5 ms·

It made me wonder, is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"? If you derive satisfaction from a product, expect someone to produce it, and support t

It made me wonder, is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"? If you derive satisfaction from a product, expect someone to produce it, and support that process, then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it.

jawns 2y ago
You're completely correct. It's a voluntary tip, but it still counts toward a person's income. It's totally different than donating to a 501(c)(3) charity.
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%.
  - lnxg33k1 2y ago
    That is for the landlord
  - stahtops 2y ago
    Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%. I mean pretty much every part of this is incorrect. Lets say they are single in the USA and made $150k on Patreon: (12% * 47150)+(22% * (100525-47151)) + (24% * (150000-100526)) = $29,3000 -> 20% <https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/28849202071565 https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/288492020...> WEB * $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.89 to creator, $1.72 to gov't [FED] * $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.02 to creator, $2.58 to gov't [FED+10% State] IAP + default price bump * $14.50 sale -> $1.15 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $7.19 to creator, $1.80 to gov't [FED] * $14.50 sale -> $1.16 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $6.29 to creator, $2.70 to gov't [FED+10% State] Users who care about the cost increase will go to the website. The others will pay in app and be stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription. If they use their Apple Card, they can literally click any transaction in the Wallet app to see exactly what sub they were charged for.
    - Terretta 2y ago
      > stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription So much of these anti-console anti-appliance threads boil down to: Value-adding experiences consumers want enough to pay for (such as peace of mind that anything bought here can be cancelled no questions asked) should be prohibited, because I don't want to offer that experience.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        If consumers really want to pay that much more for that convenience, why won't Apple allow the merchant to say that the price is lower elsewhere?
      - Jensson 2y ago
        Apple is allowed to offer that feature, Apple isn't allowed to force you to buy that feature (depending on jurisdiction).
warkdarrior 2y ago
If you pay after you receive and consume the product in full, I'd call it a donation (unless the creator plans to send your debt to collections.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
high_na_euv 2y ago
I dont think it is purchase because there is no guarantee/promise that you will receive anything (usually)
- xz18r 2y ago
  In reality it does often offer perks (seeing creative work before release, exclusive behind the scenes stuff, etc.) so I think you can see that as a purchase, no?
  - frumper 2y ago
    Belonging to a church often has perks, yet we don't consider offerings purchases. I do think some Patreons are setup closer to a shops, but not all.
    - RIMR 2y ago
      We probably should tax churches, since many churches require tithing and offer a pretty outstanding benefit for membership. It's hardly a donation when you're donating to an establishment central to your everyday life. It's basically a social club that gets a pass on taxes because they believe in magic.
- gpm 2y ago
  Isn't patreon basically always "pay in order to access (current and future) paywalled content"? And while there may not be (or may be) a promise of future content, there is current content.
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    If I give money to the apache foundation am I "buying" software or donating? Some of the artists I support post everything they make outside the paywall and just use patreon as a convenient tip jar.
    - gpm 2y ago
ncr100 2y ago
IDK > If you derive satisfaction Semantically, would The Church also qualify, (if it weren't already legally exempted)? You take yourself to the church, talk to the church people, they tell you things, you think and behave in Their mental framework, you feel better in your life, deriving satisfaction.
- adolph 2y ago
  Oftentimes a 501(c)3's receipt will include a "fair market" value of whatever benefit the donor got. When religion gets reclassified as 501(c)3, I wonder how they will do receipts. Officient salaries / (number of services * average participation) = FMV
  - mminer237 2y ago
    Churches are already 501(c)(3)s
    - adolph 2y ago
      This is an nuanced topic that might not be worth going into. The IRS automatically considers a church as tax exempt under 501(c)3. However, churches do not have to apply for that status (although some/many do), and do not have to follow IRS annual filing rules.[0] 0. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrated-auxiliaries-and-conventions-or-associations-of-churches https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...
akira2501 2y ago
> is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"? It depends. Is the author giving away content for free or is it paywalled? There are both types of authors using patreon. > then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it. I'm comfortable saying that the authors who give it away for free and ask for donations are, in fact, receiving donations.
- DataDive 2y ago
  when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while. to me that is the main distinction, who is benefiting from making that monetary contribution otherwise, it is just an issue of timing, did I pay up front or later after a tried and liked the product
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while. If you donate to a church, you often also enjoy the perks that that church offers, paid for by donations. If you donate to a public radio station, you probably also enjoy listening to that radio station.
  - mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
    I absolutely personally benefit when I donate to a web comic artist and they are able to continue making comics that I enjoy reading via my RSS feed. I don't consider this a purchase.
pessimizer 2y ago
Using the word "product" is begging the question. You could just as easily say: "If you derive satisfaction from an series of artistic works, and you know the person who creates those artistic works, and you decide to send money to support that person..." ----- edit: and this is closer to the reality, because plenty of people subscribe to someone's patreon (or donate to them in other ways) for "products" that they have already consumed, or because they want other people to consume those products. For an example of the latter: when financing journalists with mostly or completely open newsletters on substack. People generally aren't paying journalists because they want to read exciting stories. They're paying journalists because they want certain stories and types of stories to be investigated and written. They're not people who are paying to consume.
adam_arthur 2y ago
The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion. Conceptually, why should a "donation" be any different than a "payment" in regards to the Apple tax? Regardless of their current legal agreement attempts to disambiguate these, they are conceptually quite the same. In one case you receive a good, in another you receive good-will. Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Some of you will say "yes", but I'd bet pretty strongly the vast majority of the public would say "no". And legislation will follow eventually, in my opinion, despite the US government/courts moving very slowly here. Continued acts like these will only move up the timeline and increase the number of lawsuits which will eventually tip against Apple.
- DataDive 2y ago
  > The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion. I don't think the word DONATION is irrelevant at all. Tim Sweeney is using the word "DONATION" deliberately to make Apple look like someone that steals even the "donations". You know like someone stealing from the church lockbox. I am not supporting Apple here at all, I am just pointing out the attempt to manipulate public opinion.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Taxing individual artists is far worse than stealing from the church lockbox imo.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      Like people sometimes ask "if money is the root of all evil, why does the church want it so much?". :)
- wpm 2y ago
  >Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Apple believes so, because Apple is so arrogant as to think that the payment wouldn't have occurred had it not been for their hard work on the platform. It's false, of course. It'd be like Bell Telephone asking for a cut of your profits because you negotiated a business deal over the phone. Or the cell phone carriers forcing you to pay them $7 for a 20-second ringtone. We traded one villain for another.
efsavage 2y ago
It possibly could be, if they were organized as a non-profit that paid them a reasonable salary (which is probably an overambitious goal for most authors). After all, IKEA is a non-profit.
- SahAssar 2y ago
  Comparing almost any corporate structure to IKEA is like comparing a children's alphabet book to the tower of babel. IKEA is a non profit owned by for profits partially owned by non-profits owned by dutch companies that license IP from Irish companies (who license it from IoS (IKEA of Sweden) in a small Swedish village called älmhult) owned by non-physical, non-personal entities that are "legal residents in Switzerland" that might or might not be controlled by certain people named Kamprad (in non-exclusive partnerships with other interested parties that might be controlled by companies owned by said dutch companies). And after that we have the whole ROIG, INKGA, etc. structures.

