|
Post by LesC on Jan 25, 2020 21:56:21 GMT -6
Paypal also screws you on foreign currency change rates. Quick tip:: when Amazon or any merchant offers you to pay in your local currency always say NO. Let the charge come through onto your credit card in the original currency and the card scheme (Visa, Mastercard, etc) will give you a much better rate. I work in payments and all these big merchants have a side gig they call “FX Margin” where they add 3-5% to the day rate. I just found this out recently, makes a huge difference.
I only use Kijiji to sell stuff, nothing but good luck. I've sold almost $40k (Canadian) worth of stuff over the last few years, usually for more than I paid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 10:15:53 GMT -6
Paypal also screws you on foreign currency change rates. ebay rapes you for 10% fees, then paypal rapes u from the other end. theyre just greedy. im not mistaking paypal is owned by ebay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2020 10:20:31 GMT -6
^ No, Ebay and Paypal split in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jan 27, 2020 15:59:41 GMT -6
And don't eBay now include postage/shipping costs in their fee calculations? eBay used to have a policy to ensure sellers could only charge reasonable postage fees. I think that was dropped. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 5, 2020 12:14:26 GMT -6
Yes, the rich have very well prepared tax havens. Furthermore the way the laws are slanted they don't pay taxes on "wealth" so they pay nothing on value generated by just sitting around, accrueing, at least not until it gets converted into a "liquid" form.
Meanwhile it's us poor working stiffs who get stuck carrying their fair share of the burden.
I don't understand why the richest members of society get a free pass for "legal" cheating. It's not like they wouldn't still have more money than anybody could ever need - or spend (unless they went into the music business....)
By the IRS's own data, the top 2% pay 90% of the taxes in the USA. The middle class is certainly not burdened in comparison. I'll leave this be at this point because I feel my blood getting up and I don't want to argue or make this turn negative. And even that 90% is too little for the unimaginable amount of cash they're hauling in. This is a great example of how statistics can be presented to be deliberately misleading.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 5, 2020 12:58:34 GMT -6
By the IRS's own data, the top 2% pay 90% of the taxes in the USA. The middle class is certainly not burdened in comparison. I'll leave this be at this point because I feel my blood getting up and I don't want to argue or make this turn negative. And even that 90% is too little for the unimaginable amount of cash they're hauling in. This is a great example of how statistics can be presented to be deliberately misleading.
Even if government took 100% from every billionaire in the US, it would fund our government for about 6-8 months, and then there would be no more billionaires left to fund the government for the next 6 months, and most likely since taking 100% from every billionaire would mean liquidating most of their stocks and investments, their companies would fall apart and millions would be without jobs. The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 5, 2020 13:12:00 GMT -6
ebay rapes you for 10% fees, then paypal rapes u from the other end. Go build a platform like either, then call a 10% fee rape. Now go find another buisness that can keep its lights on with a 10% mark up. I can think of a bunch of reasons not to like these companies but their fees are not one of them, like the rest of us their employees like to eat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:05:45 GMT -6
ebay rapes you for 10% fees, then paypal rapes u from the other end. Go build a platform like either, then call a 10% fee rape. Now go find another buisness that can keep its lights on with a 10% mark up. I can think of a bunch of reasons not to like these companies but their fees are not one of them, like the rest of us their employees like to eat. Bullshit, dont be a simp. They only rape low volume seller. Oh these corporations eat. Much better platform already exist and is reverb.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 5, 2020 16:39:43 GMT -6
Go build a platform like either, then call a 10% fee rape. Now go find another buisness that can keep its lights on with a 10% mark up. I can think of a bunch of reasons not to like these companies but their fees are not one of them, like the rest of us their employees like to eat. Bullshit, dont be a simp. They only rape low volume seller. Oh these corporations eat. Much better platform already exist and is reverb. Simp? Anybody who has ever done anything in buisness knows you do volume you get a discount! It’s the way of the world ! Ebay also has some very smart people who know most of their large sellers are selling new merchandise, these sellers all have internally generated cost of customer acquisition and cost to sell through figures, most sales through eBay even with fee’s is probably less than selling through their sales force, plus they now have a new name for their contact list ( not as valuable as it once was still