First, I wouldn't consider it an "inflated charge". It's an expense to the seller, and buyers usually end up paying for those costs. The seller needs to cover expenses and make "at least" a reasonable profit or they will be non-sellers.
quote:
Originally posted by bjt:
I am curious as to what you think about sellers adding in an inflated charge to cover their PayPal fees.
I have no problem with it. If I don't like a seller's terms, I won't buy from them. If other buyers don't like a seller's terms, the seller will make less money, go out of business, or figure out they need to make a change. On the other hand, if charging fees causes a seller to be more profitable then non-charging sellers, then the charging seller will be "rewarded" and others will soon follow. I'm fairly keen on letting the market place control things.
Some sellers don't take Paypal. It appears more do since ebay bought Paypal. Unless an item is a must have, I won't "go for it" unless they take Paypal. It's usually not worth the hassle to get a money order. I had an auction close a couple of days ago for something I would have been willing to pay the Paypal fees, but since they didn't take Paypal, I didn't bid. From now on, I'm going ask those sellers if I can. Thanks - good idea.
P.S. If bjt are your initials, have you ever wished you had an "l" instead of a "j"?