In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Credit card check out fees: illegal
jmprecious
Member Posts: 10 ✭✭
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Comments
The seller must list the full price, but may give a discount for non c.c. payments.
its all in the wording. if a seller states that the price will increase by a certain percentage if the buyer uses a card, they are in violation. however if they phrase it as the final price reflects a cash discount that has already been applied. if you choose to pay by any other means then you are not eligible for this discount and you must and xx.xx% to the total they are not breaking the rules.
the devil is in the details. btw, this is clearly stated on the same site you linked too.
its against the merchant agreement rules to ADD fee for using a credit card, but ironically its perfectly legal to SUBTRACT money from the total for using cash.
its all in the wording. if a seller states that the price will increase by a certain percentage if the buyer uses a card, they are in violation. however if they phrase it as the final price reflects a cash discount that has already been applied. if you choose to pay by any other means then you are not eligible for this discount and you must and xx.xx% to the total they are not breaking the rules.
the devil is in the details. btw, this is clearly stated on the same site you linked too.
Yep... +10 Kev hit the X-Ring.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
its against the merchant agreement rules to ADD fee for using a credit card, but ironically its perfectly legal to SUBTRACT money from the total for using cash.
its all in the wording. if a seller states that the price will increase by a certain percentage if the buyer uses a card, they are in violation. however if they phrase it as the final price reflects a cash discount that has already been applied. if you choose to pay by any other means then you are not eligible for this discount and you must and xx.xx% to the total they are not breaking the rules.
the devil is in the details. btw, this is clearly stated on the same site you linked too.
Yep.
Understand too, the seller's perspective. Some of the margins FFL's deal with when selling firearms are exceedingly thin. Many gun buyers can be extremely "cheap" and are looking for the very best deal they can get.
By offering a "cash discounted price" the seller can offer his product at the lowest possible price for those who want that. If someone prefers the convenience of using a credit card, then they can do that without driving up the prices for the cash buyers.
It seems perfectly fair to make people pay for the services/convenience they want and still offer the option of a discounted price for those who don't want the extra services.
The terms, such as "the final price reflects a cash discount" is Pure out and out BS, sellers adding on monies for their cost of doing business. It should not be allowed on any online auction.
In my old auto parts store, I always asked and got a discount for "cash in 30 days" from my suppliers. But I knew at the time of placing the orders what the totals were. I didn't except the warehouses to float a loan for parts I ordered for free. But Not a one of them would try to add monies to a total bill, if I used a credit card to pay for an order on the spot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/business/mastercard-and-visa-settle-antitrust-suit.html
The states that currently have laws regardign the situation will have to update their code based on the findings of the courts. However it is no longer against the Visa/MC agreement to charge extra for using a card.
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Well, I stand corrected on this issue, apparently Big Government has spoken and retailers are free to gouge a little further. Seems to me that it ought to be that no one, retailers or consumers should be double charged for a service that is quite profitable to credit card companies, and one which:
1- attracts more customers to a retailer that is not a cash only business
2- makes it more convenient for a buyer not to have to drive to a post office for a money order
And finally from CaptFun's link is this statement:
Frank Keating, the association's president, said: "Let's be clear - retailers, not consumers, benefit from today's resolution."
""Frank Keating, the association's president, said: "Let's be clear - retailers, not consumers, benefit from today's resolution.""
And did any sellers here lower or waive the additional CC fees for eight months, while the banks lowered their fees as the article states???
It is an individual choice, and seeing folks running to government to get one over on a retailer while bitching about how government is too big and too intrusive is just a tad bit hypocritical.
Brad Steele
So, if they don't keep their word on that agreement/contract what other agreements will they not honor?
Cash is always King, and everybody uses "cash" as an incentive to get a lower price, but that does NOT mean any other form of payment should be allowed to get a surcharge. What if a seller states, "payment by check will be 5% more because I have to go to the bank and deposit it"??
Checks, MO's, CC, cash, are all valid means of payments, and all have good and bad points to them. A buyer should not be charged more for any of them.
quote:Originally posted by jmprecious
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Well, I stand corrected on this issue, apparently Big Government has spoken and retailers are free to gouge a little further. Seems to me that it ought to be that no one, retailers or consumers should be double charged for a service that is quite profitable to credit card companies, and one which:
1- attracts more customers to a retailer that is not a cash only business
2- makes it more convenient for a buyer not to have to drive to a post office for a money order
And finally from CaptFun's link is this statement:
Frank Keating, the association's president, said: "Let's be clear - retailers, not consumers, benefit from today's resolution."
Easy solution. Buy elsewhere.
