<p>Writing off certain expenses in conjunction with charitable activities is perfectly legal. There is nothing unethical, immoral, or illegal about taking advantage of specific features of the tax code that were put there for that purpose. I’ve used this write-off for expenses related to both Scouts and the youth robotics program I mentor. </p>
<p>It’s good to remember that while “writing off” the $800 cost of taking a group of students to a 3-day robotics tournament might save me $250 on my taxes, I’m still out-of-pocket for the other $550. I don’t remember a parent of a student in either Scouts or robotics offering to cover my costs for me so that I can take their kids somewhere while they go on a trip, or just out to dinner. Volunteer leaders in Scouting joke that parents think BSA stands for “Babysitters of America.” The only difference is that babysitters get paid for doing what I pay to do.</p>
<p>nordstroms has had a very flexible return policy for decades & they encourage that sort of behavior by having salespeople who encorage customers to buy everything theyve tried on , so that they can take it home and see it with the rest of their wardrobe.</p>
<p>I think in the long run it serves them well- because most people who over buy, probably don’t ever make it back to the store to return the merchandise & their stuff is hella overpriced anyway.</p>
<p>I don’t even go to Nordstroms anymore- except for maybe shoes or a bag.</p>
<p>re the sample size bath items in hotels- I thought that the guests were supposed to use those- do you mean they are just for looks like “guest” hand towels?</p>
<p>Guests can take those. They re-fill or completely replace them after your stay, anyway. </p>
<p>Nordstrom’s is great for women’s suites. Very few places “fit” women for clothing–even clothing that should be fitted–but I believe Nordstrom’s still does. I don’t have one near me, but I used to go school shopping there when I was yonger because of the great customer service.</p>
<p>Wasn’t there a large chain store in the news a couple of years ago for banning a customer from shopping at their store because she returned so much stuff? I think it was TJ Maxx or someplace like that. Nordstromms could do the same thing, unless they’re afraid of the negative publicity.</p>
<p>My cousin’s husband used to buy stuff, use it, and return it when he didn’t need it. My aunt called him “the King of Take-Back.” We all thought it was pretty sleazy.</p>
<p>Another cousin was visiting NYC for the first time. She bought a $35 “Rolex” from a street vendor. It stopped working 4 hours later and she went back to the spot where the vendor had been. Of course, he was gone. She was livid - she actually thought the guy would give her money back or exchange it. Guess she didn’t understand why it was only $35 on the street.</p>
<p>This is a really interesting issue, and I guess I look at it from a societal standpoint (maybe wrongly?).</p>
<p>It is hard to miss the photos of famous people – movie stars, etc. – wearing clothes, jewelry and other freebies from designers, especially around awards time. Some of those items they wear once, then return. Some stuff they keep, and the designer considers those things ‘loss leaders’ or good publicity.</p>
<p>It is easy to imagine the young, attractive (ethics-challenged and narcissistic) young woman coming to the conclusion that what she is doing is justified – because after all, she looks good, it is good advertisement, etc. And she gives it back, no harm done, and they greet her at Nordstrom’s with a smile. In her mind, everyone wins.</p>
<p>Or?</p>
<p>So perhaps the slavish celebrity culture can be troubling in more ways than promoting unhealthy body images in young people? Don’t know, just asking.</p>
<p>I guess one take-away message of this story is: I think I’ll always inspect everything down to the last detail if splurging on something expensive. Ms. Narcissist could have worn it before me!</p>
<p>“It is easy to imagine the young, attractive (ethics-challenged and narcissistic) young woman coming to the conclusion that what she is doing is justified”</p>
<p>Every action can always be rationalized. Jails are filled with criminals who consider themselves innocent or justified in what they did.</p>
<p>I’ve seen the bathroom amenities mentioned several times on CC. I don’t use or take them, since I like my own shampoos etc. but from what I understand, the large majority of hotels consider these to be for the guest’s use. Some chains now actually provide brand name toiletries - companies are in partnership and want to promote their products. It’s their hope that guests will keep and develop interest in the line. If the seal is broken, the hotel will just throw it away anyway- I’ve never seen a place where they refill. If you are really concerned you can always ask at the front desk. They generally say it’s fine to take these. Taking extras from the cleaning cart is a no-no, though. </p>
<p>I agree that Nordstrom’s is very accomodating. I bought a few pieces for D there (without her being there) and she tried them on and took tags off of some pieces before I convinced her they weren’t the best fit. They took back, no questions asked, although we did buy another size right at the same time.</p>
<p>A few years ago I heard about a woman who bought and returned a very expensive pair of diamond earrings for an affair. I don’t know if it was true or a rumor - people around here seem to believe it, anyway! I bet it happens more than we imagine. A relative of mine worked in retail and saw the clothes returning thing go on all the time, too.</p>
<p>I think the theory behind the “no questions asked” return policy is just get the merchandise out the door. For every person like the OP’s Monday-morning-returner, there are 5 people who can’t decide between the blue dress and the red dress so they take them both home. They fully intend to bring one back, but they never do. Bingo, two dresses sold. Those returned clothes? They’re right back on the rack (maybe with some of that 100% markup missing). It’s all about the bottom line for stores.</p>
<p>I’m guessing shoplifters are a much bigger problem for them.</p>
<p>AnudduhMom, I may be mistaken, but it was always my impression that the celebrities’ behavior was well endorsed by designers. It’s a fabulous form of advertisement, having the name of your clothing line announced on national television with millions of viewers–worn, of course, by a “perfect” body.</p>
<p>corranged, I think what you are saying is true. I guess I was just speculating, and I have no basis to support this theory at all.</p>
<p>I have to wonder though – what could be the mindset of someone with so little sense of accountability, and such a sense of entitlement. Further speculation: some members of our kids’ generation are steeped in a potent brew of celebrity culture, reality TV, and YouTube/Facebook-Myspace/video gaming. I dare say you can’t even stand in a supermarket line without seeing endless pictures of Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, Nicole Ritchie, etc., and wow, what great role models THEY are.</p>
