posted on September 20, 2001 10:30:49 PMThere is no need whatsoever to involve Billpoint on the seller's side of the transaction.
There is no reason if they wanted to run a good charitable donation program. Simply collecting buyer's money, sending it to 911, and advising seller that payment had been made would work fine. Any receipt program would be unaffected.
There is an excellent reason if eBay wanted to use this event to get more sellers signed up for Billpoint.
posted on September 20, 2001 11:49:02 PM
meg just said herself that ebay did 2.2 billion just last quarter so if you add up 4 quarters if they are equal 8.8 billion this year in revenue. or just deal with the 2.2
so why can't they just make it 8.7 this year or 2.1 in the last quarter and donate the 100 million from ebay themselves? it's not like they would probably miss a few hundred million over the next 100 days.
why because their is no way they could ride the publicity train for 100 whole days if they just drop the 100 million and walk away.
If you don't see ebay using this as a marketing gimmick, or trying to capitalize on the tragedy you have to be deaf, dumb and blind. eBay couldn't buy this kind of exposure at any other time. If they weren't doing it for the exposure they would do no interviews.
If it was standard practice for big business to donate in ways like this Microsoft would come out with a little program they would sell for charity we could send what we wanted and they would ship it to us for free, as bad as Microsoft is I doubt you'll see anything like that soon.
posted on September 21, 2001 12:30:53 AM
"their is no way they could ride the publicity train for 100 whole days if they just drop the 100 million and walk away......"
"If you don't see ebay using this as a marketing gimmick, or trying to capitalize on the tragedy you have to be deaf, dumb and blind. eBay couldn't buy this kind of exposure at any other time. If they weren't doing it for the exposure they would do no interviews."
posted on September 21, 2001 05:16:03 AM
We will not be participating in the Ebay/United Way A4A. I haven't read the last few pages but would like to add my thoughts.
I was in store management in a large department store in the Washington DC area...the one still open, not the other major one that folded! Every year I would be ill thinking about the United Way campaign coming. I hated strong arming all my employees with the tactics that were used. There were breakfasts to rally management and then meetings with upper management if it was found you weren't pushing employees to give. It has been 25 years, but thinking back I think there was some kind of reward involved too. Needless to say, I don't remember because we never won.
I hated having to ask my managers and sales people to contribute when many were just scraping by. I was forced to ask one woman whose husband had left her with care of a few children (don't remember #) who was trying her best, always with a smile on her face! She should have been getting relief, not giving until it hurts.
I believe the charts, leaflets and films used (at that time) by United Way were calculated to cause
feelings of shame if you can't or don't give to them. Things apparently aren't any different. I had
decided back then I would NEVER contribute to their "Charity" again and have not, and I will not do it now because Ebay has started using UW tactics.
If I am ask why I am not donating to this particular cause I will explain to my customers, just as I have about PayPal!
This Ebay charity has all the earmarks of United Way heavy handedness. They may have gotten the Ebay part of the farce done in a few days, but United Way put the "DONATING UNDER DURESS" in place many years ago.
posted on September 21, 2001 08:26:22 AM
OK, since it's clear that I'm preaching either to the choir or the wolves who want to bite my head off, redundancy in the wake of nothing new isn't going to help anyone. SO, the below. Comments and suggestions please. I have gotten many from other places...
___________________________________________
The eBay users want to know, considering eBay already had a link DIRECTLY to a credit card/bank consortium which has pledged to waive 100% of its processing fees to be a clearinghouse of all donations DIRECTLY to Charity in the form of a very visible link on their site, why eBay set the Auctions For America porgram up in such a way that all sellers would have to use Billpoint, an online payment company that they have ownership in. The latest figure for Billpoint is that only 30-35% of eBay sellers use it, as compared to approximately 70% that use Paypal, the competing Online Payment program, eBay has publically excluded payments directly to PayPal for this.. Billpoint cannot take many International payments, thus excluding those: VISA, PayPal, etc. can and do: eBay is well aware that many, many sellers have and will refuse to join Billpoint because of what they see are the wide array of probelms associated with it.
The eBay users want an assurance from eBay Management that the Mission Statement they issued which clearly said that they would not want anyone to profit from this murderous attack will be implemented in all ways by eBay itself, especially in light of bookkeeping and accounting "tricks" such as offering free listings, as they are doing in AFA, but first charging listing fees to sellers to inflate listing numbers, then crediting them back, and using them on another side of their balance sheet such as "promotional expenses." They have apparently done this before, and it will obviously affect their PAPER bottom line positively, and by extension their stock price, and by further extension they could profit from this creative bookkeeping.