worth something). I’ll tell you what I told a customer once who was pissed that his single piece tape price was more than twice that of the duplicator picking up 500 tapes “ sure I can give you that price, I’ll be happy to as soon as you buy in that kind of quantity every day. Oh and for them this is a small order.” Simp? Find me a single person here who out in the real world doesn’t discount for volume! Every single studio I have know has a discounted day rate. I can guarantee everybody who has a job outside of music is giving their volume clients a discount! Hell if I go to the bar across the street I’m probably going to see a discount or get comped because I’m a regular! In fact Tuesday night we went for dinner because we really didn’t want to deal with Super Tuesday coverage and were shocked at our bill we got from the new bartender, I forgot what regular prices were like! Didn’t bitch ( first rule of discount we don’t talk about discount). So i guess if Simp is short for: simply understands how the world works yeah I guess I’m a simp! But consider this people I’m sure are far successful than you ( I can think of at least 10 multi millionaires I know who are laughing all the way to the bank paying Ebays fees and 3 of them Reverbs as well! Guess they are Simps as well huh?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 5, 2020 17:02:28 GMT -6
And even that 90% is too little for the unimaginable amount of cash they're hauling in. This is a great example of how statistics can be presented to be deliberately misleading.
Even if government took 100% from every billionaire in the US, it would fund our government for about 6-8 months, and then there would be no more billionaires left to fund the government for the next 6 months, and most likely since taking 100% from every billionaire would mean liquidating most of their stocks and investments, their companies would fall apart and millions would be without jobs. The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous.
True, the government runs at a deficit. But that deficit has entirely been generated at the hands of legislators who have slashed taxes on the rich and increased taxes on the population at large. Need I remind you that the last time the government had a surplus was during the Clinton administration? That alone should make it clear that your above statement is simply not true.
At present 1/4 of 1% of the population rakes in 90% of the income. And that's not counting the increase in their net worth do to the growth of "personal wealth", i.e. stock and real estate investments, art collections, garages full of rare cars, stuff that's only taxable it it gets liquidated.
And WTF does this have to do with selling on Ebay?
I could comment but i won't.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 5, 2020 17:37:04 GMT -6
Even if government took 100% from every billionaire in the US, it would fund our government for about 6-8 months, and then there would be no more billionaires left to fund the government for the next 6 months, and most likely since taking 100% from every billionaire would mean liquidating most of their stocks and investments, their companies would fall apart and millions would be without jobs. The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous.
True, the government runs at a deficit. But that deficit has entirely been generated at the hands of legislators who have slashed taxes on the rich and increased taxes on the population at large. Need I remind you that the last time the government had a surplus was during the Clinton administration? That alone should make it clear that your above statement is simply not true.
At present 1/4 of 1% of the population rakes in 90% of the income. And that's not counting the increase in their net worth do to the growth of "personal wealth", i.e. stock and real estate investments, art collections, garages full of rare cars, stuff that's only taxable it it gets liquidated.
The Clinton "surplus" was due to newt Gingrich and the gop controlled congress restructuring debt.. But yeah, keep believing in Marxist utopias if you want, meanwhile Venezuelans are living your dream.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on Mar 5, 2020 17:40:57 GMT -6
This is getting political really fast but this whole surplus talk needs one very important clarification: it was a projected surplus, we don’t know if it ever really existed, because 911 happened before the end of the fiscal year there was no surplus at the time it would have hit the books.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 5, 2020 21:07:13 GMT -6
True, the government runs at a deficit. But that deficit has entirely been generated at the hands of legislators who have slashed taxes on the rich and increased taxes on the population at large. Need I remind you that the last time the government had a surplus was during the Clinton administration? That alone should make it clear that your above statement is simply not true.
At present 1/4 of 1% of the population rakes in 90% of the income. And that's not counting the increase in their net worth do to the growth of "personal wealth", i.e. stock and real estate investments, art collections, garages full of rare cars, stuff that's only taxable it it gets liquidated.