<p>So I am taking a huge conjectural leap by wondering if there might be some fallout from the moral vacuum of our kids’ cultural framework.</p>
<p>Just because you are returning things often doesn’t mean that you are abusing the system. Yes, those people who are wearing clothes or using oriental rugs for the week-end are abusing the system and should be stopped. However, there are valid reasons why people might make frequent returns. I, for one, would be injured by a categorical exclusion based on the number of returns. I have a narrow foot and a high arch. It is really hard to find shoes that both support my arch and stay on my foot. The best brick and mortar shoe stores rarely carry my width, and it is a lot of work to figure out which styles are available in narrow widths in those few stores that do have my size at all. You can’t imagine how frustrating it is to see so many cute styles yet to be told that only these few highly popular and basic shoes come in narrow widths. So, I typically order 3 pairs from online stores, usually Zappos or Nordstroms. I try them on at home (I do not wear them; I simply try them on like I’d like to do at real stores). Those that do not fit are easily returned. Zappos is really helpful because customers on that site can rate how well shoes fit, width, length, comfort, arch support, . . . the last shoes I bought were one full size higher than my usual size. I bought that larger size in a particularly narrow width with confidence because other customers advised it. The shoes fit perfectly. Anyways, be careful about condemning others for making returns. Not every person making returns is running a scam. As someone who has made many legitimate returns, I have experienced some of the snideness that clerks can exhibit when they assume you are being dishonest. Please keep that in mind if you are working in customer service. If something is returned in unused condition, no one is injured and prices are not driven up. The article is available for someone else to purchase. People try shoes and clothes on all of the time at stores. There’s no harm if they try it on at home, model it for family members, think about the wisdom of the purchase, and then decide to keep it or return it. Wearing it out to a party and then returning it is clearly unfair, but I’d like to know how people wear clothes somewhere with the tags attached. I don’t see how they do that.</p>
<p>There really is no great moral or ethical issue here. If retailers choose to have easy refund policies, they do it because they think they will make more money doing so. It also perfectly legal for them to refuse ALL returns, and never refund money to anyone. That would be a different business decision. Never think you are getting away with something by returning a product to a store. They understand this game much better than anyone not in the industry will, and only do it because it will increase sales, and will change their policy if they need to.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t buy a portable stereo for a weekend ski trip and then return it. That’s because that’s not the kind of person I want to be, not because I feel sorry for Best Buy or Radio Shack.</p>
<p>kollegkid, I don’t think anyone here is referring to the type of returns that you are making! I do, however, think there’s another reason for the occasional snippy attitude one may get when making a return - it’s not necessarily because the sales staff thinks you are being dishonest. It’s probably more a function of disappointment - that they will no longer get their commission. Even if they are not the one who sold you the item there is the occasional sales manager etc. that will put on an attitude because they want to discourage returns. Just ignore it and be pleasant if you ever find yourself in that situation.</p>
<p>Sales policies really do make a difference. I told my mom about this thread. She reminded me about something that happened to her last summer. She bought 3 bracelets in a 6" size from a turquoise trader on the internet on a special sale promotion that repeats about once a month. She had bought from several times before. Two of the three bracelets proved to be too small because of the way the rigid sterling silver was molded (too wide and flat). The trader, though, had a special no returns policy for the monthly sales events. It was written in the fine print, not on the website but on the promotional e-mail sent to customers. She hadn’t intended on making returns, so she didn’t read the fine print until she had received the merchandise and tried the bracelets on. She was stuck with all three bracelets. Simply enough, she decided to never buy from them again. Their loss. She never argued with them, but, instead, she sold them herself on e-bay and was able to capture about the same price there. We do have the right to pick and choose where we shop based on the total experience. If we are stuck with something, there’s always e-bay.</p>
<p>Someone I knew bought a pair of Prada pants (~$1000) from Neiman Marcus for a special occassion. They shortened the pants for her for free (for that kind of money they do it for free), she wore it to the special occassion. She then returned it to her favorite salesperson because the pants were a bit itchy. The salesperson took it back because she wanted to do more business with this person, and it was nothing off her back. NM was out of $1000, and guess who paid for it - other customers. I have not been able to look at that person since I heard about it.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that the sales rep took the pants back because that was store policy. If she hadn’t given the refund her manager would have.</p>
<p>I would think that saving money is the absolute last thing that the average N-M customer has on her mind.</p>
<p>If a wide-open refund policy seems unfair, I encourage those who disapprove to shop at places with “No Refunds” policies. Stores like this can probably chop 2-3% from their prices, if they exist. Maybe this is a market opportunity: Tight store security and a no refund policy mean bigger savings for you!</p>
<p>I don’t know, do some major chain return these things to the wholesaler/manufacturer stating that the customer said it is “defective”? I wonder if the wholesaler and manufacturer also take the hit in order to keep a major account like NM.</p>
<p>No, even at the most exclusive stores, anything that’s been altered could not be returned. The salesperson did a favor for this person in order to get more business later because she’s on commission.</p>
<p>Perhaps they tell the wholesaler that the customer says that the material was so rough that the pants could not be worn. I would think that if a customer spends 1000 for a pair of pants, NM wants them back if they keep 90%+ of what they purchase.</p>