Ebay is Unfair!

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:12:44 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:53:44 -0400, Padraic Brown
wrote:

A great deal of what I spend is for things that have no real value
outside of personal desire. My cable internet bill, for example.

Can you justify paying for your cable bill?

I rather think he just did: it's a matter of personal desire. He wants
to watch Coronation Street reruns,

I'm in the US, and BBCAmerica hasn't carried _Coronation Street_.
I saw a few episodes on our PBS channel, but they were so old that
"Sally Webster" was still playing with Sindy dolls.

Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.


I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.

Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly, she came in
around the time Rosie was born...which would be about 15 years ago.

You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!

l2oberto






--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.


I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.


Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly, she came in
around the time Rosie was born...which would be about 15 years ago.

You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!

l2oberto


Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over here.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/

Redneck Geekess wrote:
With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
: : "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
: : : : Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.
: : : :
: : :
: : : I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.
: :
: :
: : Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly, she
: : came in around the time Rosie was born...which would be about 15
: : years ago.
: :
: : You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!
: :
: : l2oberto
: :
: :
: Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over here.

And John Inman is still alive and well....


Omigawd! I thought he was!
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/

With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
: : "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
: : : : Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.
: : : :
: : :
: : : I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.
: :
: :
: : Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly, she
: : came in around the time Rosie was born...which would be about 15
: : years ago.
: :
: : You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!
: :
: : l2oberto
: :
: :
: Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over here.

And John Inman is still alive and well....

--
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Nor was Dothan, Alabama.

My hourly rates:
$45 per hour.
$65 per hour if you want to watch.
$95 per hour if you want to help.
$125 per hour if you tried to fix it and failed.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:40:52 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:12:44 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:53:44 -0400, Padraic Brown
wrote:

A great deal of what I spend is for things that have no real value
outside of personal desire. My cable internet bill, for example.

Can you justify paying for your cable bill?

I rather think he just did: it's a matter of personal desire. He wants
to watch Coronation Street reruns,

I'm in the US, and BBCAmerica hasn't carried _Coronation Street_.
I saw a few episodes on our PBS channel, but they were so old that
"Sally Webster" was still playing with Sindy dolls.

Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.


I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.

Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly, she came in
around the time Rosie was born...which would be about 15 years ago.

You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!


Do look up "irony" next time you're near a dictionary.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: Redneck Geekess wrote:
: : With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: : : Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
: : : : "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
: : : : : : Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly,
: : : : she came in around the time Rosie was born...which would be
: : : : about 15 years ago.
: : : :
: : : : You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!
: : : :
: : : : l2oberto
: : : :
: : : :
: : : Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over
: : : here.
: :
: : And John Inman is still alive and well....
:
:
: Omigawd! I thought he was!

Yes, he passed on to his reward (and finally came out of the closet)
last month.

--
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Nor was Dothan, Alabama.

My hourly rates:
$45 per hour.
$65 per hour if you want to watch.
$95 per hour if you want to help.
$125 per hour if you tried to fix it and failed.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:54:47 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:06:55 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:13:02 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

However, it's often the case that you are buying an item that is
unique or offered by only one seller and priced at £1 value and £19
shipping. In that case, you have to either decide to reward shady
ethics or do without the item.

It's quite possible many would do without the item, on the basis,
uniqueness
and general rareness generally has a certain expectation of "willing to
pay
more". Paying £1 suggests the item may not be up to decent standards.

You are not paying £1; you are paying £20. The cost out-of-pocket is
what you are paying. The allocation of the item figure and the
shipping figure doesn't affect the buyer.

*sigh* The item is priced at £1.
It's ridiculous low price suggests it is
below acceptable standard.

Only to someone who refuses to reason out what's involved. The
knowledgeable person understands that he will pay £20 total, and that
how that £20 is arrived at between bid price and shipping makes no
difference to him. The £1 figure means nothing to him.

It means everything when you want a refund, and only get £1 back!


Professional businesses cannot show profit on an
item that is sold at a loss (or minimal profit is shown). Income from
postage profit is a seperate income, and probabaly comes under service
income...

Nonsense. Income is income. It is separated on paper for the benefit
of accounting purposes, but it all goes to bottom line.

So, given we are skipping over accounting and just going for the basic
approach that A - B = C.

Accounting *is* "A-B=C". We just use some A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, etc
to get to the net of "C".


Where does the refund of £1 on the cost of a £20 (£1 + £19) book fit in?
Hard to imagine how a bottom line can be reached accuratley, if 100 books
make your total bottom line of £2,000 and your total refunds as you were
unfortunate enough to refund all sales is £100.

