Pay Pal F& F no longer allowed

With the current logic, you shouldn’t be allowed to advertise for “local sale only” as YOU as the seller, are treating the buyer differently because they want to use shipping.

@twinjet
Isn’t that what you literally just said to me?
You’re making sure I’m not treated differently?
Post #54, first paragraph.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Fitzgerald
YOU as the seller, are treating the buyer differently because they want to use shipping.

Apparently, I’m free to set the terms of my delivery, which permit a certain leeway in terms of payment. If you want to ship a bass, I guess that leeway disappears, at least in terms of the exact language used in the ad. I can certainly treat someone wanting ME to ship a bass “differently” - I can tell them to pound sand (as we say around here). In person deals only turn into ripoffs when one party is armed, at which point the local constabulary can get involved with renumerative recovery. I suppose you could get TB to ban the armed party in that case. A TBer would have to have a LOT of good feedback for me to take a personal check…
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajkula66
Regarding the concerns many have voiced over the new reporting requirements/thresholds for 1099 issuance triggering a new need to pay taxes on private sales....

That's a misconception. In the U.S., anyway, we are supposed to report all earned income, including income from sales, regardless of whether it appears on a W2, 1099, other form, or not. Failing to report income can be a felony. The lowering thresholds for 1099 issuance make it easier for the IRS to identify those who intentionally skirt tax laws, but that's all it does. If you aren't reporting your sales, 1099 or not, you are cheating on your taxes. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Another poster gave some lengthy tax advice, suggesting one take advantage of "exemptions" against sales, i.e., mileage, ad costs, orig price paid for item, costs of any upgrades/maintenance, etc. Just for the sake of accuracy, those things are called "deductions," not "exemptions." Taking allowed deductions against income is the best way to minimize one's tax burden, rather than failing to declare income. Even if you push the envelope and the IRS decides to disallow some of your deductions, the worse that'll happen is you'll have to send them more money; it's not a crime. Failing to report income is.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not defending our nation's (and my state's) tax policies... But it is what it is until we manage to change it through legislation.
 
Last edited:
So a listing can’t say, “Price is $x plus fees and shipping”, or “Price is $x, buyer pays fees”?
Correct. Because this is then interpreted buy the buyer as “if I pay FF, I only have to pay x”.

Just build the fees into the price. If you’d usually sell something for $45, just sell it for $50 with fees included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris Fitzgerald
So a listing can’t say, “Price is $x plus fees and shipping”, or “Price is $x, buyer pays fees”?
Post #50 somewhat addresses my question which was similar.
You can essentially say your price is "$xxx plus shipping and handling" and not fear repercussions.
But you cannot state it as "buyer pays fees."

Not really that hard to switch it up, in all honesty. All it boils down to is verbiage.

A lot of this just requires "MATH" when you choose what to do for your listing, when trying to stay within the rules and not shoot yourself in the foot. Whether you decided to build the fee your paying into the asking price of the gear or add it to shipping costs, either is up to you to decide and legal.
If you choose to tell someone that you won't accept an offer due to the fees making it not worth your while, also legal.

All sellers can't do now is DEMAND fee free payment from an electronic payment service that isn't offering buyer protection.
But you can DEMAND fee free payment from MONEY ORDER or CHECK and allow it time to clear before shipping. That is 100% legit, due to regulations with mail fraud.
So it's not like we're out of options.

And for buyers, it appears that if you wanted to offer to the seller, using fee free payment, THAT IS OKAY, but you are taking the risk on it yourself and neither TB or the payment service won't help you if you end up screwed over.
You can read peoples feedback.
You can ask the questions you need to.
You can gauge the seller's honesty with a few tactics.
And if you decide to trust them, you can pay them however YOU want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: logdrum
So you all expect PayPal, a private business, to help out with your transaction without being compensated? You aren't working without getting paid.
I pay a monthly membership to Talkbass to be able to sell items on here, that doesn’t change whether I sell something or not. Obviously the rules are the rules, if they say it, it is so.
There are plenty of differing opinions on the matter, not really a point to argue with it at this point. It is what it is.
I just wish people would use better judgement when dealing with these scammers, this is the last place someone not knowing what they have would show up.
 
