Nick Furious

1:30 AM. Hotel lobby bar.

My thinking is that the existence of 9.9's does not impact the value of 9.8's because of the vast differences in quantity. I think the ratio of 160 to 1 puts them into different categories. If it were something like a 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 ratio, (either because of more 9.9's or less 9.8's) I could see where either grade would likely negatively impact the value of the other.

First time on the internet?

Gonna have to disagree on this one. I found this one amusing and well played.

Fair enough. But to ask what changes with the reporting, I would compare it to a speeding analogy. If the speed limit is 60, typically you can keep it under 65 and feel confident that you are not who the police officer is looking to ticket. You are still breaking the law and may still get a ticket, but under normal circumstances it is acceptable to go 61-64 mph in a 60 zone and in fact may be the only way to stay consistent with the flow of traffic. The new reporting law is more of "we have video evidence that you were on the highway. Either pay this fine for speeding or argue that you were not speeding, and risk being audited for further investigation". That's what changes with the $600 reporting threshold change. The burden of proof of innocence trickles down to folks who likely won't have the resources or courage to argue their innocence rather than pay the fine.

It's all good. History is full of debates between the letter of the law and the intent of the law. The $20k threshold showed that the intent of the law was different than the letter of the law. The reduction to $600 indicated a change in intent that would bring us closer to the letter of the law. The delays in implementation indicates a reconsideration of that change. It's fair game for debate.

If I was saying that, you wouldn't be asking if I was saying that. Anyone can be audited. But the higher threshold intentionally gives the tax filer the option of deciding for themselves if they need to address the revenues and expenses at the time of filing. The lower reporting requirement makes it mandatory to address all revenues over $600 at the time of filing or pay taxes on those revenues as if they are pure profit. You asked, "if they send the form or not, what does it matter to you on your taxes?" I attempted to answer that question. Did I provide an adequate answer?

There has always been a threshold. Previously it was intentionally set at a high enough amount ($20K?) to let the little fish swim through the net without getting caught up in the need to address small amounts of revenue from selling personal items.

I assume you get that part. It's the rest of it that you are dismissing when you ask why the change in reporting threshold will matter for people. It matters because now they will have to address small amounts of revenue on their tax returns that they didn't previously need to address. It's a lot of extra work and adequately addressing the small revenues with offsetting expenses opens the door to more likelihood of audits.

Here's the part you are missing: Taxable income is based on profit, not revenue. Currently someone selling $6K on Ebay but making no profit after expenses does not have to address it on their tax return. With the new threshold, Ebay will report the $6K in sales to the IRS and the tax filer will need to address it on their tax return whether they made an profit or not. Otherwise the IRS will adjust your income by $6K and send you a bill. Eventually that number will reach $600 according the the legislation that has been delayed as it becomes clear how onerous that will be.

If the threshold were raised to $50k, what do you think would be the purpose behind that? Do you not agree that the current threshold is an intentional buffer zone to allow for small transactions to go unreported?

There's plenty of law enforcement in Oregon. Just try stopping a drug addict from taking a dump on your front lawn. Or try stopping a dude from following your daughter into the locker room. See how many charges get filed against you.

That's absurd. The book is the same grade with or without the submitter's knowledge of restoration. Did the seller note restoration on the Ebay listings? Care to name the seller? Others here may have history with them.

good catch. You could turn the chart upside down and it would still provide the same information, just with comic books at the bottom. Chart only says that women review way more than men do overall...but in 4 categories men review more than women. Comic books and graphic novels being 2 of those 4. No champagne popping is warranted.

Might have had as much to do with transportation costs and maximizing retail display slots as it had to do with saving on paper and ink.

I would consider cashing out the 10% of books that make up 80% of the value, or the 20% that probably make up 90% of the value. Keep the rest, and regardless of what the overall market does there will always be individual books that will pop from time to time. I imagine comics are still in your system to some degree. Having the other 90% to dig through will be something you enjoy for years; probably more than you would enjoy the money you get from selling them now. Like an ongoing treasure hunt that you return to from time to time.

Looks like a parody of French cinema.

I think you have it backwards and it was the playing nice and being patient that was not helping. However, sounds like you now have a contact line to Mike that others don't have. Since this thread was able to assist in getting your books back, maybe you can pay it forward and take over for @Sauce Dogas chief hostage negotiator for the remaining victims.

Or just for an opportunity to sit in air conditioning.

I was thinking that the sticker going from blue to silver indicated a holder change. But that's probably on the inner well also.

What I picked up on in that initial thread was a typical brass-balls Silicon Valley startup type personality. Not criminal per se, but more of a fake-it-till-you-make-it mentality. Always out ahead of their ski's with no worries about the consequences of crashing. We applaud them when they last long enough to be an ongoing success. But more often than not they just prove to be reckless with other people's money.

The downside is that you can't market on other platforms or sell directly once you've sent to MCS. The upside is that MCS is basically a concierge service for selling books, at a lower cost than the DIY style selling of Ebay. I find it to be a significant value to send to MCS in bulk and let them handle the listing, selling and shipping of my books.

Since this was a reholder through CGC, I'm wondering why they wouldn't have caught it in their investigation and put it on the list.

I would guess that if it came back at same grade the scammer would hold onto it, at least for a while, for another potential swap.

You are correct, the pricing is not a function of variable costs. It's a function of how much value their service will add to the product, and what the market will bear because of that. That's why I say to ask the question in reverse to get the answer. They would love to charge $500 per book if they could. But for most books the service will not add enough value to justify it and obviously the market would not bear it. So instead of saying that they charge more for more valuable books, we might say that they charge less for less valuable books.