Posts by urbanwalker72

nimblegull23 said:Works fine with a VPN and a US address. I even asked if I’d get in trouble for connecting from the European Union using a VPN, since I was dying to try it out.

He told me it's all good, the VPN is legit. Honestly, it's way faster than ChatGPT—responses are lightning quick. I mostly use it to help with coding; since it has access to live data, its answers feel much more current.

It is a little cocky, though. I asked, "Are you sure about this solution?" AS IF I DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW! 😁

I haven't tested ChatGPT for programming yet, but I have used GPT. It lacks that level of overconfidence; it tends to be quite apologetic whenever you point out an error. 🤣

The code generation itself is solid, though its debugging skills leave something to be desired. This might stem from the fact that it isn't constantly online, meaning it doesn't always track the most recent updates, which can lead to certain bugs appearing.

That said, its ability to interpret data is quite impressive. For instance, I asked it to interpret the summary of a binary logistic regression performed in Python, and the quality of the response was remarkable. It laid out the equation, explained the coefficients, the log odds, and the probabilities with such clarity that even a six-year-old could grasp the concept.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Quick tax question for you guys. My company is dropping a pretty big bonus on me this year—like, way more than the usual $1,000 tax-free holiday/bonus amount. I’m a little lost on how the math works once you cross that threshold. Like, if the total bonus hits $10,000, and the first $1,000 is tax-free, what happens to the other $9k? Does that just get lumped in as gross income, or is there some different rule for how it gets taxed compared to my regular paycheck?

It is taxed just like your regular salary. Whether it counts as net, gross, or total compensation depends entirely on the specifics of your employment contract.

If you negotiated a deal where you receive exactly $10,000 take-home pay, then that is precisely what you will see in your bank account. However, if the amount exceeds the tax-exempt portion of your gross pay, you can use this tool to figure out the math:

https://www.smartasset.com/taxes/paycheck-calculator

Dennis Allen said:

Think of it like this: if a booster only bumps up our protection against Omicron by about 25%, it’s like trying to stop a massive rainstorm with just a small cocktail umbrella!

If you plugged that 25% directly into an epidemiological model, how much would it actually move the needle? I'd love to see how much that would flatten the curve and dial down the transmission!

So, when it comes to that 25% neutralization boost, does that mean we should be pushing for mandatory vaccinations? It’s like asking if a little extra seasoning makes a meal a requirement—it depends on how you look at the recipe!

Think of it like this: if a booster only bumps up our protection against Omicron by about 25%, it’s like trying to stop a massive rainstorm with just a small cocktail umbrella!

If you plugged that 25% directly into an epidemiological model, how much would it actually move the needle? I'd love to see how much that would flatten the curve and dial down the transmission!

So, when it comes to that 25% neutralization boost, does that mean we should be pushing for mandatory vaccinations? It’s like asking if a little extra seasoning makes a meal a requirement—it depends on how you look at the recipe!

Think of it like this: if a booster only bumps up our protection against Omicron by about 25%, it’s like trying to stop a massive rainstorm with just a small cocktail umbrella!

If you plugged that 25% directly into an epidemiological model, how much would it actually move the needle? I'd love to see how much that would flatten the curve and dial down the transmission!

So, when it comes to that 25% neutralization boost, does that mean we should be pushing for mandatory vaccinations? It’s like asking if a little extra seasoning makes a meal a requirement—it depends on how you look at the recipe!
It all depends on the clinical presentation and mortality rates caused by omicron. We shouldn't look at the situation through the lens of the USA, but rather how things are playing out in Europe. I find it hard to believe that mandating vaccines is worth the effort at this stage.

Nancy Gomez26 said:I suspect we are finally seeing the twilight of this pandemic. The virus tends to mutate toward more contagious yet less lethal strains, which aligns perfectly with historical patterns and what we’ve seen play out before. Everything we know right now suggests that Omicron fits that exact profile. The real question is how the mainstream media will spin it; panic regarding Omicron is still being manufactured everywhere. This could serve as a convenient exit strategy for those in power.

Which option did you select in my poll regarding when the pandemic will finally conclude?

Ethan Gomez82 said:You can only treat the critically ill, and the profit margins there are tiny. But you can vaccinate everyone, and you can do it repeatedly.