The Clinton "surplus" was due to newt Gingrich and the gop controlled congress restructuring debt.. But yeah, keep believing in Marxist utopias if you want, meanwhile Venezuelans are living your dream. Actually, no, it wasn't. With all respect, how old were you when that stuff was going on?
In case you don't know, generally speaking it takes between 2 and 4 years for programs from a new admistration to have visible effect. Either way. Bipartisan.
And yeah, Ha-ha about "newt" Gingrich.
You DO know what a "newt" is, right? A neotenous salamander? yes.
And as to your "Marxist",. I could easily accuse you of being a N***, but I won't. I have too much respect for you as a human being and fellow audio guy.
We should probably take this to PM, if anywhere.
FWIW, I identify as a Radical Centrist. The fringes of both parties are wrong and serving their corrupt masters.
WTF does this have to do with buyting and selling on Ebay?
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 6, 2020 5:42:12 GMT -6
Bottom line is mostly yes, the good old days are long gone, due to the total fees, taxes, exchange , duties and hidden costs, throughout the electronic supply chains, with everyone adding incremental costs, sellers jacking up their prices to try to offset those costs and buyers wanting the lowest used price possible.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 6, 2020 8:01:00 GMT -6
This is getting political really fast but this whole surplus talk needs one very important clarification: it was a projected surplus, we don’t know if it ever really existed, because 911 happened before the end of the fiscal year there was no surplus at the time it would have hit the books. That's why I said "surplus" in quotes, because eventually there were massive unfunded entitlement increases and the total increase in debt was 6T instead of the forecast surplus.. But during that time, Clinton pushed the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially mandated all banks give 30% of their housing loans to sub-prime loanees in order to "boost low-income home ownership". They gutted Glass-Steagall in the process in order for banks to have a cushion for the sub-prime loans they KNEW would be defaulted on.. Even in the early days the rate of default on sub-prime loans was much higher than expected, but banks that pushed back against the Clinton administration were threatened with government action. Everyone knew there would be defaults, but politicians being politicians didn't care as long as they looked good, and banks figured they could spread the defaults around in bundled mortgage investments and mitigate the losses.. But then everyone wanted in on the massive boom so mortgage bundles became the prime investment for a lot of investors and the rest is history. Clinton policies literally created the housing bubble in order to garner more votes from low-income voters. Capitalism got the blame even though most investors actively sought out mortgage investments due to the high returns they were getting at the time. But most people love bringing up the "surplus" when it's convenient to their confirmation bias, while overlooking that deep trade deficits and ballooning housing debt essentially destroyed personal savings while GDP was floundering during this period. What does this all say? It says that the economy looked good because housing was being bought up and private purchasing was way up, but private sector cash was going downhill well before the dot-com "crash" that is blamed on everything and everyone but the government policies that actually created it.
|
|
|
Post by jamiesego on Mar 6, 2020 9:25:08 GMT -6
If you read the wikipedia entry on the CRA you’ll see that plenty of studies and economists don’t support that conclusion. This stuff is always complicated.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 6, 2020 9:42:55 GMT -6
If you read the wikipedia entry on the CRA you’ll see that plenty of studies and economists don’t support that conclusion. This stuff is always complicated. Funny, because to make sure I was being factually correct, I referenced a report that did come to that conclusion.. Everybody knows that Wiki is not a good source for factual information, just popular information. But as you say, it's complicated, but mostly because people want their viewpoints validated and there is always information out there to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jamiesego on Mar 6, 2020 10:17:11 GMT -6
I can find a bunch of articles arguing either way. The Wikipedia sources are also all cited so I don’t think you can cry fake news on this particular one.
