens to be the service that I consider the best one - C2it. Since they are the bank, the merchant and the service, they can make the decision on how they want to run their service and what fees they want to charge. This might be somewhat of an "unfair advantage" over Paypal but the fact that Paypal wasn't a real bank let them play havoc with the rules themselves.
http://www.ygoodman.com
[email protected]
|
reddeer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 06:55:49 AM new
Ooops, I had no idea that page was going to change so fast? My bad.
|
vargas
|
posted on May 17, 2001 06:56:23 AM new
Actually, this could be good news! About the only folks paying with PayPal would be those paying via existing account balances or echeck.
We sellers could all cancel our business accounts and go back to using free personal accounts to accept money. No more worries about going over a $100/month credit card acceptance limit.
That is, until PayPal sets new limits on personal accounts.
|
flynn
|
posted on May 17, 2001 06:58:25 AM new
Soooo, what does that mean for folks like me who actually run a business and ocassionaly have someone that pays with Paypal> For some reason, most pay using my own secure server. Anyway, I have a legitimate business license and such, so would my customer still be charged for the person-to-person cash advance fee in my case?
|
katiyana
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:07:04 AM new
I got notice of this in my last bill.... That really bites! I supposed I can switch to my other CC until THEY start doing this too.. then it'll be bank funded or existing balances for me as a buyer from now on... Oh that's REALLY going to hurt Paypal/Billpoint now....
Wonder if Bidpay users will also have this extra fee to worry about??
|
reddeer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:10:06 AM new
Katiyana
I imagine BidPay would fall under the same guidelines, as the buyers are using a CC to make the purchase of the MO.
Can you tell us what the wording on your last bill is?
|
jwpc
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:12:39 AM new
I have an idea we will hear from PayPal regarding this soon and how it effects their customers.
I for one am not going to worry about it till then, and actually for those of us who also have our own merchant accounts, the elimination of systems like PayPal and such would be a plus to us, as it would eliminate a multitude of those unable to accept credit cards directly, and make our TOS payments more desirable than a no-credit card merchant.
|
eventer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:24:37 AM new
I can't see PayPal or BillPoint sitting idly by on this. If this trend extends to all credit cards, it could be a disaster for them, as well as the smaller seller who doesn't have the traffic to afford a merchant account.
Okay, who starts the first thread on the best place to get a merchant account?
|
katiyana
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:27:28 AM new
Reddeer - I will happily type in the text from the announcement later today - it was on an insert in my bill.
For those of you interested, I will provide the text desribing these new person-to-person charges later today/tonight so you can all see what I would guess, will become the "standard" soon.
|
reddeer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:30:28 AM new
Thanks Katiyana!
Myself I quit offering CC payments [except BidPay] some time back, so this isn't going to affect me much.
I never did like dealing with middlemen.
P.S. And my sales are stronger than ever.
|
Julesy
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:33:59 AM new
I wonder if this will effect chargebacks. If the cc companies start categorizing these transactions as cash advances, and not purchases, will it lessen the risk for sellers?
|
eventer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:39:57 AM new
Julesy,
I wondered the same thing. Can you DO a chargeback on a cash advance?
|
reddeer
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:43:09 AM new
Good question? Perhaps the CC companies are growing weary of dealing with charge backs?
|
katiyana
|
posted on May 17, 2001 07:48:48 AM new
I was thinking the EXACT same thing was I was reading this (beyond wondering how it'll affect my Paypal receipts) - although I've never gone through a chargeback either as a buyer or a seller myself, I think the # has gone up, and I bet the CC companies are getting tired of it...
I suppose as long as my volume of sales stays the same, but payments are coming in the old fashioned way through cashier's checks and money orders, I'll just fund my Paypal account from my bank account to keep using my PP debit card. Oh, and I'll get the 1.5% cash back without fees to offset it again.. Hmmm.... that could really benefit me actually... I'd imagine with the lost fees by people NOT using Paypal quite so much, they'll probably discontinue that program eventually.. 8(
|
uaru
|
posted on May 17, 2001 08:01:25 AM new
Isn't it odd that there isn't a news story on this? Wouldn't there be a news story if suddenly services that have been in the news for months are being reclassified as 'cash advances'?
Go ahead and call me a doubting Thomas.
|
yisgood
|
posted on May 17, 2001 08:05:06 AM new
No, you can not charge back a cash advance. Yes, this move will protect sellers in two ways. 1) no charge backs 2) buyers will stop paying by credit card and expecting the seller to eat the fees. I get buyers who tell me they don't have the time to sign up for moneyzap (back when it was free) or C2it (which even PAYS THEM $10) and they want to use their CC with Paypal. Why should I lose money because of their laziness? These fees are only MY "cost of doing business" if there is an advantage to ME. There is no advantage to me to accept paypal over C2it (and a lot of disadvantage, but that's been covered already.) Now that it will cost the buyer, they will get off their lazy duffs (actually, sitting at a PC, they don't even have to do that) and look for ways to save money.
Incidentally, folks may not realize that you can charge back an ACH transfer (though it's not called a charge back) but you have to go to the bank and file an affidavit of fraud. Unlike a CC charge back, it should not be filed frivolously because there are penalties for doing so. So while it is not as easy to do as a CC charge back, it can be done in cases of fraud.
I don't think these new fees have anything to do with CC companies getting tired of charge backs. They don't really care. They just stick it to the seller, along with additional fees. However, now that a real bank and credit card company, C2it, has entered the arena (and more will follow), the CC banks are finding themselves on the receiving end of charge backs and seriously dicussing tightening the rules that let anyone charge back anything for any silly reason. C2it told me that they would have denied some of the stupid charge backs they have seen (like a husband charging back Billpoint payments because his wife didn't have his permission). And that's good news for everybody.
http://www.ygoodman.com
[email protected]
|
uaru
|
posted on May 17, 2001 08:14:53 AM new
yisgood C2it told me that they would have denied some of the stupid charge backs they have seen (like a husband charging back Billpoint payments because his wife didn't have his permission).
Explain to me how that works. If my wife or any member of my family uses my credit card without my permission (which I'd never give them) c2it will tell my issuer they are required to deny that chargeback? WHAT!?
|