It would also be difficult to get to the bottom line accurately if a
wisdom of wombats ate your working papers. Both scenarios are equal
in probability.


The seller of
the item in question puts £20 in his pocket when the sale is
completed. The seller's financial records show the income as £20. If
the seller paid £10 for the item, the P&L would reflect a £10 profit
less his actual shipping cost.

No, it would show £1 (£9) £19 (£3)¹

¹ Where postal charges are £3.

Yes. That's what I wrote.

READ THIS CAREFULLY.

The process of lumping all charges to 1 invoice wouldn't work for importing
goods, as there is a exemption of VAT and Duty on products imported to the
UK under £18. If I pay £1 for a DVD, this is £1 in value that is to be
declared on the customs label, and needs to match the invoice. In the case
of a £20 declared overall lump sum, I would be required to pay VAT (17.5% on
the £20) plus VAT on the postage charge (actual, not the sellers version!)
plus a fee of what used to be £4 to the royal mail for processing the item,
this may be £8 now.

Life is far too complicated for you in the UK. I suggest you emigrate
immediately. Don't take your DVD player. It is only causing you
grief.

I dont think it matters how I make my point, as long as
I am able to discredit the notion that overall price is cut and dry.

The term is "cut and dried". The origin of the term is not known for
sure, but probably refers to lumber having to be cut and dried before
it is marketable. It may refer to tobacco, though, for the same
reasons.



It's really not as cut and dry as overall price.

Yes, from the buyer's viewpoint, it is.

See above!


Also,
it might be hard to justify paying £20 for something that has no real
value
outside of personal desire.

A great deal of what I spend is for things that have no real value
outside of personal desire. My cable internet bill, for example.

Can you justify paying for your cable bill?

Certainly. It satisfies my personal desire. That's the only
justification I need.

The internet may satisfy your personal desire...but can you justify paying
for it? What I am asking, is whether you would STILL pay for it, if another
provider offered you a better service?

l2oberto


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:54:47 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:06:55 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:


"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:13:02 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
wrote:

However, it's often the case that you are buying an item that is
unique or offered by only one seller and priced at £1 value and £19
shipping. In that case, you have to either decide to reward shady
ethics or do without the item.

It's quite possible many would do without the item, on the basis,
uniqueness
and general rareness generally has a certain expectation of "willing to
pay
more". Paying £1 suggests the item may not be up to decent standards.

You are not paying £1; you are paying £20. The cost out-of-pocket is
what you are paying. The allocation of the item figure and the
shipping figure doesn't affect the buyer.

*sigh* The item is priced at £1.
It's ridiculous low price suggests it is
below acceptable standard.

Only to someone who refuses to reason out what's involved. The
knowledgeable person understands that he will pay £20 total, and that
how that £20 is arrived at between bid price and shipping makes no
difference to him. The £1 figure means nothing to him.

It means everything when you want a refund, and only get £1 back!

You certainly have a point there! The lesson here, as it is with _any_
Ebay purchas, is to find out as much as possible about the seller and
the item in question. Even with a reputable seller, it's always a
crapshoot as to what you'll actually end up with.

Professional businesses cannot show profit on an
item that is sold at a loss (or minimal profit is shown). Income from
postage profit is a seperate income, and probabaly comes under service
income...

Nonsense. Income is income. It is separated on paper for the benefit
of accounting purposes, but it all goes to bottom line.

So, given we are skipping over accounting and just going for the basic
approach that A - B = C.

Where does the refund of £1 on the cost of a £20 (£1 + £19) book fit in?

If you're going to talk about refunds, now, then obviously that should
be stated in the terms of the auction. Some sellers offer a _full_
refund (lot plus postage); others (most I think) offer a partial
refund (lot price only). Some offer no refund at all (as is where is,
buyer assumes all risks).

This is where it pays to know the seller's refund policy. If his
policy is to refund the lot price only, then you get £1 back if you
don't like it!

Hard to imagine how a bottom line can be reached accuratley, if 100 books
make your total bottom line of £2,000 and your total refunds as you were
unfortunate enough to refund all sales is £100.

Income (£2,000) Minus all Income refunded (£100) = £1,900.

Perhaps skipping over accounting was a mistake!

The bottom line for that seller is £1900 pounds. What's so hard to
understand about that? If it costs him less than that to stock his
auctions and pay all other associated costs, then he comes out ahead.

The seller of
the item in question puts £20 in his pocket when the sale is
completed. The seller's financial records show the income as £20. If
the seller paid £10 for the item, the P&L would reflect a £10 profit
less his actual shipping cost.

No, it would show £1 (£9) £19 (£3)¹

¹ Where postal charges are £3.

