Theoretically yes. Despite how Patreon phrases it those payments don't count as real donations, it's just income. If he makes over $1500 he shoud have to pay.
I'm not a lawyer, an accountant or a productive member of society but, I'm pretty sure (the argument, at least) that the wording is not casually applied, the contractual obligation to produce goods or services for money just doesn't exist. It's easy to frame these
donations as tax-exempt gifts (under the annual exemption cap of $26,000) which are provided without the expectation of return, see: the fact that no contract is breached if an artist(panhandler) doesn't deliver some or all of their tier rewards. The only recourse is not donating/gifting in the future.
It's kind of like the original Lyft business model, which became hilariously inadequate as it rapidly morphed from a kiddieVC funded imitation Zipcar to a
major transportation network(for whatever the fuck that's worth.) In any case, for those who didn't use it in the first 18 months or so, it worked much like the present models except in the spirit of the "ridesharing" model all payment was entirely optional; ostensibly p2p carpooling wherein the passenger would gift the other party (certainly not a professional driver) an amount in appreciation. You were allowed to choose how much to pay your driver based on a meter-like fare calculation. At the end of the ride you would see this "suggested donation" and then could pick anywhere from 0% to 200%, if I recall correctly.
In the same vein as the recourse of Chris' angry fans for his inevitable non-fulfillment of his non-binding promises is to quit donating, Lyft drivers would see the percentage you donate before rating you on their star-system; this actually made driver ratings have utility, as I assume it was a proxy for whether or not they were getting paid/adequately above anything else.
The point of this tl;dr analogy is that it certainly isn't cut and dry that Chris' work/begging scheme is any different from cash scams on the platforms like a Kickstarter, GoFundMe, and whatever other e-bilker sites the children-kin use these days. I haven't been up on their developments recently, but I'm somewhat confident that they operate similarly. That is to say without obligation for fulfillment in most if not all cases, and treated as a literal donation/gift. Again, feel free to correct, but it seems like it wouldn't have more significant tax-implications of the money your uncle might throw at you sometimes, purportedly because you're family and he knows kids always need money, but really because of that time you accidentally walked on him wearing lingerie; that you've never spoken about, but somehow still manages to palpably choke the air when you're left alone, even though you were sure time would make it less weird; or fill in your own found money, as it may apply.
In any case, as usual, fatty's tugboat is safe from the ebin sending of money to him. The government may be a cesspool of vipers and thieves, but CWC is cheaply bought and paid for to mostly stay out of the world which works well for most. Moreover, especially seeing as how he is on ssdi, rather than other welfare benefits, the mere presence of dollars in accounts belonging to him, or even (to a point) proof of some level of TRUE and HONEST part-time work(regardless of what the blunderjack may have thought with mostly decent intentions,) would not automatically raise flags nor likely to raise to a level of attention any ineffective bureaucrat can give a shit about, weening and doxing notwithstanding. I imagine it took immense effort and time (for the Blorb) to get Chris on his autismbux, and while they may be taken much more swiftly than they're given; the gunky machinery of the "educated" and job-secure nomenklatura would have a slog revoking this perpetually incapable manchild of his tuggy, barring serious institutional change to the welfare state he enjoys.
I boldly predict that none of this will matter, is someone going to name this saga before the "Hm... yeah, some of you have been leaking pages and the med-money for electricity and medicine and really the LOUSY MALE at the kinkos is working against me #pridefultomgirls #neverthelessshepersisted. Anyway, I need to rest for a while. If someone could buy my late father Robert Chandler's 'PC for Dummies' book for $750 OBO it would really help and I might be able to afford to buy new crayolas for the color and ship them out post haste. It needs to be $750 OBO so NO HAGGLE."
tl;dr: Fatty's welfare is as safe as ever, and it's largely irrelevant because this is not going to net him significantly more than penny-throwing long term. This may look like an entrepreneurial move but as with most wheelin' and dealin' from OPL it's just a decently enough conceived project/scam (on paper, not if one knows DON'T BUY FROM CHRIS) that will have atrocious execution and endure its brief run with an constantly looming expiration date.
Sauces:
-
Article from Nov 13, 2013 when Lyft began making payments mandatory.
lyfthelpdeskgoogle said:
To wit, I'm fairly certain fatty doesn't fill out a tax return. Also, as was discussed at some length during/after the totem escapade, no one is hawking the Chandler's bank accounts/Paypal/Coinbase/prepaid cards/shoeboxes. In terms of government inefficiencies, Barb and her shadow don't even register; A-logging aside, accepting our distributive entitlement state as a given, they are hardly the problem when it comes to welfare fraud. I've digressed again, but the point is, unless (and probably even if) Chrissy starts breaking 20k a year on there (he's on pace for <3k ann at what I assume will be a high water mark,) no one will know, no one will look, it won't matter. To wrap this up, I am indeed saying that sending Chris thousands of dollars on Patron is the only pure form of trolling left. Only then will he be ready to learn not to leech of your tax dollars.
-
Explanation of why Fatty will never lose his tugboat unless the system changes. He's here, and queer, and collecting Simoleons until he returns to the hoard from whence he came.
government thug guidelines in plaintext said:
The SSDI program does not put a limit on the amount of assets or unearned income you have.
if we're operating under the gift paradigm
Specifically, if you can engage in what the Social Security Administration (SSA) calls "
substantial gainful activity" (SGA), you won't be eligible for benefits. A person who earns more than a certain monthly amount is considered to be engaging in SGA. Federal regulations use the national average wage index to set the income limit for determining the SGA each year. In 2017, the amount is $1,170 for disabled applicants.
if we're assuming he will be looked at, and won't be able to argue it isn't income, they would still have to prove 1,170 in income/mo which I don't see without aforementioned weenery. Further, in that scenario Chris could start tracking ridiculous costs like his Skylander's giveaways, legos he "uses in crafts" to earn this alleged "income" as write-offs. If Ricardo starts netting more than 1170 a month, his tugboat becomes less necessary or at least a conversation.
What if weens manage to get him kicked off SSDI and then pull the funding effort-posting fag?
I'm glad you asked, astute KFer, this would have to be a longer term scam, putting a fair amount of immediate cash in his pocket to even endanger his disabled status and giving him plenty of time to consider the implications with Rocky or Rob Bell or whomever answers the call to serve.
It sometimes happens that people receiving SSDI improve and want to return to the workforce, but are afraid that they will be unable to keep a job due to their disabilities. To encourage disabled persons to try to return to work, the SSA provides for a trial work period. During the
trial work period (TWP), a person receiving SSDI may have unlimited earnings and still receive full benefits without risking termination.
The trial work period provides that the person must provide services for at least nine months out of a rolling 60-month period before a disability is deemed to have ended. What counts as providing services? In 2017, any month in which earnings exceed $840 is considered a month of services for a person's trial work period. (Notice that this amount is different than the SGA amount.)
When the person has provided services for nine months, the SSA will evaluate the person's work to see if it has been over the SGA limits. If it is, disability benefits will continue for three months and then stop. But if this happens (SSDI benefits terminate because a person is working), benefits can resume within the next 36 months if the individual fails to earn the monthly SGA amount or becomes unable to work again due to the same disability.
tl;dr pt. 2: if you feel like reading (what I assume is yet another) not-quite-informed-or-necessary-enough rant about why Iana Ian "Matías" Brandon Anderson can keep being an internet cartoonist sensation, while continuing to receive his government Lego brand cheese blocks. It's also hard to pass up a chance to provide more proof that Chris' followers are just as exceptional as he is.
Stay Safe.
