Sellers adding for PayPal use is plainly BS

I put add 3% for paypal but I do it to offer the lowest price possible to the buyer. You are right I could just add it into the price but I look at as why should the buyer pay the extra 3% if he is paying by another method.

I know when I sell something I want X amount for it. From there I try to lower shipping costs and fees as much as possible to get the buyer the lowest price possible. From there the buyer can decide on paypal or 2 day air or whatever they want.

Who pays the fee, buyer or seller, is not a matter of right or wrong. Its simply a matter of negoitation between the parties. If the seller stakes out a position requiring the fee on top of the price the seller runs the risk of either scaring away potential buyers or buyers offering less. A buyer who refuses to pay the fee runs the risk of not getting the item in which they're interested. You negotiate throughout life. Audigon is no different. The comment about the rule in CA simply tells me whoever pushed that through the CA legislature is extremely naieve. The government shouldn't interfere in such matters.

Eldragon: I disagree with your statement "What you are paying for is supreme convenience." (in reference the seller).

As Bowow pointed out, it is actually "more" of a convenience for the buyer than for the seller. If I am selling something, whether you pay through PayPal or with a MoneyOrder is no big difference to me. As a matter of fact, I would PREFER the money order because:

A) it's money in hand whereas with Paypal I have to specifically request a transfer to bank
B) if you contest the paypal charge later, they dock me for it
C) while waiting for the money order to arrive, I could continue to enjoy the item (though I always pack it up right away)

I also don't buy the RetailStore-CreditCard argument. Retail stores are a business. They sell a LOT of things. The fees they "eat" from credit cards are built into their prices accross the board. ie. the NON-credit card users are subsidising the store for the credit card users. Given enough customers, it all evens out. HOWEVER, when it comes to a private party selling their $5000 baby, they can't be expected to "eat" $150, when the benefits to the seller are minimal compared to the benefits of the buyer.

Lastly, in an auction, the seller CAN'T "build" it into the price. The bid is the bid, and based upon the buyer's CHOICE of payment method, it should not effect the amount collected by the seller.

Now, if a seller lists paypal as the ONLY method accepted, AND adds the fee, THEN it would be a little obnoxious in my opion. In that case, find another seller - simple.

Look at it this way, PayPal fees are just a cost of doing business, like shipping. The advertisment that states that the Seller is picking up the tab for shipping is pretty rare. Adding the PayPal fee is just another cost of ownership. Besides, if you hate the PayPal fee, take the above suggestions and offer 3% less for the item, or pay by check. I think it's honorable of the Seller to state up front what his terms are (especially in an auction) rather than let there be surprises after a sale is made.

I don't harbor any illusions that the 5% fee credit card companies charge retailers is absorbed by the retailers. Even in states that think they've made it illegal to pass on those charges to consumers, retailers are just operating at a 5% higher margin to cover the credit card fees.

Yes, it is illogical and greedy to charge extra for PayPal or for a credit card. I too will not buy from somebody who charges me for PayPal.

It is a matter of convenience and security for both buyer and seller. Therefore, if anything, both parties should split the fee at most.