jawns 2y ago

You're completely correct. It's a voluntary tip, but it still counts toward a person's income. It's totally different than donating to a 501(c)(3) charity.

dzhiurgis 2y ago
Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%.
- lnxg33k1 2y ago
  That is for the landlord
- stahtops 2y ago
  Damn. 30% to apple, 30% to patreon, 30% to government that leaves you with 0.7^3 = 0.343 = 34.3%. I mean pretty much every part of this is incorrect. Lets say they are single in the USA and made $150k on Patreon: (12% * 47150)+(22% * (100525-47151)) + (24% * (150000-100526)) = $29,3000 -> 20% <https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/28849202071565 https://support.patreon.com/hc/article_attachments/288492020...> WEB * $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.89 to creator, $1.72 to gov't [FED] * $10.00 sale -> $0.80 Patreon + 0.59 Fee, $0.00 to Apple, $6.02 to creator, $2.58 to gov't [FED+10% State] IAP + default price bump * $14.50 sale -> $1.15 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $7.19 to creator, $1.80 to gov't [FED] * $14.50 sale -> $1.16 Patreon + 0.00 Fee, $4.35 to Apple, $6.29 to creator, $2.70 to gov't [FED+10% State] Users who care about the cost increase will go to the website. The others will pay in app and be stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription. If they use their Apple Card, they can literally click any transaction in the Wallet app to see exactly what sub they were charged for.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    > stoked that they can just go to one place to cancel any iOS subscription So much of these anti-console anti-appliance threads boil down to: Value-adding experiences consumers want enough to pay for (such as peace of mind that anything bought here can be cancelled no questions asked) should be prohibited, because I don't want to offer that experience.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      If consumers really want to pay that much more for that convenience, why won't Apple allow the merchant to say that the price is lower elsewhere?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Apple is allowed to offer that feature, Apple isn't allowed to force you to buy that feature (depending on jurisdiction).

warkdarrior 2y ago

If you pay after you receive and consume the product in full, I'd call it a donation (unless the creator plans to send your debt to collections.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

high_na_euv 2y ago

I dont think it is purchase because there is no guarantee/promise that you will receive anything (usually)

xz18r 2y ago
In reality it does often offer perks (seeing creative work before release, exclusive behind the scenes stuff, etc.) so I think you can see that as a purchase, no?
- frumper 2y ago
  Belonging to a church often has perks, yet we don't consider offerings purchases. I do think some Patreons are setup closer to a shops, but not all.
  - RIMR 2y ago
    We probably should tax churches, since many churches require tithing and offer a pretty outstanding benefit for membership. It's hardly a donation when you're donating to an establishment central to your everyday life. It's basically a social club that gets a pass on taxes because they believe in magic.
gpm 2y ago
Isn't patreon basically always "pay in order to access (current and future) paywalled content"? And while there may not be (or may be) a promise of future content, there is current content.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  If I give money to the apache foundation am I "buying" software or donating? Some of the artists I support post everything they make outside the paywall and just use patreon as a convenient tip jar.
  - gpm 2y ago

ncr100 2y ago

IDK > If you derive satisfaction Semantically, would The Church also qualify, (if it weren't already legally exempted)? You take yourself to the church, talk to the church people, they tell you things, you think and behave in Their mental framework, you feel better in your life, deriving satisfaction.

