Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More Paypal nonsense

regretsy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 257 posts

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#101

Post by saurik »

8plot wrote: post #96
DiabloD3 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since HN removed public comment scoring, my up vote is not publicly indicative of the quality of this comment. Thus, I would also like to echo this sentiment that Bitcoin is worth pursuing.

Unfortunately the down-voters of my comment disagree. Until they present their argument against bitcoin, I assume they are only being ignorant.

I did /not/ downvote you (and still haven't), but honestly you may as well be suggesting he look into accepting contributions of ferrel camels on his website: 99.99% of people in the position to give you money at all are going to have bank accounts and cards, and are likely to have no clue how to even obtain bitcoin, much less actually own any; it simply isn't a realistic "option".

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#102

Post by angusgr »

latchkey wrote: post #70
angusgr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not in the US then the number of competing solutions (that don't require a merchant account) shrinks dramatically. I'm in Australia, and I don't know of one (have checked out WePay, Stripe, Samurai all mentioned in the comments here.)

Just curious cause I don't know how it works... do you just find a way to create a foreign US company and run through that?

If you're going to go that amount of cost/effort then it's probably just as easy to create an Australian Merchant account and then find a gateway that supports it. I don't know how the two compare cost-wise, though.

The thing about PayPal that appeals to me for collecting funds is that it doesn't have that barrier to entry.

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#103

Post by sk5t »

saurik wrote: post #87
sk5t wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What world do you live in, where "donate" necessarily implies some kind of accounting whargarbl? Unless there is some more complicated scheme afoot here that I have failed to comprehend, it appears the Regretsy folks were collecting money, 100% of which would be used for the benefit of needy people, without claiming to be a 501(c)(3) or anything of the like. Still sounds like a donation to a worthy cause. Only when P…

In the US you cannot run that company: if you accept money in exchange for goods (or even sometimes services), and are not a registered non-profit, you need to pay sales taxes on the sales, must declare any residual as income, and the people giving you the money cannot claim it as a write off. Regretsy is in the EU, not the US, but I don't believe that changes the point. In the EU, everything that is traded, whether…

I believe most people understand the difference between donating money to a "good cause" and making a tax-deductible donation to a registered charity. Making it difficult for an honest person to collect donations and forward the proceeds to the needy (where the donors have no expectation of any tangible good in return), or forcing Boy Scouts to obtain a peddler's license to collect canned foods for a food bank, is socially harmful.

As far as I know, Paypal has no legal or even formally self-elected responsibility to enforce that "donate" buttons are used only in the context of a registered charitable organization, or to play cop for the calculation, collection, and remittance of federal, state, local, or international taxes and tariffs, etc., etc. Paypal does not even have any way of determining what is taxable and at what rate--it is so thoroughly beyond their purview that I don't know why we're discussing it.

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#104

Post by aroon »

saurik wrote: post #87
sk5t wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What world do you live in, where "donate" necessarily implies some kind of accounting whargarbl? Unless there is some more complicated scheme afoot here that I have failed to comprehend, it appears the Regretsy folks were collecting money, 100% of which would be used for the benefit of needy people, without claiming to be a 501(c)(3) or anything of the like. Still sounds like a donation to a worthy cause. Only when P…

In the US you cannot run that company: if you accept money in exchange for goods (or even sometimes services), and are not a registered non-profit, you need to pay sales taxes on the sales, must declare any residual as income, and the people giving you the money cannot claim it as a write off. Regretsy is in the EU, not the US, but I don't believe that changes the point. In the EU, everything that is traded, whether…

I think the difference is sales tax was paid when the toys were purchased. I don't think Regretsy was claimin to add value. They were just organizing a donation of toys. It's just like a bunch of friends getting together, all giving two dollars to one person who goes to target, buys a bunch of toys and then gives them to needy kids. I don't see how the law is broken in that situation. All taxes were paid.

The most damning evidence against PP in my opinion is that they specifically stated (accordion to the author) that the same scheme was acceptable when raising money for a sick cat but not for needy kids. Unless the Regretsy folks were purchasing toys with a business account and skipping sales tax I don't understand the logic. The PP reps subsequent attitude seals the deal: eff PayPal. If he isn't authorized I dole out financial or legal advice regarding the use of the donation button or wrt raising money for needy kids he should just say that instead of being an obstinate jerk.

tldr: tax presumably was paid, PayPal rep is a scumbag, screw PayPal.

