Selling 30 items a year on Vinted

2

Comments

  • RFW
    RFW Posts: 10,012 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    sheramber said:


    That article is absolutely shameful in how bad it is, I can hardly believe it was allowed to be published - clearly not one single person involved thought to do a basic, cursory check of the facts.


    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    .
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,634 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    RFW said:
    sheramber said:


    That article is absolutely shameful in how bad it is, I can hardly believe it was allowed to be published - clearly not one single person involved thought to do a basic, cursory check of the facts.


    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    The MSE article explains it thus:

    Separately, if you've made a gain by selling certain high-value items you own for £6,000 or more each – for example, jewellery, paintings, antiques, coins or stamps, or sets of goods such as matching vases – you may have to report this to HMRC and pay capital gains tax. But you won't pay capital gains tax on top of any income tax – it's one or the other. 

  • soolin
    soolin Posts: 72,138 Ambassador
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 29 January at 12:18PM
    RFW said:
    sheramber said:


    That article is absolutely shameful in how bad it is, I can hardly believe it was allowed to be published - clearly not one single person involved thought to do a basic, cursory check of the facts.


    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    I have been quite appalled at some of the terrible articles that have appeared in the press, even some of the supposed ‘better’ newspapers seem determined to give incorrect explanations. I agree with you RFW , it is almost as though it is designed to cause alarm. 

    I wonder how many truly private sellers who don’t understand how income tax works are now worrying they may somehow get into trouble?

    I’ve repeated here and on many other forums that NOTHING has changed, yet people seem determined to worry un necessarily, and I lay the blame at these sensational headlines.

    I am thinking of a cut and paste response to reassure people getting confused  , but can’t think of anything that hasn’t already been said . 

    I can only state again private sellers have nothing to worry about, this isn’t designed to get truly private sellers paying tax. If you do get any sort of letter from HMRC asking questions you merely respond explaining that the items are your personal unwanted items. The people that need to worry are those that are trading, and either try and get away with it or really don’t understand that they are commercial sellers. It used to be clothes sellers getting ‘caught’ , selling every colour, every size is going to look suspicious, selling clothes in similar sizes is not going to look as suspicious. 

    Just recently I saw a post from someone selling trainers (they had access to a very good TK maxx) , in their mind they weren’t really trading, just buying trainers in popular mixed sizes as they knew what they were buying, and selling them at a profit . They were very defensive when HMRC asked them to reconsider their tax submission and suggesting they might want to do a self assessment, in their mind buying and selling less than a dozen pairs of trainers a month couldn’t possibly be considered a business as they had a full time job. They were very surprised when the group they posted to mainly agreed with the HMRC suggestion that they were running a business. 


    I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the eBay, Auctions, Car Boot & Jumble Sales, Boost Your Income, Praise, Vents & Warnings, Overseas Holidays & Travel Planning , UK Holidays, Days Out & Entertainments boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know.. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,634 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    soolin said:
    RFW said:
    sheramber said:


    That article is absolutely shameful in how bad it is, I can hardly believe it was allowed to be published - clearly not one single person involved thought to do a basic, cursory check of the facts.


    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.


    Just recently I saw a post from someone selling trainers (they had access to a very good TK maxx) , in their mind they weren’t really trading, just buying trainers in popular mixed sizes as they knew what they were buying, and selling them at a profit . They were very defensive when HMRC asked them to reconsider their tax submission and suggesting they might want to do a self assessment, in their mind buying and selling less than a dozen pairs of trainers a month couldn’t possibly be considered a business as they had a full time job. They were very surprised when the group they posted to mainly agreed with the HMRC suggestion that they were running a business. 


    I currently have 3 pairs of footwear listed on eBay, in the past few months I've sold 13 more pairs - all from my own collection, all the same size.
    Some were unworn and still in the box, most were lightly worn.
    It's hardly made a dent in my shoe wardrobes that still has 150 pairs of boots, trainers, shoes and sandals.
    I have more sandals to list nearer the summer.

    I'm not worried.
    I'm not trading.

  • RFW
    RFW Posts: 10,012 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    soolin said:
    I have been quite appalled at some of the terrible articles that have appeared in the press, even some of the supposed ‘better’ newspapers seem determined to give incorrect explanations. I agree with you RFW , it is almost as though it is designed to cause alarm. 

    I wonder how many truly private sellers who don’t understand how income tax works are now worrying they may somehow get into trouble?




    A friend who works full time, has two young kids and spends a bit of time clearing out old stuff was in a real panic about this. I'm not sure I successfully reassured her.
    .
  • RFW
    RFW Posts: 10,012 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Pollycat said:
    RFW said:

    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    The MSE article explains it thus:

    Separately, if you've made a gain by selling certain high-value items you own for £6,000 or more each – for example, jewellery, paintings, antiques, coins or stamps, or sets of goods such as matching vases – you may have to report this to HMRC and pay capital gains tax. But you won't pay capital gains tax on top of any income tax – it's one or the other. 

    That's probably it but the article doesn't get anywhere close to spelling that out. It mentions profit

    <from the article> "Paying tax will start kicking in when you've earned a profit of more than £6,000 from selling goods." Although it does later say..

    "If you've not sold a personal possession or groups of personal possessions totalling £6,000 or more, HMRC's website says you do not need to declare it.".

    Really atrocious writing.


