PayPal-Olivia, I completely agree with the preceding three responses: This policy is dumb, dumb, dumb.
I too have recurring payments that I charge to a credit card, in case a payment comes through at a low ebb of our checking account. A lot of people do. And in any event, even for one-off payments, I still prefer they go to the credit card; our checking account is for writing checks, i.e., physical pieces of paper.
There is no valid reason not to allow customers to designate a credit card as the primary funds source, rather than a bank account. I've never heard that the payee, whether it's me or PayPal, has to pay the 2%-5% that Visa and MasterCard charge... that's paid by the merchant, isn't it?
This policy really comes across like sheer cussedness, doing it just because that's how PayPal set it up umpty-ump years ago and is simply unwilling to change it -- and couldn't care less in any event. Most important, it makes PayPal a much less attractive option for financial transactions than if we could designate a credit card as the primary source.
It's particularly problematical, given that (if you read my first posting in this thread) sometimes, PayPal never even gives us the OPTION of changing the funds source in a given transaction: I bought something online, chose PayPal instead of typing in my credit-card information... and PayPal blythely sucked it out of my bank account without so much as a how d'you do, never troubling to ask if I wanted to change the funds source.
I know you have a monopoly, but if you make your service difficult enough for customers to use as they want to use it, we'll simply go back to entering credit-card numbers directly with those merchants with whom we do most of our business.
I suggest this is something that really needs to be kicked upstairs, so that somebody with policy authority can change that bizarre limitation of the system.
Thanks,
Dafydd
... View more