So a listing can’t say, “Price is $x plus fees and shipping”, or “Price is $x, buyer pays fees”?

Correct. Because this is then interpreted buy the buyer as “if I pay FF, I only have to pay x”.

You can essentially say your price is "$xxx plus shipping and handling" and not fear repercussions.

But you cannot state it as "buyer pays fees."


This is splitting the finest of hairs to the point of being non-sense. The word “handling” is ok, but the word “fee” is not? Really? The protection is for the buyer and is now required if using those payment methods, yet it’s not allowed to state that the buyer is paying for it?


Just build the fees into the price. If you’d usually sell something for $45, just sell it for $50 with fees included.


That’s not going to be the practical application of this. What it really means is the seller eats the fee. Items won’t all of a sudden now sell for MORE because PP G&S fees have been added to the price - without using the word “fee” of course.


…But you can DEMAND fee free payment from MONEY ORDER or CHECK and allow it time to clear before shipping. That is 100% legit, due to regulations with mail fraud.

So it's not like we're out of options.


This seems wildly inconsistent and this rule is not about protecting the seller in any way.


And for buyers, it appears that if you wanted to offer to the seller, using fee free payment, THAT IS OKAY, but you are taking the risk on it yourself and neither TB or the payment service won't help you if you end up screwed over.

You can read peoples feedback.

You can ask the questions you need to.

You can gauge the seller's honesty with a few tactics.

And if you decide to trust them, you can pay them however YOU want.


TB was and is never going to help you financially for getting scammed. With one exception, every transaction I’ve done on TB as a seller (a feature I’m purchasing with my membership) and buyer has been with fee free payment options. A number of them for “high dollar” items. My protection is my responsibility, your protection is your responsibility. It does not take a rocket surgeon to know that $2500 Ken Smith listed by the guy who’s been a member since 2005, but hasn’t posted since 2011, isn’t legit. Never would I consider that the site is somehow responsible for my inability to figure this out and do my own vetting. Perhaps the recent fleecings have resulted in the site owner(s?) financially threatened in some way? If that’s the case, shame on someone(s) for not being able to accept responsibility for their own mistake.

There are better ways to deal with this.

@beaglesandbass - is it required for a listing to state payment options at all?
 
. . this rule is not about protecting the seller in any way.
Yes, exactly. It's for buyer protection against fraudulent sellers.

(Some believe this protection is needed from those sellers "pretending not to be sellers at all." They fraudulently receive "gift" money from their friends or family (not buyers!). In this wayward, obstreperous scenario there is no quid pro quo involved, right? Just the ordinary non-transactional sharing of love and affection via gifting. Wrong!).

The gateway scam actually enables the "problem" scam. A fake seller receives money from their fake friend or family, suddenly becoming altruistic, accepting the payment as an expression of love and affection, and no quid pro quo.

When is a seller not a seller, and a buyer not a buyer? When they're friends and family! What a web we weave
 
Last edited:
As posted in another thread (now locked) - I’m surprised that scammers are willing to pay the selling fee in order to post scams. I was always if the opinion that FB marketplace was a gift to us forum owners in that scammers are far more likely to post fraudulent items there without having to pay upfront. One of the staff members here said they have in fact seen scammers pay the fee here to post. We haven’t seen that in basschat since we started charging a yearly sub maybe 10 years ago.

We advise people not to use F&F but if people want to, that’s up to them, and ON them if it goes wrong. I think some of our members have used it when meeting face to face for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mighty Thumb
Yes, exactly. It's for buyer protection against fraudulent sellers.