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#105

Post by Zarathust »

geuis wrote: post #18

At the risk of being perceived as the devil's advocate, let me ask a question. I've heard of dozens of stories about Paypal along a similar vein. "They locked my account for unreasonable reason X and now are keeping the money". Most of these stories seem anecdotal. Can someone point to a rigorously documented set of cases where both Paypal and the customer's side of things are reviewed? Over the last few years, all o…

A lot of dev complaints toward Apple was that there was no strict guidelines. Applications seemed to be rejected for stuff outside the boundaries of the actual terms.

I'm pretty sure the process is much more straightforward now, which checklists and cheatsheets

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#106

Post by waitwhat »

saurik wrote: post #87
sk5t wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What world do you live in, where "donate" necessarily implies some kind of accounting whargarbl? Unless there is some more complicated scheme afoot here that I have failed to comprehend, it appears the Regretsy folks were collecting money, 100% of which would be used for the benefit of needy people, without claiming to be a 501(c)(3) or anything of the like. Still sounds like a donation to a worthy cause. Only when P…

In the US you cannot run that company: if you accept money in exchange for goods (or even sometimes services), and are not a registered non-profit, you need to pay sales taxes on the sales, must declare any residual as income, and the people giving you the money cannot claim it as a write off. Regretsy is in the EU, not the US, but I don't believe that changes the point. In the EU, everything that is traded, whether…

In the US you cannot run that company: if you accept money in exchange for goods (or even sometimes services), and are not a registered non-profit, you need to pay sales taxes on the sales, must declare any residual as income, and the people giving you the money cannot claim it as a write off.

The sales tax issue is a red herring. Regretsy was (presumably) buying the toys at a rate that included sales tax, and if the operation was not-for-profit then there was no financial value added, and no need to charge the "donors" any additional sales tax.

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#107

Post by 8plot »

saurik wrote: post #101
8plot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the down-voters of my comment disagree. Until they present their argument against bitcoin, I assume they are only being ignorant.

I did /not/ downvote you (and still haven't), but honestly you may as well be suggesting he look into accepting contributions of ferrel camels on his website: 99.99% of people in the position to give you money at all are going to have bank accounts and cards, and are likely to have no clue how to even obtain bitcoin, much less actually own any; it simply isn't a realistic "option".

You make a fair enough point, the market size of bitcoin users is still very small. However, the technology it provides is real, and IMO, a valid solution to this problem. (even if it's not the only solution; it's not uncommon to accept multiple payment methods.)

Those that want to donate with bitcoin can easily google how to buy it, and will discover it's easier than ever to acquire. (in some cases, using paypal!)

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#108

Post by Zarathust »

kevinalexbrown wrote: post #7

PAYPAL: I haven’t seen that PDF. And what you’re doing is not a worthy cause, it’s charity. ME: What’s the difference? PAYPAL: You can use the donate button to raise money for a sick cat, but not poor people. Sigh. At the risk of pedantry, it's hard for my wtf filter to believe this without more context. Is this a direct quote?

Yes this is the major point of the exchange to me. It is not really for scam prevention and it has nothing to do with what is a donation or legal context. I just don't get the reason why people is not ok.

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#109

Post by muppetman »

I am SO sick to death of "I used Paypal, Paypal screwed me over" posts. The first few times when it happened and no one was aware of how they operated, sure, I felt bad for the person/people.

Now I just think "The definition of insanity..."

I guess I'm just an elitist prick though?

Re: More Paypal nonsense

#110

Post by tallanvor »

gergles wrote: post #89
danilocampos wrote: post #24

I've been sitting here for the last five minutes trying to make a point eloquently. I'm having a hard time with it. So I'll just put it like this: What else can we really expect from a product whose parent is eBay ? This company is a fucking fossil with all the hunger for customer satisfaction of a used tissue. Is it convenient for users? Yeah. Is it worth gambling your entire business on? Given the lack of accountab…

Wow, that's histrionic. PayPal's customers are the people who use it. You, as a merchant, are not a customer of theirs, but a necessary evil to keep the customers coming. PayPal's customers love it. PayPal's merchants don't like it because PayPal has fraud prevention methods that are opaque and hamfistedly applied. That's a fine complaint, but this breathless "for the sake of the world don't ever use PayPal" garbage…

First, the merchants are the customers - they're the ones paying the fees to provide the service to their customers.

Second, you don't have to be a merchant to hate PayPal. Most of the time I will simply choose not to buy something rather than use PayPal. --The last time I couldn't avoid them was about 2 years ago.

Post reply on HN