The eBay users want to know why, with all the rhetoric coming from eBay Management about this program, the press releases, and frequent press interviews with Meg Whitman, CEO, why eBay Officers have discussed things like their 2.2 billion dollars revenue, expectations of meeting analyst's estimates of earning 11 cents a share in Q3, and issued statements DIRECTLY saying that they expect the AFA Program to "balance" the negatiive effects the attacks had on their business etc., etc., and touted this program at length, why they have never even attempted to make it clear that the vast majority of the money generated from this program will be generated by contributions of merchandise and shipping BY SELLERS, NOT by eBay. eBay users want to know WHY, in light of their altruistc mission statement, as it is extremely difficult to see how a program which is supposedly designed to profit no one, and is being instituted by eBay who has said they will swallow all costs associated with it, eBay has issued those press releases regarding their 11 cents per share projection of Q3 earnings, and why they said in them that the negative effects of the attacks would be "balanced" by the effects of the AFA Program. eBay users want to know how a Program whose administrative costs are completely borne by eBay and the contributions completely borne by eBay sellers could POSSIBLY have a "balancing" positive effect on eBay's bottom line. This "balancing" effect is CLEARLY profit for eBay. eBay users do NOT want to "credit" from what they are doing, they just want eBay to keep its word about others (including eBay) not profiting from this disaster. There are many ways a company or individual can profit. One of them is propagating a false and/or incomplete perception of the nature of what they're doing.
The eBay users want the completely unclear tax consequences of this program to them, and FOR eBay, cleared up, beyond the posting of an almost word-for-word recitation of IRS general guidelines on donations of property that they have posted on the AFA homepage. One specific directly related to eBay's pledge that no one should profit from the attacks- eBay users want an assurance that eBay will not profit directly by being able to use ANY of the sellers' donations of property as a tax advantage FOR EBAY. eBay users have no objection to any costs borne DIRECTLY by eBay (such as administrative costs) to be used for that purpose.
posted on September 21, 2001 08:35:17 AM
Thank You members of my e-bay family for posting on boards everywhere. I can gain my strength to keep moving on no matter how slow. Cindy !!!
posted on September 21, 2001 09:56:22 AM
We are talking about an enormous amount of money here.
I can not always agree with the way things are done and I can only hope that it turns out well in the end.
But I see nothing wrong with asking questions so we are assured that the money is accounted for and that it will go to help the ones that will need it the most.
Perhaps if we all asked more questions we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in today.
posted on September 21, 2001 10:22:27 AM
The game at half.com, a ebay company, is list your items for less than the other guys that have them up they sit their on the server and if it sales you make 50% less than what it is worth, or something along those lines.
So I went to check out our half.com brothers to see what ebay is doing to them........... as it looks nothing, if you click on the donate funds it just takes you to a generic September 11 fund web page, I'm sure your tracked in and out from the referring page but if they do it.s not listed on the address bar. Also on the front page it says "Donate your tax rebate" click on that and your at the same UW page.
I don't know if they learned real fast from their mistakes at ebay or what, but this is how it should have been handled over on ebay as well. But then you couldn't draw all the added attention to your company unless you touch all that money and then donate it in your name.
posted on September 21, 2001 01:30:13 PM
Don't you find it rather interesting that when you click on "Site Map" & then "Catagories" that a NEW user gets SHOVED into AfA ?? For someone TOTALLY unfamilar with eBay, you would think that front page is the ONLY page of catagories!
That isn't JUST competition...it is UNFAIR competition!
posted on September 21, 2001 01:35:32 PM
It may not be as bad as it appeared at first, as far as cutting in to regular auction sales.
I just searched my two main categories, limited to AFA items. In the first category there were no AFA listings at all.
In the second there were only 5, vs. 200+ regular. In fact, a couple of them looked like very good buys for resale, especially with no shipping cost to me as buyer. This could be a very nice buying opportunity, depending on your category, and probably varying over the 100 days' time.
So at least for my main items, I don't see the AFA auctions as siphoning off my buyers.
I already give away 10% of my net, and have for years. At first glance I'm in no hurry to make it more complicated by trying to do so in the form of business stock instead of plain old cash, but on the other hand if I had things I thought would barely break even, selling for no more than I paid for it, this might be a nice time to get rid of it with no auction fees. If first class or media shipping + starting bid would cover my costs, why not clear out such items and get the tax deduction?
posted on September 21, 2001 02:52:14 PM
Pardon me, but I haven't read this post since it grew from 2 pages to 12....has anyone mentioned how much ebay will profit just from CLAIMING THE TOTAL CHARITY AMOUNT ON THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN???? Maybe this is a stupid question, but won't they be entitled to this CHARITY AMOUNT and not really those who have so graciously given their time, and their items?????????
posted on September 21, 2001 03:38:06 PM
The suggestion that ebaY would attempt to claim deduction for the full amounts collected is absolutely ridiculous.
