vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"&gt;You could say the same about any public utility. (except the one largest one, technically) There are literally thousands and thousands of processors, which is not the case with utilities. Additionally, processors don't need to have any kind of office or presence anywhere near the business they're serving, which means being able to choose without geographical restrictions. Also, PayPal is not a utility. This is not a relevant comparison. &gt;Are you saying they are unable, both contractually and technically, to affect the consumer side? They'd have to revoke their partnerships with banks who issue cards, which they aren't going to do, because consumers using cards is how they make money. Banks could choose not to issue cards, but they're already free to do that. (There's no right to a credit card.) &gt;But also by selectively quoting me you are (deliberately?) side-stepping what actually happened in the WikiLeaks case, to focus on the consumer side. Visa and Mastercard prohibited payments to Wikileaks on the basis of WL allegedly facilitating illegal activity. How is that relevant to what PayPal's doing? &gt;You must buy things in different corners of the Internet than I do. The customer experience (to me) is that there is ""the store"" or you can pay with PayPal. Yes, ""the store"" is actually a payment processor but this is a quick slippery slope to ""what? You can just set up your own payment processor once they've all blocked your legal business"". What are you talking about? You acknowledge that the store has its own processing but somehow that's not enough because someday they might not have processing and have to go through PayPal? Processors *already* deny service to legal businesses. Notably, anything considered ""high risk"" - which includes travel services, pharmaceuticals, firearms, adult entertainment, telemarketing, debt collection, tobacco, and more - but also for businesses with poor credit, high chargebacks, business practices they don't agree with, lots of international transactions, etc. It literally happens all the time.
"One way to possibly disambiguate it from a tip is to receive it outside of your service context.  If there really is a relationship, and they want to show appreciation or help you out financially, the ""gift"" could be given outside of the restaurant.   Otherwise, I agree that it seems like tax evasion.  The purpose of the money was to compensate for services rendered, which is income, not a gift. If it's just a random stranger, then I'd have a hard time arguing that the purpose was pure altruism versus socially-mandated tipping. Why can't I just have my employer just give me a ""gift"" every Christmas instead of a bonus?  Or just reduce by salary by $18k and give me a $1,500 ""gift"" every month?"
Why wouldn't they be? The reader is free after rebate, and sold in Walgreen's/Riteaid, etc. The site shows a fee of 2.75% which is comparable to what merchants are charged for card use. Not sure what other uses you're thinking of, but it's probably a good thing to have for a yard sale.  From an article in Fast Company Magazine: The result was the Square reader, which launched a year ago and which allows just about anyone to set themselves up to take credit card payments. Even you. Planning a garage sale and want to enable people to pay for your gerbil cages and Shawn Cassidy LPs by credit card? No problem. Square's for you.
&gt;Nothing. Nothing at all is the problem, which is why i'm not sure why you aren't doing so right now. It's perfectly legal.   I've already explained this in other posts, but I'll say it again here:  Dollars have an unfair legal advantage to other potential-monies.  Understand?
Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.
While technically true, a card issuer can cancel your card for almost any reason they want, it's highly unlikely they'll cancel it because you pay your bills! There are many, many people out there that pay their bills in full every month without ever paying a cent in credit card interest. I wouldn't ever purposefully incur any interest on a credit card. Related anecdote: I used to have a credit card that I only used for gas purchases because they gave 5% off for fuel. The issuer eventually discontinued the program (I assume because people like me took advantage of it.) So while they didn't cancel my card, the bonus eventually went away. I miss that card. My conclusion: if you can take advantage of promotional rates, by all means, go for it. You don't owe them any favors. Enjoy it as long as it lasts.
Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar
I'm pretty sure it's merchant-dependent.  If a credit card transaction doesn't go through, PayPal will automatically charge your bank account.  Some merchants may want that extra insurance.
I'm not a lawyer, and am certainly not familiar with your jurisdiction, but the general guidelines I've seen around this kind of situation are: If all else fails, you could just cancel the card, though I'm not sure what liability you have to honour the contract. I cancelled a card once to stop being charged by a particularly annoying company and had no problems, but I'm not sure if that is a good way to deal with it in general.