At this current stage, however, those returns are quite underwhelming when measured against the broader market. Much like how certain tech stocks might lag behind the S&P 500, Pfizer and its pharmaceutical peers are currently underperforming the general index. It honestly feels as though even someone making decisions entirely at random would find more lucrative opportunities elsewhere right now.

I previously shared some charts on a different thread to illustrate this reasoning, so I won't dwell on the details here.

For Pfizer to truly dominate the landscape and extract massive profits from this situation, the crisis would need to persist for many years; they won't see sustained, overwhelming gains from just three or six months of activity, but perhaps if this drags on for several more years.

Sandra Baker41 said:The United States, where Omicron just reigns supreme over everything else

https://www.reuters.com/business/hea...ic-2021-12-01/

They’re claiming the coronavirus has essentially morphed into nothing more than a common cold, though apparently, we won't truly know if it's settled into being just another seasonal nuisance until we see how the next two or three weeks play out...
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...ntry/usa/

Just 159 new cases and zero deaths reported, which seems to be the pattern we've been seeing for the last few days...

That outcome feels quite likely. However, we should remain patient and observe how this unfolds, considering the average age in Africa is roughly 20, whereas in Europe, it exceeds 40. For now, the situation appears relatively mild, which aligns perfectly with the historical patterns seen during previous pandemics.

Ronald Howard3 said:The whole "self-destructing virus" theory in Japan doesn't quite sit right with me. It makes more sense that we've hit a tipping point where enough people have immunity that the virus hasn't managed to mutate fast enough to bypass it. That isn't the virus killing itself off—it's just how our natural defenses work.

Viruses of this nature tend to mutate slowly, gradually becoming less hazardous with each successive iteration. The primary complication here is that this specific virus evolves at a relatively sluggish pace. If it were mutating more rapidly, we might have already seen it become significantly milder—much like what we see hints of with Omicron—or perhaps even burn itself out, which is the theory being whispered regarding what may have occurred in Japan and parts of India.

In fact, certain antiviral strategies actually rely on accelerating these mutations to achieve a similar effect.

Even if we set immune responses aside, a virus can accumulate errors within its spike protein that could eventually render it incapable of latching onto a cell entirely.

In its ancestral state, the virus was animal-based, and it was specifically those initial mutations to that protein that allowed it to bridge the gap and infect human cells.

It is statistically more probable that the virus will eventually hit an evolutionary "sweet spot," where it achieves incredibly high transmissibility while presenting a very mild clinical profile. That is essentially the essence of evolutionary optimization.

Ultimately, time should be our ally in managing this pandemic; the virus will likely settle into a pattern similar to the seasonal flu.

wanderingdriver17 said:Wand,

It’s pretty obvious you’ve got a massive grudge against Kerekes. You're just sitting there, waiting for any tiny excuse to drop the hammer and ban him...

The thing is, lately, you haven't really had a leg to stand on when you try to "cool things down." Your only real reason seems to be: he’s getting on my nerves!

Look, you clearly can't stand what he posts, but you can't just ban him whenever you feel like it just because you disagree.
At least, you shouldn't.

Surely you have enough self-control and patience for that...
Posting what you consider to be "nonsense," even if it's on-topic, isn't against the rules anywhere.

Since this has turned into such a subjective mess, I'd ask the admins to take a look at the warnings Wand handed out to Kerekes... and actually check the reasoning behind them.

I'll just give one recent and glaringly obvious example

I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed by the structure of this forum. We have the main subforum, and then we have specific sections dedicated to those who follow the "alternativa" lifestyle.

And yet, these "alternativa" types drift into every single thread, injecting nonsensical ideas that degrade the quality of discussion while simultaneously spreading theories about things I can't even identify.

I would characterize it as malice, hostility, and the manufacturing of imaginary internal and external enemies.

If you look through the entire history of Kerefek76's posts, his pattern becomes quite clear.

In every topic, he propagates conspiracy theories, creating these (entirely fictional) villains to serve as targets for negative emotions, despite having no basis in reality. This ranges from his claims in natural science and astronomy—where he argued Nibir would destroy us in 2012—to his current tendency to project similar conspiracies onto the Economy. The only appropriate venue for such talk is the alternativa section.