As a merchant my credit card fees range from 2% to nearly 5% depending on card. In a good year my profit is 6-8% (as an aside, there hasn't been a good year in 4 years). For the cardholder their incentive is often airline miles or such. Sorry, I refuse to give up a small profit margin (or worse, lose money) to purchase vacations for my customers. I already gave til it hurt at the Gov't welfare office.
but seriously, I understand when you selling $1000 firearm on a $50 margin that you dont want to pay a $40 cc fee
My original argument was that sellers who place an add on fee at the end of an auction, were breaking the rules of an agreement they made when they contracted the services of a credit card company, additionally, that the practice had been outlawed in 10 states. Having been shown that this was overturned in an Anti-trust suit initiated by the government, I said " I stand corrected " and further that I was still opposed to the practice. Not being a lawyer I don't know what the effect of this civil lawsuit is on states that have lawyers barring the practice.
But, please, lets not let logic come into the conversation. If you have a store and you put a gun in the case with a price on it, or for that matter a butcher chop that puts a pound of meat in the case, the price is what it is advertised for. Those folks, unlike some of the respondents here, know what the definition of "net profit" is. The price reflects what they can make a profit on their product after paying the rent, the light bill, employee salaries, etc.
That my friends is not an auction. An auction is a gamble that you will make a profit. The people who sell on GB and accept credit cards fully understand that, but some of them want you to weep for the poor guy operating on slim margins. Most of the folks who accept credit cards you will rarely find in a "No Reserve" auction, they are not willing to gamble on profit, they want to insure it.
So Cobra is right, easy solution: vote with your feet...buy elsewhere and that is what I intend to do. There are enough sellers on GB that don't pull this gimmick and I will work with them. End of argument.
Woody [;)]quote:Originally posted by jmprecious
Let me see if I can put a period on this string, although I doubt.
My original argument was that sellers who place an add on fee at the end of an auction, were breaking the rules of an agreement they made when they contracted the services of a credit card company, additionally, that the practice had been outlawed in 10 states. Having been shown that this was overturned in an Anti-trust suit initiated by the government, I said " I stand corrected " and further that I was still opposed to the practice. Not being a lawyer I don't know what the effect of this civil lawsuit is on states that have lawyers barring the practice.
But, please, lets not let logic come into the conversation. If you have a store and you put a gun in the case with a price on it, or for that matter a butcher chop that puts a pound of meat in the case, the price is what it is advertised for. Those folks, unlike some of the respondents here, know what the definition of "net profit" is. The price reflects what they can make a profit on their product after paying the rent, the light bill, employee salaries, etc.
That my friends is not an auction. An auction is a gamble that you will make a profit. The people who sell on GB and accept credit cards fully understand that, but some of them want you to weep for the poor guy operating on slim margins. Most of the folks who accept credit cards you will rarely find in a "No Reserve" auction, they are not willing to gamble on profit, they want to insure it.
So Cobra is right, easy solution: vote with your feet...buy elsewhere and that is what I intend to do. There are enough sellers on GB that don't pull this gimmick and I will work with them. End of argument.
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Then pay with a Postal MO. The CC companies screw the sellers, screw the consumers and screw anybody in between. They charge the seller why should the sellers NOT PASS THE COST ON???
Before you answer think about it, if you were the seller and the sale was $1,000.00. If the guy pays by Postal MO, you get $1,00.00. If he pays by credit card you get $960.00. Do you take $40.00 out of your pocket and just burn it for fun and giggles???
Let me see if I can put a period on this string, although I doubt.
My original argument was that sellers who place an add on fee at the end of an auction, were breaking the rules of an agreement they made when they contracted the services of a credit card company, additionally, that the practice had been outlawed in 10 states. Having been shown that this was overturned in an Anti-trust suit initiated by the government, I said " I stand corrected " and further that I was still opposed to the practice. Not being a lawyer I don't know what the effect of this civil lawsuit is on states that have lawyers barring the practice.
But, please, lets not let logic come into the conversation. If you have a store and you put a gun in the case with a price on it, or for that matter a butcher chop that puts a pound of meat in the case, the price is what it is advertised for. Those folks, unlike some of the respondents here, know what the definition of "net profit" is. The price reflects what they can make a profit on their product after paying the rent, the light bill, employee salaries, etc.
That my friends is not an auction. An auction is a gamble that you will make a profit. The people who sell on GB and accept credit cards fully understand that, but some of them want you to weep for the poor guy operating on slim margins. Most of the folks who accept credit cards you will rarely find in a "No Reserve" auction, they are not willing to gamble on profit, they want to insure it.
So Cobra is right, easy solution: vote with your feet...buy elsewhere and that is what I intend to do. There are enough sellers on GB that don't pull this gimmick and I will work with them. End of argument.
Let me guess, you think taxing the rich is a good idea too.....
I fail to see why a seller should accept a lower net for an item if the purchaser wants the convenience of using a Credit Card.
It is an individual choice, and seeing folks running to government to get one over on a retailer while bitching about how government is too big and too intrusive is just a tad bit hypocritical.
X-ring Don.
That is quite a leap from what I was saying...so, let me guess, that you do more guessing than thinking
Naaaa, sometimes I make leaps of faith too.[;)][:)]
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Damn, never seen this posted anywhere on earth before!
quote:Originally posted by jmprecious
Getting a little tired of people adding 4% to the cost of something when you use your credit card to pay for an item.
