posted on May 22, 2003 07:07:49 AM new
Perhaps you've all seen this. It was in the Collectors' Newsletter this week:
2) What's the deal with eBay prices?
Sellers of collectibles are making 3% less on eBay than they were a year
ago, and are completing 18% fewer successful auctions, according to
AuctionBytes 3rd Annual Collectibles Price Index. The index shows prices
have come down every year since 2000, the first year data was collected.
Last year's study showed that collectibles prices on eBay were down 11%
from 2001. The complete story is available online at:
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/pages/press/press051803
posted on May 22, 2003 08:05:07 AM new
The answer is pretty simple:
The economy stinks and is getting worse, not better. Who can afford antiques when you may not have a job next month? Antiques certainly qualify as non-required "luxury" items.
It's actually NOT eBay's fault. Blame the rest of the world. eBay is a visible, easy to measure symptom, not the disease.
posted on May 22, 2003 08:19:44 AM new
I sell corsets and costumes (which are also "luxury" items like antiques and collectibles), and my sales are 'way down as well, both on eBay and in real life. Nobody is buying these "nonessentials" if they are worried about paying the mortgage or losing their job.
9/11 really hurt my business, and the slow economy since then has been dreadful as well.
My eBay sales have been practically nonexistent for the last couple of weeks. This week, I actually started looking at the local want ads for a "real" job (something I *never* thought I would do when I quit Corporate America 13 years ago), but the job market is terrible, too, especially in the Pittsburgh area where I live.
I have too much month at the end of my money, and I don't know what's going to happen to me, my home, and my self-employed business. Very stressful.
posted on May 22, 2003 09:09:03 AM new
It doesn't help that the main competitive strategy on eBay, even for collectibles, is on price. Unless you have something really unique and special, you are forced to compete on price, and to a lesser extent, service based on your feedback numbers. In a recession, the business with deep pockets that can afford to undercut their competitors will survive. The competitors that can't go that low will not. That's why Wally World is essentially recession proof. They've got deep pockets, they've got the systems in place to squeeze every drop of unnecessary expense out of a product, and they can always drop their prices to undercut the competition.
I've read some research that says the largest market of consumers on the net is women, and they use the net to research prices. They'll order when they find someone that offers good service and low prices. And let's face it, eBay does have something of a reputation of a flea market. Sometimes I think buyers aren't happy unless they can get your product for 10% of wholesale--and what they really want is for you to box it up, ship it and pay them to take it off your hands. Okay, maybe it's not quite that bad, but some days it seems like it
posted on May 22, 2003 09:11:33 AM new
If you voted Republican you are getting what you voted for a tax break. That's right you wouldn't have to pay as much taxes because you won't make much money. Its the Republican way for a working class tax cut.
posted on May 22, 2003 09:27:49 AM new
What are you talking about, if you voted republican... Most people didn't vote republican, yet we have that intellectual peanut as our president. Worse, the conservative media never seems to ask him any of the tough questions. Where was he for the 18 months he was AWOL from the Air National Guard? Exactly what Illegal drugs did he take and when did he take them (He has confirmed that he took drugs before 1974, but will not tell what he took or when).
The thing I find really interesting is anytime Clinton had the military turn their heads and cough the "Liberal Media" talked for weeks about how he was a draft dodger (when what he did was perfectly legal). They also talked about his drug use (or misuse, having lacked the ability or intelligence to inhale). I've not heard anything about Bush's time Missing from the national guard while he has been leading us in war. I've not heard anything about his drug "Youthful Indiscretions," while he has been leading yet another war on drugs.
All this and more from a man who lost the popular vote, and who only won because his father's Appointees to the Supreme Court would not follow the LAW or their Conscious and became embroiled in a local election.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. B. Franklin
posted on May 22, 2003 10:42:52 AM new
Bill Clinton lost the popular vote too in 1992, he was elected with only 43% of the vote. Does that reduce the legitimacy of his presidency? Maybe there should have been a runoff? Oops, there is a thing called the CONSTITUTION which determines the rules, and was followed in 2000. Even the "liberal" media conceded that Bush won Florida in 2000 in their investigation a year or so after the election.
posted on May 22, 2003 01:26:24 PM new
Thought this might shed some light on the tax subject.
Subject: There is much criticism going on about Bush's new tax cut plan.
There is much criticism going on about Bush's new tax cut plan only benefitting the wealthy and leaving the less wealthy and poor out in the cold. I was sent this accounting professor's simple analysis of how tax cuts work. This is very close to the reality of how our system works. Enjoy and be enlightened.
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!! Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this... The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest-- would pay $59. That's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and The sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meals. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20", declared the sixth man, "but he, (pointing to the tenth) but he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too! ...It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!." "That's true," shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute", yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of meeting the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities any where cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
T. Davies Professor of Accounting & Chair, Division of Accounting and Business Law The University of South Dakota School of Business
414 E. Clark Street Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: 605-677-5230
posted on May 22, 2003 02:42:36 PM new
What bugs me about the Tax cut is that they are making it SAYING the goal is to stimulate the economy, yet most of the cut is going in ways that will have almost no effect on the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy, you need the tax cut to be spent, not saved. If you give it to the wealthy, they TEND to save it (and please don't give me that crud about creating jobs with the savings. That has never happend). If you give the cut to the poor or middle classes, they spend it because they need it .