OK, then his pocketed income is £16 (less whatever the item originall
cost him). So what?

The principle applies to restaurant bills where service income is shown
seperatley as gratuity:

MEAL: £35
DRINK: £18
SUB TOTAL: £53
GRATUITY £5.30 (@10%)
TOTAL: £58.30

VAT breakdown may also be shown - and can be even more complex.



It's the same as paying 1p for litre of Diesel, and being charged by an
attendant 94.9p a litre to fill it. Customer cannot be given an accurate
invoice. (for example, some people can claim VAT and other taxes back).
VAT
on 1p? lol

I'm an American and I don't know how VAT works (but I have paid it on
items I've purchased when in the UK). If VAT is charged on labor, and
if it's charged at the same rate as it is on petrol, the VAT collected
would be the same as if the fuel were priced at £1.

Excise duty is collected product specific, i.e it is specific to fuel, not
labour.

READ THIS CAREFULLY.

The process of lumping all charges to 1 invoice wouldn't work for importing
goods, as there is a exemption of VAT and Duty on products imported to the
UK under £18. If I pay £1 for a DVD, this is £1 in value that is to be
declared on the customs label, and needs to match the invoice. In the case
of a £20 declared overall lump sum, I would be required to pay VAT (17.5% on
the £20) plus VAT on the postage charge (actual, not the sellers version!)
plus a fee of what used to be £4 to the royal mail for processing the item,
this may be £8 now. I dont think it matters how I make my point, as long as
I am able to discredit the notion that overall price is cut and dry.


I think you're making this _much_ more complex than it really is. This
is an Ebay sale, not an import-export business, nor a retail sales
business, not a restaurant. This is some bloke selling some trinkets
(presumably worth ~£20) for £1 plus £19 postage. He gets his £20, the
buyer gets his £20 trinket. End of story.

It's really not as cut and dry as overall price.

Yes, from the buyer's viewpoint, it is.

See above!

Yeah, see above! Without all the added complexities!

Also,
it might be hard to justify paying £20 for something that has no real
value
outside of personal desire.

A great deal of what I spend is for things that have no real value
outside of personal desire. My cable internet bill, for example.

Can you justify paying for your cable bill?

Certainly. It satisfies my personal desire. That's the only
justification I need.

The internet may satisfy your personal desire...but can you justify paying
for it?

He just did! It satisfies his personal desire!

What I am asking, is whether you would STILL pay for it, if another
provider offered you a better service?

What's the price? Is it 20x what he is paying now or half the price?
It _all_ comes down to final price for value received. Whether it's
restaurant food, petrol, books, cable tv or a coin bought on Ebay. If
the amount of money spent is deemed to be "about right" for the item,
then the deal is good. Doesn't matter what the seller's breakdown is.

Padraic

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Redneck Geekess wrote:
With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: Redneck Geekess wrote:
: : With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: : : Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
: : : : "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
: : : : : : Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child. Assumingly,
: : : : she came in around the time Rosie was born...which would be
: : : : about 15 years ago.
: : : :
: : : : You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!
: : : :
: : : : l2oberto
: : : :
: : : :
: : : Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over
: : : here.
: :
: : And John Inman is still alive and well....
:
:
: Omigawd! I thought he was!

Yes, he passed on to his reward (and finally came out of the closet)
last month.



I lurved him. Still do.

--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/

With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: Redneck Geekess wrote:
: : With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: : : Redneck Geekess wrote:
: : : : With great wailing and gnashing of teeth, Pogonip screamed:
: : : : : Roberto Pirezzi wrote:
: : : : : : "Tony Cooper" wrote in
: : : : : : message
: : : : : : : : Think you mean Rosie. Sally is her mother.
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :
: : : : : : : I meant Sally. We get very old shows here, if at all.
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Not THAT old. Sally was never in corrie as a child.
: : : : : : Assumingly, she came in around the time Rosie was
: : : : : : born...which would be about 15 years ago.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : You couldn't possibly be THAT far behind!
: : : : : :
: : : : : : l2oberto
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : Sure we are. Queen Elizabeth is a young wife and mother over
: : : : : here.
: : : :
: : : : And John Inman is still alive and well....
: : :
: : :
: : : Omigawd! I thought he was!
: :
: : Yes, he passed on to his reward (and finally came out of the closet)
: : last month.
:
: :
: :
: I lurved him. Still do.

/aol
Me, too.

Enjoyed his works greatly, the ones I've seen...


--
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Nor was Dothan, Alabama.

My hourly rates:
$45 per hour.
$65 per hour if you want to watch.
$95 per hour if you want to help.
$125 per hour if you tried to fix it and failed.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com