His targets are typically politicians, CEOs, bankers, specific nations, or occasionally individuals identified by name.

I have no objection to this eccentricity being expressed in its designated areas, but if we allow it to bleed into serious economic discussions, the dialogue loses all meaningful substance.

Furthermore, I respect any viewpoint, no matter how unconventional, provided the participant can defend it with logic.

For instance, if Kerefek were to argue for the hundredth time that 'bankers ruined the country,' but supported it with concrete data showing how flawed monetary policy led to poor macroeconomic outcomes (something that can actually be proven via statistics), I wouldn't say a word. In fact, I might commend him.

However, I have neither the patience nor the inclination for baseless nonsense. If we permit that here, we might as well rename this entire platform Garbage and Stupidity.

My sole intention has been to elevate the caliber of discussion in the Economy section, especially since fewer than 5% of active users there possess fundamental knowledge.

Whenever I participate in a thread, I do so with purpose, because I know what I am talking about—which is a distinction most users cannot claim, particularly in the Economy section.

To be clear, I am not acting as an educator or a babysitter; I am simply someone who has provided hundreds, if not thousands, of specific answers to technical questions in the Economy section. I have assisted people with entrepreneurship, accounting, tax law, and conducted informal seminars on the fundamentals of economics, macroeconomics, capital markets, cryptocurrencies, quantitative analysis, algorithmic trading, and programming in Python and R.

What other moderator spends their time working on their own personal profile?

On the more substantive threads, you might see ten or fifteen engaged participants, yet when the subject shifts to the Economy, figures like Warren Buffett, or global financial crises, it’s as if someone placed a magnet for fools in the middle of the room. Suddenly, hundreds of commenters appear, possessing almost no grasp of the subject matter, yet they maintain an unwavering certainty in everything they write.

It seems that if a topic is concrete, there is no interest; but if it is vague and nebulous, everyone rushes in.

As for the suggestion that I harbor animosity toward Kerefek—or anyone else personally—that is sheer nonsense.

My issue isn't with individuals, but rather with the garbage and stupidity they contribute.

On a few occasions, much like a blind hen occasionally stumbling upon a grain of corn, Kerefek has actually made a valid point, and I have conceded and even praised him for it.

However, the fact remains that since 2012, or perhaps even earlier, he has dedicated over 99% of his posts across all topics to conspiracy theories, which serves only to degrade the quality of every discussion—and that is, fundamentally, a problem for this community.

To summarize my position:

1) I stepped into this moderator role because people persistently urged and persuaded me to accept, not because I sought the position myself; after all, nobody actually wants to moderate the Economics section.

2) I accepted on the condition that I would actively work to elevate the standard of discourse—rather than being a passive observer—while simultaneously filtering out content that constitutes nothing but garbage and stupidity.

3) If the priority here is to allow everyone to say whatever they wish at the expense of destroying any actual substance, then we have had a fundamental misunderstanding.

4) And finally, though no less importantly: my friends, if you see no value in what I am doing, there is no issue. Not only will I step down as a moderator, but I will also cease to be a participant.

What is the purpose of striving for excellence if not only is that effort unrecognized, but it is also perceived as causing harm?

I view my participation here as a balance where I derive about 5% of the benefit from reading and writing, while providing 95% of the value to others through my contributions.

But looking at this thread and the private message I received, it appears our visions are not aligned.

Since my colleagues seem to be almost unanimously of the opposite opinion, I shall act accordingly.

stormybadger8 said:What’s the deal with companies registered overseas that still use an American tax ID?

Basically, can I buy stuff online from a shop like this:

And just write it off as a business expense without any massive headaches or extra paperwork?

Just a heads-up: I don't have a specific VAT registration, just my standard American EIN and I'm already in the tax system...

The weird part is, there isn't even an option to register as a business on their site.
There isn't even a field to enter a tax ID...
On top of that, when I look them up in the official state registry using that ID, nothing shows up. 🤔

It gets complicated. Even if they possess an American Sales Tax ID, they are technically a foreign entity, which places you in the exact same position as if you were ordering from a reputable vendor within the European Union. Consequently, you would need to provide your tax credentials so they can apply the reverse charge mechanism; you would then report it simultaneously as both an input credit and a taxable supply—making it a net-neutral transaction for you.