I think we should tax the rich much more then we do. Personally, I would love to see a fair inheritance tax passed. First $9,999,999.99 is tax free. After that, 100%. No one needs more then $10,000,000. This tax would not effect 99.99% of the people, but those who felt the pinch are truly those who benefit most from our society. If they don't like it, they can leave! I think that they will find that the American Tax System is second to only countries like the Cayman Islands, or Monico when it comes to treating our rich as they feel they should be treated.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. B. Franklin
posted on May 22, 2003 03:20:51 PM new
John McCain was on a cable news show today talking about the Bush tax-cut plan. He says it's crazy in a time when we're spending more on homeland security and our deficits are climbing rapidly. He also says there were 9 billion dollars worth of pork projects passed by Congress, and that is a dirty shame. He's one Republican I think I could vote for. . . .
posted on May 22, 2003 03:35:11 PM new
There is always a loophole, passing a 100% tax on inheritance won't stop people from passing on money. The thing is, inheritance taxes hurt the middle to upper middle class, not the wealthy. If you pass on $20 million, an extra few hundred thousand won't matter. The poor don't pass on money, but middle class do and taxes hurt them the most.
posted on May 22, 2003 04:39:11 PM new
The only problem with the prof's example is that it is too simplistic and not really reflective of the real world. First, the 10th guy would never eat with those slobs. Second, the 10th guy would have declared it a seminar and taken the deduction. Third, it underestimates the tax #'s 1-9 are paying in sales tax, property tax, Schdule C, etc. that #10 dodges because he can hire the better accountant. Plus, now that he doesn't have to pay tax on dividends, he can afford to eat at a better restaurant...heck he might buy a restaurant (but only as an LLC with his portion being an offshore holding company in the Caymans)
posted on May 23, 2003 09:35:05 AM new
The inheritance tax was a tax on the stubborn, ignorant, or those with disfunctional families, and it has nothing to do with what class you are in.
Before any changes occurred, a couple could leave a total of $1.2 million without any inheritance taxes. That is far from middle class assets.
However, the smart people would divest their assets to their heirs BEFORE they died and escape inheritance taxes.
The next fallacy is the cry of the rich paying the bulk of taxes.
The amount of taxes one pays is only relevant as to the actual effect it has on the taxpayer's ability to pay and the economic effect of the taxes paid.
The best example is the flat tax. To keep the math simple, let's say we flat income tax at %10.
Take 2 people, one with a $1 million income, and the other $20,000 in come. The millionaire pays $100,000 in taxes, the other pays $2000.
At first blush we can say that the millionaire pays 50 times more in taxes, but the real measure is the impact the paying of the taxes has on the economics of the person.
A millionaire paying $100,000 in taxes will experience no impact on his/her ability to acquire housing, buy food, buy clothes, educate his children, etc.
The $20,000 taxpayer will be impacted by losing the $2000. It will profoundly effect him more than the millionaire.
Giving a tax cut to the wealthy is also a mistake thinking it will stimulate the economy.
The tax cut will have little effect on the spending of the millionaires/billionaires.
Targeting the tax cut towards the middle class down will have a profound effect on stimulating consumption.
But quess what- the wealthy will make out even better by a targeted middle class tax cut because they own the stocks and other assets that will rise in value as the economy picks up.
If you give Bill Gates and Warren Buffet several million in tax breaks, do you really think they will buy more of the things working class people produce ? How many more Chevrolets or Honda cars will they buy ? Answer ZERO. If you give the money to the middle class, they will make these purchases.
Another myth- The wealthy will invest the tax refund money in ventures that produce jobs. Bunk. There is more than enough capital available right now for investments - and interest rates have never been lower. The problem is that the economy looks so poor no one wants to invest in it.
Tax policy should be geared towards keeping as much money as possible in the hands of consumers, and the bulk of the taxes paid by unproductive concentrated wealth.
posted on May 23, 2003 09:54:04 AM new
::However, the smart people would divest their assets to their heirs BEFORE they died and escape inheritance taxes. ::
How exactly do you do that prior to a sudden or unexpected death?
It's a very sensible thing to do when you reach your 60s or recieve that a not so favorable medical diagnosis but let not penalize because there's not enough time to divest to heirs before the drunk coming the wrong way on the freeway with no lights hits you.
posted on May 23, 2003 10:06:21 AM new
Back to the original topic, I think one of the other things that dilutes sales totals is the fact that more and more people are out of work and turning to alterntaive forms to make money - ebay is one. Problem is that there is a finaite amount of money to be spent and when diided among an ever growing number of sellers you are going to see lower sales totals. I would be mre interested in seeing the fluctuations in total dollar mounts being spent.
posted on May 23, 2003 10:08:47 AM new
One way is by a pour over trust triggered by one's demise and there are many other ways. A closely held private corporation is yet another way.
An unexpected death would have no effect on estate taxes if you plan it right.
posted on May 23, 2003 11:09:28 AM new
Can we bring this back on topic please? I'm sure debating tax cuts is an endlessly fascinating subject, but the OP began by talking about sales being down on collectible items on eBay. Since I would like to someday be one of those rich people who get all the tax cuts, can we talk about how to maximize sales and prices in a recessive economy?
posted on May 23, 2003 05:21:55 PM new
If there was a formula or way to maximize sales and prices in a "recessive" economy and become rich, then there wouldn't be "recessive" economies.
The same economic rules apply now as they did 5 years ago, except that in a "recessive" economy, sales and sometimes prices go down.
posted on May 24, 2003 10:17:10 AM new
I'm not sure about that, Reamond. The only other thing that might account for any kind of spike is the free Stores GTC listings, but the jump corresponds with the Thursday Ebay UK FLD. Maybe a bunch of sellers listed on the wrong site
posted on May 24, 2003 10:46:38 AM new
If a seller lists at ebay uk and ships internationally the auction will be in the US search. Perhaps that's the reason.
dd
posted on May 24, 2003 11:50:48 AM new
According to the site, The counts are calculated by totaling all the numbers on the EBay Category Overview page - and also by taking the bottom number from the EBay Listings Page
I would think that those figures are just the US site.
Could there be large vendors listing a lot anticipating a rush of buyers from the new points program ?