Not only does it violate the terms of their agreement with the credit card company, but it is flat out illegal to do so in 10 states.
See this link below from Visa that addresses this subject:
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/checkout_fees/index.html
Then pay with a Postal MO. The CC companies screw the sellers, screw the consumers and screw anybody in between. They charge the seller why should the sellers NOT PASS THE COST ON???
Before you answer think about it, if you were the seller and the sale was $1,000.00. If the guy pays by Postal MO, you get $1,00.00. If he pays by credit card you get $960.00. Do you take $40.00 out of your pocket and just burn it for fun and giggles???
This could not be explained more simply.....if they don't get it when you tell it like this I don't think they are mentally capable of handling firearms safely.
They will find a way to use credit cards by saying stuff like "because we can not afford to sell items with CC because of the fee so you must pay by check" it will insinuate "Give us a call and we can do it unofficial for 3/4% extra"
I would rather use a CC, faster, safer, I get 1% back sure but I also know the margins are small on guns so understand if the seller must absorb the fess it means all of us will pay 4% more to make sure those fees are covered.
This idea you can make them go away or sellers should lose money is unrealistic. Won't happen.
We will all just pay a little more if you get your way.
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
Making a $50 profit on a $1000 sale, then having about $40 of the profit taken away would not even cover the auction fees. But in this "new economy" business do not exist to make money i guess........
...just for the record, I am a veteran, a recent veteran, have paid my dues, and am tired of getting ripped off.
It strikes me that the most offended people in this conversation are the same ones who work the gun shows or their gun shops and then run home with the gun they beat some widow down on, laugh about it to their buddies, and then pop it on GB hoping to make a big profit...what a guy, what a country ! Good night Irene !!!!
BODERLINE breaking the rules...and in reffering to GB, you ARE breaking the rules, along w/argueing...KNOCK IT OFF
That $1000 dollar gun you guys were talking about earlier-we are actually making $700 profit on it. We only charge the 3% because we are greedy and want more money
None of that last post made any sense to me whatsoever.
I have never seen anyone lose an argument more colorfully.....well, not in a long time anyway.
...just for the record, I am a veteran, a recent veteran, have paid my dues, and am tired of getting ripped off.
It strikes me that the most offended people in this conversation are the same ones who work the gun shows or their gun shops and then run home with the gun they beat some widow down on, laugh about it to their buddies, and then pop it on GB hoping to make a big profit...what a guy, what a country ! Good night Irene !!!!
I get that you didn't understand WHY some sellers pass along the credit card fees.....but now that bpost put it so simply you SHOULD understand. Nobody is calling anyone names (except for Irene)
If you are upset the only reason I can think you would be is that you lost an argument....which really wasn't an argument to begin with.
You shouldn't let something this minor get your feathers ruffled.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=269803
What is new on the subject since October 2007 that rates it being dragged up again...Other than fees being legal now?
So, I thought I raised a legitimate question/concern/argument and, as I should have known, we would get off the track of reason and resort to name calling, personality stuff, my dick is bigger than yours, you must be a liberal, etc. and all that crap...yeah, my last name is Precious...that's my real name, I don't see too many of you guts/glory guys and logic makers signing off with your real name.....so, I leave this useless source of the information highway, once again, with which I thought was a legitimate question... to all the experts and hero's, especially the most senior and who have nothing better to do with their time than to post 40k worth of posts.. I say, you are definitely the final word , no one else can have an opinion as valid as yours : "dead center X-ring Donny".
...just for the record, I am a veteran, a recent veteran, have paid my dues, and am tired of getting ripped off.
It strikes me that the most offended people in this conversation are the same ones who work the gun shows or their gun shops and then run home with the gun they beat some widow down on, laugh about it to their buddies, and then pop it on GB hoping to make a big profit...what a guy, what a country ! Good night Irene !!!!
You kind of got off on the wrong foot here. We have discussed the credit card fees many times in the past and have all agreed that if a buyer is not happy with the 3% add on, the buyer should shop elsewhere. You are entitled to your opinion and others on here have different opinions. That should not upset you or cause you any anguish. This is a discussion forum and not everyone agrees with everyone else. You need to have thick skin and not expect to convert everyone to your way of thinking. If you expect that, you will not last long here. I don't know if you will stay and continue to participate in the forums, or if you just joined to raise hell about the 3% fee? Either way, it is your call.
the exception, in the case of a gb auction, would be a penny auction where there is no fee added. thats the one percent.
you pay the credit fees at walmart, the supermarket, the gas station, everywhere. its just rolled into the cost of the item. they break even on the fee when a customer uses a card and they bank an extra xx.xx% when the customer pays cash.
i prefer my fees up front. tell me what you're charging me and i'll decide if im ok with it.
some people prefer to be lied to/have facts ommitted in their dealings. if thats your speed, then by all means.