Essentially, you won't get a clean input tax deduction as you would with a domestic American corporation.

If you happen to receive an invoice that explicitly lists American Sales Tax, it is fundamentally incorrect.

You might be better off buying tires from someone else.

Arthur Ross said:I ended up having to open a completely new business checking account, even though I already had my own personal one ready to go.
It’s only been a few weeks since I set it up, so the details are still pretty fresh in my mind.

Since I find myself in a nearly identical situation to what our colleague mentioned—well, I have to ask immediately. 🙂

Up until this point, my primary employer just handled everything by adding my tax refund directly to my December paycheck.
Does that process change now that I’ve started my own LLC? Am I suddenly responsible for filing those specific tax forms with the IRS by February 15th?

Nothing changes regarding that. You need to submit that specific tax filing by January 15th, not February 15th.

casualstag4 said:Look, since you're talking about $7.50, in dollar terms you'll be in the lowest possible tax bracket. We're talking about roughly $510 in income taxes you'll owe regardless of whether you actually see any profit or not. You could technically put the business on hold and try to ask the IRS to waive those obligations, but you'd have to provide a legitimate reason why the business is dormant.

Since you already have a steady job, you won't have to worry about monthly Social Security or Medicare contributions, but expect a lump sum bill from the IRS at the end of the year once you file your returns.

After a year, you'll also have to deal with monthly chamber of commerce fees $25. As for banking, you can just use your personal account; there's no requirement to open a dedicated business account, so that saves you money right there. You don't even need to rent office space if you work from home—you just need to show proof of residency or owner consent to run the business from that location without paying rent.

You won't even need a cash register if all your payments go straight to your bank account.

Contributions for the lowest tier are roughly $2,000, so his total overhead will likely hover around $1167 annually, whether he makes a sale or not.

silverbadger15 said:Hi there,
Does anyone happen to know which taxes kick in when a corporation buys land from an individual?

It would be the real estate transfer tax, which typically amounts to about 3% of the property's fair market value.

Enough is enough. We have to put an end to this cycle of insults.

Nathan Kelly5 said:The issue is that the data is framed to imply that American workers "don't work hard enough" or have low "productivity," which is then used to justify lower wages. That is how someone who misinterprets the data views it, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

These charts don't actually support that claim; in fact, they suggest quite the opposite. This is about political agendas, not economic reality.

Who would actually fall for the idea that individual workers are to blame for low productivity levels?

Perhaps someone who lacks even a basic understanding of economics. Such a claim shouldn't even be present in a professional PDF report.

Ultimately, if you know how to interpret the data correctly, the graph itself is perfectly fine.

I believe I have laid this out clearly enough for those unfamiliar with the subject.

I fail to see what the controversy is about.

hiddenheron3 said:The catch, though, is that the tractor operator doesn't necessarily possess some mystical talent. In reality, any laborer could step in and use that shovel, and the business owner clearly still needs those manual workers to function. Ideally, that 20% slice (of the total) should be distributed among all equal contributors. But, let's be honest: it's much cheaper to just pay the one guy driving the machine and give the shovel crew some vague, half-baked explanation as to why their checks are so small.

I agree. Unfortunately, not everyone in the American workforce is "marketable." A significant portion of people don't even know how to sell themselves.

I've worked exclusively in the private sector; I couldn't imagine working in government—it's just far too monotonous for me. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "your problem," because, frankly, I've managed to command a pretty enviable salary. But looking back, the choice was always between doing what I love for peanuts or doing something else for a decent paycheck.

While it may not be considered a high-level technical skill, operating a tractor does require a certain degree of proficiency.

Furthermore, an employer utilizing a tractor only requires a single worker, whereas someone relying on hand tools needs a whole crew.

That second type of employer produces much lower output and, consequently, lacks the capital to offer higher wages.

Put simply, these economic dynamics are the primary reasons why wages in Germany or Austria are three times higher than they are here in America.

It isn't because the capitalists over there are somehow more generous.

hiddenheron3 said:Well, Wand is clearly acting as the moderator here, so I’m hoping he doesn't mess things up too badly. That's why I'd love to hear his expert opinion...