About the max I could imagine them attempting to claim would be the direct PR expenses and the fees as would otherwise apply to the transactions. That would be quite a bit. (Do not take this lay supposition as evidence that they will deduct that much).
posted on September 21, 2001 04:08:00 PM
greedbay: Thanks.....I think your last paragraph is worth getting some answers on. If all the $ is funnelled through ebay, I would think that perhaps they will try to profit from the deduction.
posted on September 21, 2001 04:19:08 PM
Creative-
I think the real problem in that area is that eBay may have dropped the ball on this as in badly. They wouldn't do anything THAT egregious intentionally, if just for PR purposes- they would get reamed. I have looked through all the applicable tax laws at length, and talked to many people, a few experts, and neither they nor I can come up with any legal way as defined by the IRS that any seller can take any deduction on anything with the way this is set up. The seller is "donating" the item to the buyer, who in 99.99% of cases won't be an organization qualified by the IRS to receive charitable contributions. Even I almost can't believe, though, that eBay could be THAT incompetent, so I'm sitting here waiting for eBay to tell me something I didn't know about how that can POSSIBLY work...
posted on September 21, 2001 05:26:23 PM
from the ebay announcments board:
"*Auction for America listings use a special version of eBay Online Payments by Billpoint to ensure all funds go to the charity and to give the seller a charitable donation receipt. "
posted on September 21, 2001 05:27:54 PM
A pink said the homepage will be changed or will have changes made.I think they are feeling the heat,They had to back down with
Billpoint in 99.
posted on September 21, 2001 05:35:24 PM
The receipt is worthless unless it is from a bona fide charity.
We had a receipt signed by a national Guard officer for the hay. Still couldn't deduct from taxes.
Unless the receipt is from a charity, it is unacceptable for deductions.
Also, if you gave a single donation of more than $250, you also must have a statement from the charity assuring taht the donor did not receive anything of value from the charity in return, or you can't deduct it.
posted on September 21, 2001 05:41:04 PM
You know I kind of look at this whole thing like a huge bake sale. If you bake a batch of cookies, a cake, a pie etc. and take it in to sell at your church, school, where ever you don't walk away hoping for a big receipt that you can take to your tax man, or at least I wouldn't.
This is pretty much the same thing, at least the way I see it, get your junk that you would normally sell at the grange sale for a few bucks or the stuff you can't seem to sell at auction and let the people out there express their generosity by bidding.
The way I see it's a big White Elephant sale, you get rid of junk you could care less about and if you get a receipt great, if not your not out much. If your lucky someone might bid your junk through the roof, my guess is the IRS will be a bit lax on charitable contributions this next year, I'm saying to lie on your returns but I would claim the sale amount plus shipping if they want to dispute it later you'll just owe the difference.
posted on September 21, 2001 07:57:12 PM
I guess you missed my point entirely, I guess I should write a book as usual and explain every point but it would still be taken wrong, which is par for this course, or should I say AW's message boards. it will be a sad day when they drop the message boards............
posted on September 21, 2001 09:40:28 PM
Just to clarify -- the 2.2B figure being passed around for a quarter at eBay is what is known as GMS (gross merchandise sales), not eBay's revenue or profits. Their revenue is the insertion, optional, and FV fees from that 2.2B (still not a small number, but significantly less).
posted on September 21, 2001 11:13:54 PM
Greedbay - your dedication and commitment is impressive. I don't sell on ebay, so I'm just drawn by the underhandedness of all this. Does anyone have a sense of whether they are on target. I doesn't seem like it. Dimview any opinions?
wb
posted on September 21, 2001 11:25:56 PM
Wrangler, I agree with you though it's not difficult to understand the reasoning behind the structure of the tax law. If it's that important, sell the item and donate the proceeds directly to the Red Cross or other charity. Otherwise you are simply donating the item, valued at what you paid for it. Much as I hate to pay taxes, in this case it seems a little weird to donate to a charity and then take a tax exemption on it. Gee, am I being patriotic or what?
posted on September 22, 2001 04:56:43 AM
Twinsoft-
Here is what ebay is saying vis a vis taxes-
eBay (which is not a qualified charitable entity by IRS rules) will issue a receipt to sellers for their "donations" to buyers (who also are not qualified Charitable entities by IRS rules) for a transaction that has nothing to do with them, and eBay doesn't even know physically happened, only because the buyers' payment is going to Billpoint (also not a qualified Charitable entity by IRS rules). And the IRS is supposed to accept this receipt as proof of a valid deductible Charitable contribution? Um, WHY?
Unless the Tax Code was suspended when AFA was instituted, or the IRS is prepared to give eBay an exemption from it in this case, this ain't gonna happen.
And with all due respect (and I mean it) to Wranglers and Twinsoft- it would be a mistake to minimize the value of this deduction- it's not that people should get paid for what they're giving in the form of a tax deduction, it's that come April 15th, 2002, many eBay sellers, a good percentage of which are self-employed, will have a tax bill coming due. Some of these sellers will have jumped into AFA with both feet, and the principle behind that is commendable. The economy's down, small businesses are hurting, including them (us). If they donated say $5000 in wares (which many small businesses and self-employed sellers on ebay will presumably do), that $5000 if deductible and if the donor is in the 33% tax bracket will translate into $1666 that they get to keep for their families, instead of having to pay the IRS. That is NOT chumpchange, and the effect of having almost $1700 more in your pocket and your families' pockets shouldn't be minimized.
posted on September 22, 2001 05:02:49 AM
True, Gotomarshall, thanks for pointing that out. eBay revenue in 2000 was 434 million, and are 300 Million + for the quarters they already reported in 2001.