I’m not claiming to be an expert but it seems from what I’ve read that even if it did play a role in how banks operated the vast majority of subprime loans were not regulated by the CRA.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 6, 2020 11:45:11 GMT -6
“Government can only ride on the back of capitalism, siphoning off income from those who make things” Some would say “Capitalism can only ride on the back of Labour, siphoning off income from those who make things” It’s a nuanced subject in my opinion and I’m not going to claim to be an authority. In regards to the original question I haven’t seen many amazing deals on used studio gear in the last few years and the state taxes have definitely moved some things just out of my price range. Most of the things I bought last year were new. Capitalism is at it's basest levels the act of using your labor to gain things you need, but through the proxy of money. In today's world, the shoemaker doesn't have to make shoes for the guy baking bread in order to eat. We can do any type of labor, for anyone, at any time and we use "money" as the proxy of our labor so we can then exchange the proxy in lieu of our labor for any goods or services we need or desire wherever we go. The difference is that we can choose how to work, where to work, when to work, how much we want to work, etc, and the ramifications are up to you as an extension of free will. With taxation, we're told what we're going to pay and if you choose not to, you're harassed, jailed and ultimate ruined. Quite a bit different. The difference is that these days the "capitalists" really don't actually DO the work. They live off the labor of others, who do the work for them for a minimal wage.
And most people do NOT get to chose when and where they work - they take what's available and they work when they're told to.
Most of us around here are very lucky - we live in a bubble where we have a great deal more freedom with our life choices than most people have.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 6, 2020 11:48:54 GMT -6
If you read the wikipedia entry on the CRA you’ll see that plenty of studies and economists don’t support that conclusion. This stuff is always complicated. Funny, because to make sure I was being factually correct, I referenced a report that did come to that conclusion.. Everybody knows that Wiki is not a good source for factual information, just popular information. But as you say, it's complicated, but mostly because people want their viewpoints validated and there is always information out there to do so. You can write a "report" to "prove" any foregone conclusion that you like.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Mar 6, 2020 21:25:07 GMT -6
And even that 90% is too little for the unimaginable amount of cash they're hauling in. This is a great example of how statistics can be presented to be deliberately misleading.
The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous. Do you really believe that most liberals (like myself) want to destroy the prosperous because we're envious of the rich? And that our desire for equal rights and equal opportunity is only a thin veil of smugness? Most liberals simply feel that the working man/corporate relationship is out of balance and needs adjusting. I don't want to live in Venezuela any more than you want to work for Enron. There are many Democrats that frequent RGO--great folks that you have much in common with. I'm not asking you to stop being a conservative, just suggesting that you have a little more nuanced and accurate view of what your liberal friends stand for. As for eBay, I still dabble and occasionally find things I want there. But with multiple fees and shipping costs I honestly don't know how any eBay store makes much money.
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Mar 7, 2020 4:48:46 GMT -6
I bought and sold hundreds of items on Ebay over the years, early on. The increasing fees were not so much a turn-off as was the increasing amount of dishonesty. Too many people became scammers. I just don't trust doing a transaction on Ebay any more. But, it should be noted, the problem doesn't lie with the Platform but with the people using it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 7, 2020 9:23:30 GMT -6
The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous. Do you really believe that most liberals (like myself) want to destroy the prosperous because we're envious of the rich? And that our desire for equal rights and equal opportunity is only a thin veil of smugness? Most liberals simply feel that the working man/corporate relationship is out of balance and needs adjusting. I don't want to live in Venezuela any more than you want to work for Enron. There are many Democrats that frequent RGO--great folks that you have much in common with. I'm not asking you to stop being a conservative, just suggesting that you have a little more nuanced and accurate view of what your liberal friends stand for. As for eBay, I still dabble and occasionally find things I want there. But with multiple fees and shipping costs I honestly don't know how any eBay store makes much money. I'm not a conservative. The fact that you assume I am because I don't follow liberal beliefs is part of the problem of society. It's the peer-pressure programming of us-vs-them showing through. I just don't agree with the neoliberal belief that capitalism is the cause of everything bad, and I certainly don't believe that it causes inequality. Poverty is the base state of humanity. Capitalism offers an avenue to create wealth through being useful. Capitalism has brought the most prosperous times in the history of