adolph 2y ago
Oftentimes a 501(c)3's receipt will include a "fair market" value of whatever benefit the donor got. When religion gets reclassified as 501(c)3, I wonder how they will do receipts. Officient salaries / (number of services * average participation) = FMV
- mminer237 2y ago
  Churches are already 501(c)(3)s
  - adolph 2y ago
    This is an nuanced topic that might not be worth going into. The IRS automatically considers a church as tax exempt under 501(c)3. However, churches do not have to apply for that status (although some/many do), and do not have to follow IRS annual filing rules.[0] 0. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrated-auxiliaries-and-conventions-or-associations-of-churches https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...

akira2501 2y ago

> is supporting an author on Patreon ever a "DONATION"? It depends. Is the author giving away content for free or is it paywalled? There are both types of authors using patreon. > then it is a purchase regardless of what someone calls it. I'm comfortable saying that the authors who give it away for free and ask for donations are, in fact, receiving donations.

DataDive 2y ago
when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while. to me that is the main distinction, who is benefiting from making that monetary contribution otherwise, it is just an issue of timing, did I pay up front or later after a tried and liked the product
- mcphage 2y ago
  > when you donate, you are not the one who personally receives the benefit, right? if you donate a car, you are not also using that car every once in a while. If you donate to a church, you often also enjoy the perks that that church offers, paid for by donations. If you donate to a public radio station, you probably also enjoy listening to that radio station.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  I absolutely personally benefit when I donate to a web comic artist and they are able to continue making comics that I enjoy reading via my RSS feed. I don't consider this a purchase.

pessimizer 2y ago

Using the word "product" is begging the question. You could just as easily say: "If you derive satisfaction from an series of artistic works, and you know the person who creates those artistic works, and you decide to send money to support that person..." ----- edit: and this is closer to the reality, because plenty of people subscribe to someone's patreon (or donate to them in other ways) for "products" that they have already consumed, or because they want other people to consume those products. For an example of the latter: when financing journalists with mostly or completely open newsletters on substack. People generally aren't paying journalists because they want to read exciting stories. They're paying journalists because they want certain stories and types of stories to be investigated and written. They're not people who are paying to consume.

adam_arthur 2y ago

The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion. Conceptually, why should a "donation" be any different than a "payment" in regards to the Apple tax? Regardless of their current legal agreement attempts to disambiguate these, they are conceptually quite the same. In one case you receive a good, in another you receive good-will. Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Some of you will say "yes", but I'd bet pretty strongly the vast majority of the public would say "no". And legislation will follow eventually, in my opinion, despite the US government/courts moving very slowly here. Continued acts like these will only move up the timeline and increase the number of lawsuits which will eventually tip against Apple.

DataDive 2y ago
> The semantics of the word "DONATION" are frankly irrelevant to the discussion. I don't think the word DONATION is irrelevant at all. Tim Sweeney is using the word "DONATION" deliberately to make Apple look like someone that steals even the "donations". You know like someone stealing from the church lockbox. I am not supporting Apple here at all, I am just pointing out the attempt to manipulate public opinion.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Taxing individual artists is far worse than stealing from the church lockbox imo.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Like people sometimes ask "if money is the root of all evil, why does the church want it so much?". :)
wpm 2y ago
>Should Apple be entitled to 30% of these voluntary payments? Apple believes so, because Apple is so arrogant as to think that the payment wouldn't have occurred had it not been for their hard work on the platform. It's false, of course. It'd be like Bell Telephone asking for a cut of your profits because you negotiated a business deal over the phone. Or the cell phone carriers forcing you to pay them $7 for a 20-second ringtone. We traded one villain for another.

efsavage 2y ago

It possibly could be, if they were organized as a non-profit that paid them a reasonable salary (which is probably an overambitious goal for most authors). After all, IKEA is a non-profit.

SahAssar 2y ago
Comparing almost any corporate structure to IKEA is like comparing a children's alphabet book to the tower of babel. IKEA is a non profit owned by for profits partially owned by non-profits owned by dutch companies that license IP from Irish companies (who license it from IoS (IKEA of Sweden) in a small Swedish village called älmhult) owned by non-physical, non-personal entities that are "legal residents in Switzerland" that might or might not be controlled by certain people named Kamprad (in non-exclusive partnerships with other interested parties that might be controlled by companies owned by said dutch companies). And after that we have the whole ROIG, INKGA, etc. structures.