    .
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,634 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    RFW said:
    Pollycat said:
    RFW said:

    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    The MSE article explains it thus:

    Separately, if you've made a gain by selling certain high-value items you own for £6,000 or more each – for example, jewellery, paintings, antiques, coins or stamps, or sets of goods such as matching vases – you may have to report this to HMRC and pay capital gains tax. But you won't pay capital gains tax on top of any income tax – it's one or the other. 

    That's probably it but the article doesn't get anywhere close to spelling that out. It mentions profit

    <from the article> "Paying tax will start kicking in when you've earned a profit of more than £6,000 from selling goods." Although it does later say..

    "If you've not sold a personal possession or groups of personal possessions totalling £6,000 or more, HMRC's website says you do not need to declare it.".

    Really atrocious writing.


    Which article is that from?
    Cosmopolitan or MSE?

    If it's Cosmopolitan, it's time that comment quoting the article was shelved and disregarded as it is acknowledged to be so poor.
    I'm happy with what the MSE article and HMRC rules say.
  • Spoonie_Turtle
    Spoonie_Turtle Posts: 8,382 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper
    edited 29 January at 4:35PM
    soolin said:
    RFW said:
    sheramber said:


    That article is absolutely shameful in how bad it is, I can hardly believe it was allowed to be published - clearly not one single person involved thought to do a basic, cursory check of the facts.


    I agree, from the headline all the way through. It's like a poorly written GCSE essay.

    I'm not sure what the £6000 is about either. I think it's to do with taxable levels but it's so confusing, designed to cause alarm, and, presumably, to get clicks.
    I have been quite appalled at some of the terrible articles that have appeared in the press, even some of the supposed ‘better’ newspapers seem determined to give incorrect explanations. I agree with you RFW , it is almost as though it is designed to cause alarm. 



    I am thinking of a cut and paste response to reassure people getting confused  , but can’t think of anything that hasn’t already been said . 
    It appears the appalling reporting around it means people are scared about different things and need slightly different explanations each time to allay their specific fears so a copy and paste response may not do the job anyway!

    And yes a lot of it certainly is designed to cause confusion, alarm, anything to get clicks and comments (because engagement = money).  We see it time and again with benefits, with utilities - even the BBC can't be trusted to report accurately any more. 

    Thinking again about the Cosmopolitan article though … that's got to be AI, a human can't have written that and thought it was good enough to submit, surely?  EDIT: I was so wrong 
    "Jennifer Savin
    FEATURES EDITOR
     Jennifer Savin is Cosmopolitan UK's multiple award-winning Features Editor, who was crowned Digital Journalist of the Year for her work tackling the issues most important to young women."  Full bio here - she even consults on documentaries! https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/author/12606/jennifer-savin/
  • RFW
    RFW Posts: 10,012 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary

    It appears the appalling reporting around it means people are scared about different things and need slightly different explanations each time to allay their specific fears so a copy and paste response may not do the job anyway!

    And yes a lot of it certainly is designed to cause confusion, alarm, anything to get clicks and comments (because engagement = money).  We see it time and again with benefits, with utilities - even the BBC can't be trusted to report accurately any more. 

    Thinking again about the Cosmopolitan article though … that's got to be AI, a human can't have written that and thought it was good enough to submit, surely?  EDIT: I was so wrong 
    "Jennifer Savin
    FEATURES EDITOR
     Jennifer Savin is Cosmopolitan UK's multiple award-winning Features Editor, who was crowned Digital Journalist of the Year for her work tackling the issues most important to young women."  Full bio here - she even consults on documentaries! https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/author/12606/jennifer-savin/
    I have been using some AI lately and most of the AI around can write a better article. Those kind of articles are easier for them to write without doing much checking as there's no one who would sue.

    .
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,634 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    RFW said:

    It appears the appalling reporting around it means people are scared about different things and need slightly different explanations each time to allay their specific fears so a copy and paste response may not do the job anyway!

    And yes a lot of it certainly is designed to cause confusion, alarm, anything to get clicks and comments (because engagement = money).  We see it time and again with benefits, with utilities - even the BBC can't be trusted to report accurately any more. 

    Thinking again about the Cosmopolitan article though … that's got to be AI, a human can't have written that and thought it was good enough to submit, surely?  EDIT: I was so wrong 
    "Jennifer Savin
    FEATURES EDITOR
     Jennifer Savin is Cosmopolitan UK's multiple award-winning Features Editor, who was crowned Digital Journalist of the Year for her work tackling the issues most important to young women."  Full bio here - she even consults on documentaries! https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/author/12606/jennifer-savin/
    I have been using some AI lately and most of the AI around can write a better article. Those kind of articles are easier for them to write without doing much checking as there's no one who would sue.

    I've been reading some eBay listings recently that are clearly AI - and a load of useless tosh.
    This for example:

    This large antique silver brooch boasts an ornate design and features a beautiful oval-shaped green Chrysoprase gemstone at its center. The gemstone is set in sterling silver and the brooch measures 50mm in length, making it a statement piece of jewellery that is perfect for adding a touch of vintage charm to any outfit.


    Crafted in the art deco era, this brooch is an exquisite example of antique jewellery. The oval shape of the Chrysoprase gemstone adds to its beauty, while the intricate silver detailing enhances its overall appeal. This antique brooch is a must-have for any vintage jewellery collector.stamped for silver 

    Does this flowery, fawning verbosity make me want to buy this brooch?
    Hell, no!
    I'm not interested that it's a 'statement piece' or is an 'exquisite example'.

    I want to know about the hallmarks.
    I want to know about the clasp - is it rollover or 'C' shaped?
    Does it work well?
    Is the stone unmarked?

    etc etc

Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards