Unique Photo Trade-In values suck

Ian Grant said:

I'm surprised you sold your Rolls Royce so cheaply, the profits from camera sales must have bbeen high

Joking apart the margins on new camera sales plummeted in the 70's & 80's and never returned to the 100% mark up level, but the OP is talking about selling second hand items to a dealer. That dealer has to finance his stock and unsold goods cost money in interest etc, some dealers as well have better infrastructure and reputation (and are much larger) and can turn items over faster.

In the UK it's better to sell as a commission sale through na dealer, that way the tax (VAT 20%) is on the commission only so far better for the buyer, it's better for the dealer as well because they've not had to pay before the items sold. The down side as a seller is you only get paid when the items sold but then you get a far better price. That's been my experience anyway.

It is supply and demand, I was amazed today when doing a Google search to see how many UK shops just sold analog cameras & film, many successfully. But I know one who's prices in his shop & on Ebay are way too high, but friends who jo him says he's been paying far too much for stock.

All shops /dealers have to make a living. the moral is sell to one who's turning over stock and check ot the best options, in the past for me it's been commission sales when through a store.

Ian

Click to expand...

In the twenty odd years I worked in photographic retailing I found that the genera public have no conception of the realities of business, and when they offer their equipment in part exchange and invariably are insulted by what they are offered ( about a third of the new price ) don't realise that the retailer has to pay the government 20% V.A.T on the price he pays the customer and a further 20% V.A.T. when it is resold, the company has no idea how long the equipment will be on the shelf before it's sold tying up his money, and in the case of the company I worked for who guaranteed used equipment for six months which is a potential additional cost.
I've lost count of off how many irate customers I have dealt with in the past and explained these facts to them, I also told them they would get more money for their equipment if they sold it privately if they could be bothered with the hassle.

There is no VAT in the USA... yet.

but you have something called sales tax in most states do you not?

A private person selling a camera to a camera shop cannot bill VAT, thus at this stage the dealer is not involved in VAT.
Only when the dealer sells that camera again he has to calculate VAT based on the final retail price he asks.

pdeeh said:

but you have something called sales tax in most states do you not?

Click to expand...

Yes, usually about 6-10 percent. However, if we buy out-of-state, there is NO sales tax... UNTIL the bastards in Washington DC finalize and enforce Federally Enforced Out-Of-State Sales Taxes. Private sales... no taxes... YET.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Yes, usually about 6-10 percent. However, if we buy out-of-state, there is NO sales tax... UNTIL the bastards in Washington DC finalize and enforce Federally Enforced Out-Of-State Sales Taxes. Private sales... no taxes... YET.

Click to expand...

Actually, sales tax in the US is a form of USE tax, and hence is the responsibility of the buyer to declare and pay. So - for all intents and purposes, an out of state sale is not tax free, its just not collected at the time of sale by the seller, and needs to be reported and paid by the buyer at his home state. Few if any actually do this, giving the impression there is no sales tax for "out of state sales" or "private sales".
Every money changing hands is liable for sales tax, private or not. In most of the world small amount transactions between private parties are rarely reported though.

If I sell my old used lawnmower... good luck to whatever tax agency wants to collect. Ain't gonna happen. It was taxed when it was bought new. It's wrong to collect taxes on a second or third or fourth sale.

Like Benjoboy though in the US(no VAT)
A trade to a dealer wasn't taxed, just deducted from the sales price and the total sale less trade
was taxed.
simple samplelikely not needed)
purchase $100.
trade in 20.
Net sale 80.
5% sale tax 4.
ttl $84.

Old-N-Feeble said:

If I sell my old used lawnmower... good luck to whatever tax agency wants to collect. Ain't gonna happen. It was taxed when it was bought new. It's wrong to collect taxes on a second or third or fourth sale.

Click to expand...

Sorry, if it is a "sales tax" it is a tax on a sales transaction, not a tax on the item itself.

Whether or not those tax rules are enforced on the sale of used goods by individuals is a question of practicality, not legality.