Explain to me how the fact I will go to jail with a gun pointed to my head if I don't pay taxes which then go to pay off your debt simply because I worked hard to get a good job and pay off my debt is not stealing?  What the hell are you talking about - that is literally the definition of stealing - putting a gun to someone's head and taking their money.  If I graduated with a lot of debt (which I did) but couldn't pay it off I would take personal responsibility like an honest person and work hard to find a good job or live cheap to pay it off (like I did). This will also incentivize less people to get unnecessary degrees that don't have jobs available because they don't increase productivity/standard of livings for other people.  The reduction in demand also will force Colleges to cut costs and lower prices. A win win.  Stop thinking stealing from me to pay off your debt is moral just because you hire the Government to do it for you.
How you can pay your rent is really up to your landlord. They are, however, unlikely to take a credit card, for at least two reasons. Firstly they are unlikely to have the means to take electronic payment Second, and more importantly, merchants get charged a percentage of the transaction.  These fees can be quite high to them for premium cards like travel and gold cards; three, four or even five percent of the value of the transaction. This is sometimes why you see cash discounted pricing.
"Cash payments are done in situations where your anonymity is almost always canceled by your presence.  If you allow remote anonymous payments the very concept of money laundering disappears. ""Follow the money"" is dead as a policing strategy. I wish, but it's not going to happen without resistance."
Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition. Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on? Offering to ""pay in advance"" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold. It's still a credit market, no matter which way the faucet runs. And a credit market means, ipso-facto, that more money is in circulation than has been printed."
In the second example you are giving up future  free cash flows in exchange for a capital gain on the original investment. With that respect  the money you will not gain will be the difference of the future cash flows ( net of related costs) minus the net gain on the panel you have sold. The financial result can be considered as the opposite of a sunk cost, that is a cost you have already incurred ( and cannot be recovered)  vs net future gains you are giving up.  In more sophisticated financial terms we are talking about the  benefit-cost ratio:  ( from Investopedia)
It sounds like the postage amount was paid to you rather than returned.  If it had been returned and the payment originated on the card, they would have to return it to the card.  If it was processed as a payment, it looks like someone is giving you money.  PayPal can't credit it to the card, as the sender could request a refund.  If PayPal put the money on the card against a previous payment, then they wouldn't be able to refund.   If they add money to your bank account, then they can withdraw it if a refund is required.   One reason that you might get a payment is if you were being reimbursed for spending money outside of PayPal.  If the amount is more than you originally paid, they can't put it on your card.  They can only refund to the card.  They can't deposit to it.   If you don't want to give them your bank account information, you can just wait until the next time you use PayPal and use your balance to pay.  Then you can bill the remainder to your credit card.   If you don't normally use PayPal and just want your money back, you can process a chargeback through your credit card.  Note that this would probably annoy PayPal, as it costs them aggravation and potentially money.  To do this, you must have paid the postage with your credit card originally.  If you spent money outside PayPal and were reimbursed through PayPal, then there's nothing to chargeback.  In that circumstance, you'd have to accept one of their options:  pay with balance or deposit to bank account.
There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable.
If that is what you insist upon, don't use PayPal. This is one of the supposed justifications for the existence of cryptocurrencies
"You are correct. If you paid your bill and then received a refund, now the credit card (bank) owes you $400. You can spend $400 without owing anything. Or, if you do nothing and don't use the card anymore, after a while they'll probably send you a check for $400. Or, if you don't plan on using the card anymore, you could call them and ask them to send you a check. If it's your regular card, just spend like you normally would and the first $400 will be ""pre-paid""."
Schwab High Yield Investor Checking does not charge for incoming wires.
In the UK there is a significant difference between taking money out of a bank account and out of a credit card account. Banks typically require explicit authorisation before they will transfer money out of a bank account - for example a direct debit agreement. (North American banks are much less strict, and will transfer your money to any reasonably reputable financial organization who asks for it - don't get me started!). However credit cards run very differently. Essentially the onus is on the vendor to get the authorization, which is why you can sign a credit card slip at the corner store, or give your credit card details over the phone, or fill in an online form, and have your credit card account charged. When you signed the credit card agreement you agreed to let people do this. It's also why the credit card company will reverse a transaction if you claim it was unauthorized. So essentially PayPal is like the specialty store you phone up to order something and give your credit card details to - they have just as much authorization to charge your account. Your only protection is that the credit card company will investigate any transactions you claim are fraudulent, and will reimburse you if it is- even if they can't recover the money themselves.
There are no contracts. They give subscribers money on MasterCard gift cards which the theaters have to accept if they accept MasterCard.   The theaters really don't have much of a choice, but they're getting paid full price for tickets, so they shouldn't complain.
Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans.  You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law.  For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong   balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented   approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these   principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in   businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds   avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered.  (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit   and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not   invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of   the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography,   insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or   finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In   accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase   conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations   of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the   Fund tends to hold investments for several years.
ACH, Paypal, Amazon Pay are all other options that can be used.  ACH is cheapest for the merchant but it is a bit of a pain for the customer to setup (aka adds friction to our sales process, which is *very* bad).  Paypal and Amazon Pay both cost a bit more than regular credit cards for the merchant.  Google Wallet is free but not available unless you are a sole proprietor or an individual, which is is useless for businesses.  So yeah, other options are either difficult or more expensive.
There are other ways to pay for college besides loans. Like joining the military.   EDIT:  Please explain why this comment was downvoted.  It's a statement of fact.  My best friend paid for his college via ROTC and is doing much better in in his post-military civilian career than other peers who opted to go the direct college route.
This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.
The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.
Wikileaks was (allegedly) engaging in illegal activity, and it's on that basis that Visa and MC denied service to WL. Visa and Mastercard have almost nothing to do with cardholders. They don't issue credit cards to cardholders, they aren't the ones that do credit checks to determine creditworthiness, they aren't the ones helping you with your monthly statement or a dispute, etc. Cardholders aren't Visa and MC's clients. When a transaction is run, it's authenticated by the bank that issued the card, not by Visa or MC, and it's the bank, not Visa or MC, that would block transactions or freeze a cardholder account. &gt;The WikiLeaks blockade was clearly political. What makes you say otherwise? And this is political. So your argument is that anything political is the same as anything else political? Kind of a stretch.. Wikileaks was denied service by the card brands for allegedly engaging in illegal activity. PayPal is denying service of its own volition, which FYI, it does every day to legal businesses. As long as their reasons for doing so aren't discriminatory based on status in a protected class, they are (and should be) allowed to refuse service."
Well there is certainly a debate to be had about the effect of unions, free riders, and laws forcing unions to cover nonmembers.   But the question at hand is a legal one. Can the employee be forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of employment?
I was once the personal assistant to two wealthy NYC sisters. They did not pay for anything. For example, if we were riding the subway, I would pay, and be reimbursed by the Company. They had multiple residences and investment properties. Each property was purchased through a separate Limited Liablity Corporation, and paid for by the Company. When they purchased, donated or sold art, it was through their family Foundation. Their income primarily came from a draw of funds from the family estate, although one of them worked as an architect, which provided further income.
Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours.
There's no requirement to use these OTP systems to process Internet transactions. Some merchants are using them, some are not. PayPal does not since they are not the receiver of the money but rather a merchant processor - so they don't assume any risk anyway and wouldn't bother.
"RealPay has developed a user friendly early debit order solution that operates in the NAEDO (Non-Authenticated Early Debit Order) payment stream. This system enables users to electronically deduct time sensitive future dated instalments directly from clients’ bank accounts."""
This was actually (sort of) possible a few years ago. The US Mint, trying to encourage use of dollar coins, would sell the coins to customers for face value and no shipping. Many people did exactly what you are proposing: bought hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of coins with credit cards, reaped the rewards, deposited the coins in the bank, and paid off the credit cards. See here, for example. Yeah, they don't have that program any more.  Of course, this sort of behavior was completely predictable and painfully obvious to the credit card companies, who, as far as I know, never let users net rewards on cash advances. They're trying to make money after all, unlike the Mint, which, uh, well...
From my experience using PayPal for selling products on eBay (and for the last two, experiences of a friend)...  Can paypal get money from my Bank Account without my authorization. This is assuming they have transferred the funds to me. They can't pull money from your bank account without your authorization. They will, however, take the money from your PayPal account if it's still there, or leave you with a negative balance if you've already withdrawn. They will do this as soon as there is a claim against you and will only release the funds if the investigation ends in your favor. Any money received would first be used to satisfy the negative balance. What actions can paypal takes against me if charge back amount is very high and I don't agree / pay them. They will send it to a collections agency. Is there any case it is going to effect my bank account, i.e. is there any chance paypal can block my bank account in India. They will block you from using PayPal. If you try to sign up again with a different bank account or credit card and they recognize you as the account holder, they will block that account as well.