humanity. Capitalism is the funding source for all Nordic welfare states, and it's the way China and Russia have recovered from their socialist stints. Even Venezuela is starting to come back from the brink by moving their system back towards capitalism. Before the usual pushback starts, I've lived inequality. I've been homeless and lived in my car. I've been a Democrat. I've been without money or food. I've been in a union. I've lived in the city. I've lived in the country. I've been in trouble with the law. I've been hooked on drugs. I've believed that capitalism was bad and government would save us all. Government didn't save me. Being a young male of working age with no kids, they wouldn't give me a dime. They told me to get a job. It's bullshit. At some point someone said to me "your life is dictated by the way you think about life". It caused a fight and I lost that friend forever. I had a particularly hard day and I broke. I had to make the decision to be a part of the society I felt was oppressing me. I found someone to let me live in their house for almost nothing. I got a job which opened the door to a better job. I saved. I went back to school. I paid as I went. I got a better job with higher pay, finished school. Got a better job, which led to another job. It took me 5 years to climb out of a hole caused by blaming others for my spot in life. It took humbleness and work to get out of it, but mostly it took not listening to everyone else telling me that the system would make it impossible. I found it much easier than I had been led to believe. I wasted my late teens and early 20's raging against the machine, but it took my own self to realize that the machine isn't alive. It doesn't decide to shit on me, or bless me. It just keeps moving along, and it was up to me to jump on board or get left behind and that all of the beliefs I had were instilled into me by others who wanted me to think that way even though I hadn't even truly experienced them. I had believed that capitalism was destroying my life even though I had never been a part of it. Politicians on the other hand are human and they do decide to shit on people or bless them, and they do so for votes. The rich vs. poor thing is a political design to keep people envious and motivate you politically, as much as the whole "immigrants are coming to take your jobs" angle is to create envy and fear in the other side and politically motivate them to vote in the opposite. Believe it or don't, that's your free will to decide, but at some point I hope folks realize that there's a reason why things never seen to change. It's not because people don't want them to, it's because the politics never does. I'll never be rich and as much as free money would remove fear from all our lives, I personally know it's also possible to change your trajectory if you want. I know this because I once had pocket change to live on for a week. Most people don't want to change where they're at, mostly due to fear. They get comfortable where they are and make excuses, or take comfort in believing is not up to them, which is also an excuse. I know this too, because I also did this. I would have loved to get free money to live back then, but in a weird backwards way, I'm also thankful there wasn't or else I'd probably be dead from being stuck in the cycle. It's hard. It's scary. You have to give up a lot of what you love to do it. It's so much easier to blame the other side of the political spectrum than to decide to give up your life and rebuild it, unless like me at 22, you had a bag of clothes in a car that was always breaking down and that was your life and the choice was between giving up or being a part of what works.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 7, 2020 9:46:24 GMT -6
The only misleading happening is when folks cloak their envy under the thin veil of "equality" and feel smug about wanting to destroy the prosperous. Do you really believe that most liberals (like myself) want to destroy the prosperous because we're envious of the rich? And that our desire for equal rights and equal opportunity is only a thin veil of smugness? Most liberals simply feel that the working man/corporate relationship is out of balance and needs adjusting. I don't want to live in Venezuela any more than you want to work for Enron. There are many Democrats that frequent RGO--great folks that you have much in common with. I'm not asking you to stop being a conservative, just suggesting that you have a little more nuanced and accurate view of what your liberal friends stand for. As for eBay, I still dabble and occasionally find things I want there. But with multiple fees and shipping costs I honestly don't know how any eBay store makes much money. And every time someone says "I work harder for 40k a year than that CEO does for his 4M a year!" That's envy, and unfortunately, I see and hear it all the time, surprisingly more from white middle class folks than anybody else.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Mar 7, 2020 10:28:25 GMT -6
And meanwhile a tiny minority is paying no taxes at all while making millions of dollars a day (for doing essentially nothing useful.)
The problem isn't taxes, it's tax inequality.
And if you look at the facts objectively, they generally either have tax deferrals, have prepaid taxes, or otherwise have no "income" because their "billions" are tied up in company stocks and are otherwise not liquid. But nobody ever let a few facts get in the way of a good boogeyman story. If you look at the facts objectively, multinational corporations and wealthy individuals are using tax havens to avoid paying taxes. Just one example: Paradise Papers
|
|