I guarantee that Catlabs is careful about sales tax on used items, because no one wants to have their business exposed to a sales tax audit because the business' principal didn't collect and remit tax on their Craigslist sale.

The more you expand the base of what transactions are taxed, the lower the rate can be, and the more you can insure that those who are most active fiscally are those who pay the most tax.

Yes, Matt, US retailers must collect sales tax on all sales. It's not VAT though and it's not from private sales.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Yes, Matt, US retailers must collect sales tax on all sales. It's not VAT though and it's not from private sales.

Click to expand...

I expect that the sales tax rules in the USA are different in each and every state. I know that in Washington state the rate of tax you pay varies by location (county).
I don't believe that the USA has a federal sales tax. We n Canada have both a federal sales tax (GST) which is essentially a VAT tax and a provincial sales tax that varies from province to province both in rate and application. One province (Alberta) has no provincial sales tax, and some of the other provinces have "harmonized" their sales tax with the GST, meaning a single, higher tax is charged on (almost) all transactions.
Sales of used goods generally attract the same taxes as sales of new goods. If you purchase from a registrant, they have the responsibility of charging, collecting and remitting the tax. If you purchase from a private, non-registered individual, you are responsible for calculating and remitting any tax due.
I used to have a small, photographic business that I operated as a sole proprietorship. It was registered for provincial sales tax. If I bought something used from an individual privately, I added that purchase to my sales tax calculations and sent the requisite sales tax to the Province in my next scheduled remittance. It just wasn't worth risking an audit, penalties, and possible loss of my registration (many wholesale suppliers based their decision on selling to you at wholesale rates on whether you were a registrant).

It's not unethical at all. Don't take the first offer that you get is the message here. Always sell for as much as you can, always buy for as little as you can get away with, and something is only "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it. Is this news to you? If so and you can afford it, give it away next time to someone needy and do a good deed. Excellent ethics on that one. Ethics come in all flavors and sizes. One size don't fit all.

I totally agree w/ old and feeble. One tax is plenty! They ain't getting any money from me if I sell something unless I can't figure out a way to get around paying it, like in a cash transaction. For known incompetent, criminal bunglers (government officials) to tell me that they want a piece of the action is no better than the Mob wanting a cut. They have no business in my business. Once is enough. Let them get their money the old fashioned way that they always get it.... by stealing it and shaking down honest citizens for bribes. It's a skill that not all of us are good at, but those slime balls are born to the job at hand. They're good at it, and enjoy it. Makes them happy.

Understood, Matt. The US has no Federal Sales Tax... yet. There are only State Sales Taxes... as of now... but Uncle Sam is considering a Federal Sales Tax (bastards). I promise that if you buy my used lawn mower (or camera) I will not collect any sort of tax.

AgX said:

A private person selling a camera to a camera shop cannot bill VAT, thus at this stage the dealer is not involved in VAT.
Only when the dealer sells that camera again he has to calculate VAT based on the final retail price he asks.

Click to expand...

No, that's incorrect the retailer is involved the store not the customer (unless it's a company who is V.A.T. registered) has to pay Value Added Tax on the initial transaction, then again when the company sells the equipment paying 20% on each transaction.

AgX said:

Is this a question of ethics?

Click to expand...

It's a question of capitalism. Supply, demand, etc

But it's not really a question. It is an example!

Poisson Du Jour said:

Mate, so what's new??
Dealers trading second-hand equipment have been doing this since Nelson lost an eye. They are there to turn a profit, certainly not to line the pockets of hopeful customers with gold ducats. Around where I am, the re-sale markup is around 600%, and cash-in-hand trades are pitiful, and as you can imagine, emotions can run high when photographers consider their equipment to be valued much, much higher than the piddly offer from the gold-encrusted guy behind the counter. You know, some of the longest-standing photographic dealers in Australia have made their wealth this way and continue to do so.

I have not traded-in equipment for more than 20 years at a retail (shop-front) level. eBay is much more tolerant of what you are asking for, but the market out there will dictate how much people think they should pay, as opposed to how much want to get back in cold, hard cash.

