For the life of me, I've never been able to figure out why people make such a big deal about who pays the PayPal fees.
I understand why PayPal has the rule: to avoid all of the complaints, disputed transactions, and the like, that they would have to deal with if the rule was not hard and fast. The seller absorbs the fees, period. This makes it easy to resolve disputes. Were it not for this rule, then they would have to employ a team (or much bigger team than they already employ) of analysts to examine the wording of thousands of individual transactions to determine, under common law contract rules, what the parties had agreed to (either explicitly or implicitly). They don't want to get into the dispute resolution business any more than they need to, and thus the draconian rule. Much like credit card transactions, the seller cannot pass on the fees to the buyer. PayPal views the seller (recipient of funds) as being their "customer" much like VISA views the restaurant that sells you a meal and takes your credit card for payment as their customer.
But all of this aside, the issue of who is to absorb the 3% fee for a PayPal transfer is just one element of the bargaining process. What matters to me as a buyer is: 1) what the full cost will be to me, including the cost of either a) a money order, b) a wire transfer, or c) PayPal fees, on top of what the item itself costs, relative to 2) what my full cost of the same or similar item would be from another seller. Thus, the "issue" of who is to absorb the 3% becomes a non-issue. What matters to me is, given what the total cost will be, is it worth it to me considering any other alternatives I may have as a buyer? What that then comes down to is "yes" or "no", end of story.
The only other possible issue is whether passing on these fees is "ethical". I've never done much selling via PayPal, but would probably absorb the fee myself (per PayPal rules, to be safe) but I'd make sure I asked a high enough price for the item itself that I'd be satisfied with the net amount received. If it were a high priced item (such that 3% of the selling price became too much for me to be willing to absorb), then I'd ask for a money order or bank transfer only. My rule might be, for example, PayPal is not accepted if the sales price exceeds $1,000 (or whatever amount).
I've seen so many of these threads, here and on other forums, that I'm getting numb. To me, it is equivilant to arguing about how much the "list price" is on a new car versus how much the dealer is willing to give you on your "trade in" car. What matters is how much you will have to pay, net. This can then be compared to what it would cost you to buy an identical new car elsewhere (after talking the dealer down off of the list price) less what you could sell your used car for outright in a private sale. Those are the two alternatives. Yet, people are frequently suckered in by thinking they are getting a great "trade in" allowance for their old car; they know it is not worth that much, and this gives them some sort of emotional "high" to think the dealer is so foolish. In the meantime, he has stuck firmly to his list (or "sticker") price on the new car, but would have gladly knocked essentially the same amount off of the list price had the buyer bought the same car outright, without a trade in.
It's more or less the same thing going on with the PayPal fee wars, IMO. It's no different than the "issue" of who is to absorb the shipping costs, which is also a "non-issue" from a full cost perspective.
) those fees are taken on by the seller. However, it's not a perfect world and I do agree that the end cost is what matters. If you were selling a PPA for $300 + a 3% PayPal fee and memberX was selling an identical amp in similar condition for $350 w/no PayPal fee, I'm not going to buy the amp from him just out of principle or because I think you are wrong to charge a fee. The end cost is what matters, and even with the fee your amp would be cheaper than his so I'd likely buy from you. Still, it's wrong from an ethical standpoint.
