Nick Furious

On 4/27/2024 at 6:30 PM, revat said:

I wouldn’t get my hopes up about a lot of jail time.  Nothing was taken by force or physically stolen, and the defendant doesn’t seem to have committed or threatened any violence.

The dog, on the other hand, is facing 20 to life for the chicken massacre.  

On 4/7/2024 at 2:50 PM, DC# said:

This is an unanswerable hypothetical but I will ask the question anyway….

There are currently ten, universal 9.9 copies of ASM 300.   There have been five recorded sales - one each in 2005, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017. 
 

There are nearly 1,600 copies of this book in 9.8 (out of 29k+ total books).   It has traded hands around 100 times a year for past 8 years or so and is still selling for around $3k give or take a few hundred on either side.   
 

If the ten copies in 9.9 did not exist, would the value of the 9.8s be different?    If yes - how much of a discount do you think 9.8s are selling for because of the 9.9s?   If  no - how many copies in 9.9 would it take to alter the price trajectory of 9.8s? 

Again - this is all unknowable but I would love to hear people’s thoughts   

 

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.  

On 3/26/2024 at 8:19 AM, SOTIcollector said:

I cannot understand how it is that a person would think wasting other people’s time, just to feed a sad and desperate desire for attention, is humorous.

First time on the internet?  

On 3/26/2024 at 7:26 AM, zzutak said:

Perhaps most of the folks around here don't find your shtick amusing.  It's certainly a possibility, no? 

On 3/26/2024 at 7:45 AM, Sigur Ros said:

I love humor.

You're just really bad at it.

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

On 3/15/2024 at 12:27 AM, ttfitz said:

I think it's a little unfair to suggest that nobody here has suggested they didn't have to pay taxes before and that's why they are upset about this change in reporting. There's been any number of responses that have basically said something along those lines - a recent one was something like (and despite the quotation marks, this is a paraphrase) "with these new requirements, selling isn't worth it, as it's a lot less fun and less profitable." It would only be "less profitable" if you weren't paying taxes on your profits before this. Nothing has changed in regard to what is supposed to be paid, only what is being reported to the IRS by others.

 

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.      

On 3/14/2024 at 11:10 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Don't tilt at the windmill. All I mentioned the new threshold for was to update the thread title since it is wrong, and I still got asked for what purpose. Either not taking things at face value or an agenda. I have no opinion anymore on it as I don't feel the need to control things I can't

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.      

On 3/14/2024 at 10:45 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

So using your example above of 20K threshold. Are you saying that people could sell $19,999.99 and not have to report those gross sales numbers (minus deductions) on their taxes for that year?  Basically they get to keep all that money.

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?  

On 3/14/2024 at 10:35 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

So what were people doing prior the threshold?

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.  

On 3/14/2024 at 10:27 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

 

So all these years that I have been using my gross sales as my taxable income has been wrong? 

 

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.   

On 3/14/2024 at 5:54 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

Right, but again whether they send the form or not what does it matter to you on your taxes?

Income is income.

If I sold 1K on whatnot or ebay I am supposed to report it is my point.

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.  

On 3/12/2024 at 5:41 PM, NewWorldOrder said:

This thread is great

If they raised the threshold to 50K most of you here from the posts I have read would think the Gov't would allow you to keep your profit as long as your gross sales were kept under 50k, and they didn't send you a 1099.

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?     

On 3/6/2024 at 12:42 PM, ttfitz said:

So it really doesn't tell us anything about the subject line of this thread (at most comic books were reviewed by men more heavily than anything besides philosophy), nor how many men or women read/reviewed a particular genre.

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.  

On 2/26/2024 at 8:56 AM, UncleAnwar said:

My general question is, with the state of the current market would it be best to sell now or wait a bit (3, 5, 10 yrs?).  I'm in no real rush to move them quickly, so I'm fine waiting if it will net me more money.  I'm also learning that I'll definitely have to break them up in chunks to get the most bang for my buck.

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.  

On 2/20/2024 at 4:03 PM, shadroch said:

The ideal candidate will work for comics, or a mix of food and comics. 

Or just for an opportunity to sit in air conditioning.  

On 2/23/2024 at 1:10 PM, sledgehammer said:

I think that it is a different inner well, with the same label.

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

On 2/23/2024 at 11:23 AM, PaulM45 said:

As a seller, you don't mind sending comic books to MCS before they are sold?

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.  

On 2/23/2024 at 12:52 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

I assume the donor was slabbed and likely sold

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.