Click to expand...

living on an island(UKor AUS)is expensive but the salaries are higher too

Nodda Duma said:

It's a question of capitalism. Supply, demand, etc

Click to expand...

"Capitalism is savagery" Karl Marx

RalphLambrecht said:

living on an island(UKor AUS)is expensive but the salaries are higher too

Click to expand...

Poisson Du Jour said:

Mate, so what's new??
Dealers trading second-hand equipment have been doing this since Nelson lost an eye. They are there to turn a profit, certainly not to line the pockets of hopeful customers with gold ducats. Around where I am, the re-sale markup is around 600%, and cash-in-hand trades are pitiful, and as you can imagine, emotions can run high when photographers consider their equipment to be valued much, much higher than the piddly offer from the gold-encrusted guy behind the counter. You know, some of the longest-standing photographic dealers in Australia have made their wealth this way and continue to do so.

I have not traded-in equipment for more than 20 years at a retail (shop-front) level. eBay is much more tolerant of what you are asking for, but the market out there will dictate how much people think they should pay, as opposed to how much want to get back in cold, hard cash.

Click to expand...

I managed photography shops for almost 25 years Ralph and only wish that that your assertion that I was "gold encrusted" was true , The truth is that most people expect unrealistic prices for their equipment, I always told them they would get more for it if they sold it privately but most of them couldn't be bothered to do that, we as a company didn't really want to buy in used gear because there were potential large hidden costs to the company in how long the money would be tied up before it was sold and if it broke down during the six months warranty ( quite often if the equipment became faulty during the warranty period I just gave them a refund because it was cheaper than the repair costs ).
I think nowadays if you took film equipment to part exchange in most bricks and mortar photographic shops they would look at you as if you were a dangerous lunatic as Jessops did with me a few months ago when I wanted to buy some 120 film from them.

benjiboy said:

No, that's incorrect the retailer is involved the store not the customer has to pay Value Added Tax on the initial transaction, then again when the company sells the equipment paying 20% on each transaction.

Click to expand...

I would be surprised if the first is not subtracted from the later.
"Registered businesses must pay over to HMRC the VAT they have charged on their goods or service (known as output tax) but they may offset this with the VAT they have incurred on goods or services they have purchased (known as input tax)"

I don't think the original offer was unethical, for the reasons stated by previous posters. Anything is worth only what a willing buyer will pay....I may see a "cheap" car on sale at a car showroom, but, if I don't need or want it, I'm not interested. I would only be interested if I needed that type or model of car to use, or if it was so cheap that I could see an opportunity to sell it on easily and make a virtually guaranteed profit.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Understood, Matt. The US has no Federal Sales Tax... yet. There are only State Sales Taxes... as of now... but Uncle Sam is considering a Federal Sales Tax (bastards). I promise that if you buy my used lawn mower (or camera) I will not collect any sort of tax.

Click to expand...

Refusal to pay sufficient taxes (in whatever form) may result in firefighters losing their pensions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/detroit-s-bankruptcy-shows-even-pensions-aren-t-safe-1.2451423

digital&film said:

"Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct."

To me, offering $125 LESS than a dealer in an even higher-cost area (NYC) is unethical.

Click to expand...

No, Unique Photo made you an offer nobody was twisting your arm to accept it and you rejected which was your prerogative and subsequently got a better offer from B&H , that's business. I don't understand what the purpose of your post is except that you feel affronted by the original offer and are trying to extract some sort of revenge from the original company by trying to publicly exposing them.

cowanw said:

Refusal to pay sufficient taxes (in whatever form) may result in firefighters losing their pensions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/detroit-s-bankruptcy-shows-even-pensions-aren-t-safe-1.2451423

Click to expand...

I'm not a firefighter and I live in the USA. Pensions are safe nowhere because corrupt politicians raid them for pet projects.

As the OP hasn't contributed to this thread since January, it's all a bit of a pointless debate.

also, render unto Ceasar the things which are Caesar's.

Does this thread belong in the lounge or the hidden from search or the soapbox anyway?