(Some believe this protection is needed from those sellers "pretending not to be sellers at all," by fraudulently receiving "gift" money from their friends or family (not buyers!). In this wayward, obstreperous scenario there is no quid pro quo involved, right? Just the ordinary non-transactional sharing of love and affection. Wrong!)
I didn’t think it was for the sellers protection, nor am I interested in or expecting the site to protect me as a seller. That’s my responsibility and my statement was only in response to another post.

This site is a private business and they can do whatever they want. I just don’t agree with the decision, think there are some glaring flaws in its execution, and believe there are other ways to go about this. I will play by the rules, they just aren’t that clear. It is mind numbing to me that people were up in arms about two-factor authentication, but are likely 100% behind this decision.
 
As far as I understand the rule, if a seller is going to ask for an online payment, it has to be one that provides buyer protection. The buyer can offer to pay in a different way, but that is on them to offer, not the seller to ask.

It is prohibited for the sellers to ask for it. If the buyer sends you a PM and asks for FF for a discount that’s on them, but they have to be the ones that bring it up.

See, this is quite silly to me. It's either allowed or it isn't.

What is the logical difference between a buyer agreeing to use F&F after contacting the seller and asking for payment details VS agreeing to use F&F after contacting the seller and asking for payment details while also suggesting a specific method? Both parties have the same leverage and have to agree to the same terms in either case.

Also let’s not forget that using a FF payment for a purchase is against PayPal’s rules and bother the seller and buyer can lose their account if not doing so.

Right. So it shouldn't matter who brings it up. If the rule is just that it can't be mentioned in the classified ad and TB is not to be held responsible for what is agreed upon in private, that's fine. Makes sense.

Most ads will simply list a price, maybe one for shipped and one for local. Exact payment details are always discussed and confirmed through private conversation. There's no skipping that step before any transaction is completed.

Any scammer will still continue to request F&F when contacted. The cautious buyer will look for red flags and potentially turn away, just as they do when it's mentioned in the ad. The other type of buyer will quickly bite on the juicy deal, just as they do when it's mentioned in the ad. How is this rule change making anything more secure?

“Just secure the site better”. Government websites get hacked. Surely a forum has weaknesses. We tried to implement 2FA a few months ago and there was a HUGE pushback. To clarify, TB isn’t getting hacked. Accounts with very easy passwords (that use the same password for their email) with no 2FA are being compromised. Once the accounts are taken over, scammers are buying a 1 month supporting membership for a few bucks and posting a fake ad trying to net a few hundred to a few thousand. Your suggestion is to “secure the site better”. The site isn’t getting hacked, vulnerable passwords are being guessed. What are want to do to help secure things (2FA and eliminating FF) ARE to secure things on the site.

I do get it. That's why I joked about this being reversed too. But 2FA was a real idea that could help secure the site in at least some situations. There should definitely be a mandatory verification step required when attempting to purchase a membership if nothing else.

What happened to the poll in this thread, btw? It was more than 60/40 in favor when I posted yesterday. Was pushback growing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mighty Thumb
Seems some here are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This really is not a big deal.

If you are a seller and REQUIRE F&F as a condition of the deal, that, to me, seems fairly sketchy.

Why would you insist on removing the little protection the buyer has in the transaction, especially a high dollar item, if the buyer is willing to cover the fee?
 
Seems some here are making a mountain out of a molehill.

This really is not a big deal.

If you are a seller and REQUIRE F&F as a condition of the deal, that, to me, seems fairly sketchy.

Why would you insist on removing the little protection the buyer has in the transaction, especially a high dollar item, if the buyer is willing to cover the fee?
I don’t care if a buyer wants to use G&S, I just think it’s crazy that an add can’t say, “buyer pays fees”. It’s no different than saying, “buyer pays shipping”. The buyer wants the protection, I just can’t say it? But it’s also ok for me to say I’ll take a check and won’t ship until the check clears? How is that protecting the buyer? Again, this has not been very well thought out or executed.
 
I have stayed away various online market places for a while now due to security concerns.
It's far too easy for bad actors to operate in these open market type places.