151

29 comments

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 41 points Edited

LOL it's not tax-free income.

Against all odds everywhere ever, I actually wrote about this very thing ("the IRS has explicitly noted that the proceeds of illegal activity are still taxable") right here on Ovarit like all of... two hours ago😂😂 so here's a permalink to that comment. Although it'd be nice if I coulda used those odds to win the lotto [also taxable income] instead, or something

Yep. And apps like Venmo and PayPal are now subject to tax reporting. These idiots really think women are making money hand over fist, without paying taxes, while doing absolutely nothing to earn it. They are so delusional.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 5 points Edited

yah. although Zelle (person-to-person transfers, primarily in mobile banking apps) doesn't issue any 1099s. Legally, Zelle transfers are equivalent to the wilting and cashing of a check (or a money order or cashier's bank draft, if you Zelle from a savings acct)—and if you are one of the three people left in the U.S. who regularly cashes paper checks, those don't generate a 1099 either regardless of how many there are or how much they add up to.

I ••THINK•• venmo still has a "Personal Payment" / "Send to friends or family" option for people within the U.S. If so, then this option will work like old-school Venmo: no fee/commission is taken out of the amount sent, but any and all buyer-protection or seller-protection features/programs in force on commercial Venmo transactions (from which a percentage, maybe plus a tiny fixed amount, ••is•• taken out) are null and void for that transaction.

But, yeah, this one's been coming down the pike for a while now.
The $600 minimum total send that triggers the issuance of a 1099—now effective everywhere in the U.S.—was only in force for users who registered their PayPal/square/stripe/[[please name write-in candidate for the office of Payment Processor HERE]] at a Massachusetts or Vermont address.
All the other states, until last year, kept the original, utter-fucking-stupid-nonsense formulation that had been in place since 1099-K's were first introduced in... 2012ish maybe? which was

...WAIT FOR IT...

...to issue a 1099-K to holders of accounts that processed at least 200 transactions AND at least $20,000 USD total.

YES, that's "AND". Not "or". No, it doesn't make any fucking sense does it🤡 (why in the whole wide world would you issue the form to someone who collects $27,777.77 in 201 distinct transactions, but NOT to someone else who collects the same $27,777.77—or, say, $500,000.00—in two or 60 or 100 or 199 transactions? GURL WUT but, yeah, that's definitely how it worked.

These idiots really think women are making money hand over fist, without paying taxes, while doing absolutely nothing to earn it.

yeah, SMH. Undoubtedly, part of this ignorance—almost certainly most of it—flows from the weirdly utter and total lack in the U.S. of a "cash economy", in which price bargaining is the norm (and where a complete non-attempt to haggle may even constitute a fairly major faux pas). Outside of certain parts of NYC, Miami/ S Fla, L.A./SoCal, and maaaaaaybe a few other cities' Chinatowns and some other misc diaspora neighborhoods (like the blue-collar Persian and Korean blocks of D/FW, or the Hmong and Somali parts of Minn/St Paul), if you offer to pay U.S. service workers in cash munny if they'll give you a good deal, you'll get looks like you literally just arrived from the moon or some shit.

Those ppl are definitely still paying MOST of the tax liability they owe, even on cash transactions, but almost certainly not every dollar of it (was gonna write "every penny" until I remembered that CA state tax forms have been whole dollars for some years already LOL)... On the margins there's some of what Polish people call fucha, a category that also includes things like misappropriating staplers, rolls of tape, secret doggy bags from what's supposed to be a lunch-only buffet at company offices, and other de minimis items you're supposed to pay use/sales tax on....Which, realistically, govt budgets do attempt to factor in, because tax assessors are not exactly starry-eyed quixotics.
More or less exactly the same as how retail-store operators need to estimate "shrinkage" AKA bottom-line losses due to shoplifting, vandalism, or just spoliation by "acts of God" (this is an actual technical term in the insurance industry; if you have a renters, homeowners, or auto policy it'll definitely be in there somewhere).

Said lack of a very human, relationship-based cash economy is also why Americans don't care as much as ppl from more gritty and gregarious countries about the disappearance of paper cash munny BTW (which is not all downsides; it's amusing to read ppl saying that with a straight face, because they never realize they're painting themselves as ppl of exceptional privilege who would never even have to consider that there are things like robberies, muggings, purse snatchings, etc. SMH. The incidence of those crimes in blue collar neighborhoods has actually nosedived as more and more ppl go cashless.)

I mean... i actually have a lot of kinda desultory insights about these differences, having spent x amount of time abroad in very high-personal-contact haggle-y places that are the opposite of the States. I've decided that I like the foreign, bargainy, cash economy model way way better—but course I do, because I'm hyper extroverted, intensely focused on relationship building, and good at negotiating (which IME is harder with western male chauvinist men, whose sexism has a ceiling that's not all that high WRT those assumptions, than it is with third world male chauvinist men, who are so embedded in their sexism (and ageism) that they're BLINDSIDED by any Woman who's worth half her own salt at negotiating (even worse if she's my age baha), and so a reasonably fast-talking and confident Woman can easily talk those guys right out of the shirt off their own back.

By "relationship building" I mean that I've alws felt distinctly alienated by having to pay the same sticker price as some obvious out-of-towner for stuff, with zero room for bargaining—which, to me and my apparently consummately third-world values system🤪, kinda smells like they don't ever want me to come back. (The way some businesses, like cell phone providers, charge loyal customers MORE than random n00bs—by way of giving "intro discounts" that expire/sunset after a year or 90 days or whatever—REALLY sticks in my craw, because it genuinely is a literal surcharge for staying with the company, which I find deeply insulting if not rage-inducing, and, seriously, I am having NONE of that shit baha. Not for me and not even for random ppl in my neighborhood who are susceptible to it—especially older widows whose husbands alws did all that "money stuff" and so are now sitting ducks at age 80 or 93 or 76; i will gladly go over there and make all the necessary phone calls full of yelling on their behalf💖 (and I'll even let them keep thinking I'm doing it entirely out of the goodness of my heart, as opposed to the reality that screaming into a phone like I'm in some Tarantino movie is easily one of the most enjoyable things I do all day). ...but, yeah. The point being, you offer ppl a discount—or a lagniappe, in the Haitian parts of Miami—because you want them to come back! So you give them a win win! 🤷🏽‍♀️ like I said, I'm a first-world Girl with a third-world heart.

Thanks for the link! This is a big lie men tell women online

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 9 points

Yw!

As long as we're having a "weirdly relevant permalink from literally today" party, there's also the story of one friend of mine who has definitely played her hand splendidly, as far as leveraging a lewd profile (not onlyfans) goes... Second half (-ish) of this comment.

And onlyfans isn’t even illegal either!

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 5 points Edited

If you're under 18, you bet yr buns it's illegal.

It may not be a crime (this is a state-by-state thing, and would also depend on the specs of what the underage account holder did or didn't do... and insofar as crimes may be involved, the perpetrator won't be the Girl) but at the very least it's definitely a breach of contract—namely a breach of the onlyfans T&C and user agreement, which say, probably repeatedly right next to the signature checkboxes, that YOU MUST BE 18 OR OLDER NO EXCEPTIONS.