Since he's comparing laborers with hoes to those operating tractors—arguing that the hoe-wielder is slow while the tractor operator is "technically equipped" and therefore faster—I’d love for him to explain why the guy on the tractor is (obviously) better paid. On one hand, he’s faster; on the other, he has to cover the cost of the machinery investment. Perhaps Wand was clumsily trying to imply something else, but... regardless of that, I have a follow-up question...

How does he justify the fact that today, highly educated employees are often paid less than manual laborers? Does his logic imply people shouldn't have bothered going to college? Any rational person investing in a degree expects some sort of return on that investment. These days, many parents suggest their kids go into a trade or get a vocational certificate instead because they'll actually make a living. Now, there will always be people who assume a degree automatically entitles them to a leadership role or higher status in a private firm compared to someone already in management, but that's beside the point. Why not just hire one or two top-tier professionals who meet all your needs and pay them enough so they actually understand their value, rather than keeping six or seven people on starvation wages? You'd end up with two productive workers who actually want to stay. When it comes to intellectual labor, I don't think you can compare it to tilling garden beds, and most people chiming in here aren't out there tilling garden beds anyway.

If an employer is looking for someone to handle basic operational tasks, then paying minimum wage is fine—you don't need to use your brain, you just do what you're told. It's a great alternative to any underpaid manual laborer. But if you want someone to give more than the bare minimum, you can't keep them on a low salary.

Wand has plenty of smart answers in this PDF; you can tell he works in a field where he actually had to invest in his own knowledge. So, I'm curious to see his common-sense reasoning without all the fancy charts.

Wand, the floor is yours. 😁

One shouldn't focus solely on the velocity of labor, but rather on the actual substance of the results produced. When contemplating the principles of economics, you can never go wrong if you place the concept of total output at the very heart of your reasoning.

To illustrate the disparity, consider that an operator utilizing a tractor can yield a ton of product within a specific timeframe, whereas a laborer working manually would only manage to produce twenty kilograms in that same interval.

It stands to reason that if everyone is being compensated with an identical twenty percent share of the total output, then it becomes perfectly clear why the individual operating the tractor managed to secure a more favorable outcome.

How does he justify the idea that today's college-educated professionals are being outpaced in pay by manual laborers? Does his logic imply that pursuing a degree was a wasted endeavor altogether? It seems intuitive to me that anyone who makes the significant investment of time and money into higher education expects some semblance of a return on that investment. Nowadays, I see so many parents advising their children that it might be more practical to master a specific trade or go for a vocational certification instead, believing those paths offer much better long-term stability.

One must first recognize that a higher salary is typically reserved for the worker who possesses marketable skills. It is not enough to simply hold a degree; there must be a genuine, practical proficiency present, coupled with a legitimate market demand for that specific expertise. Ultimately, however, the employer’s own business performance serves as the foundation, for an organization must remain profitable if it intends to compensate its staff accordingly.

A university degree is essentially a hollow credential in and of itself. If an individual pursues higher education solely to collect a diploma, without any genuine interest in acquiring practical skills or understanding whether those abilities serve a meaningful purpose in society, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the entire reason for studying in the first place.

Many individuals pursue higher education simply because they lack a more defined sense of purpose, which ultimately results in an abundance of economists and lawyers who possess little to no practical expertise. It is much like filling a stadium with spectators who have never actually played the game; they hold the titles, yet they lack the fundamental skills required to truly contribute to the field.

I will set aside those who believe that simply holding a university degree entitles them to a leadership role or grants them immediate seniority within a private corporation over seasoned professionals already in management; such individuals will always exist. Instead, I find myself wondering why a company wouldn't choose to hire one or two truly elite experts—individuals who meet every requirement—and compensate them generously enough that they fully understand the value of their position, rather than attempting to retain six or seven mediocre employees on meager salaries. Those two exceptional performers will be inherently productive and will rightfully expect a premium wage. When we discuss intellectual labor, I believe we cannot view it through the lens of manual tasks like tending garden beds; most people contributing to this discussion are engaged in much more complex endeavors than simple yard work.

I believe we ought to draw a clear distinction between formal education and true, practical knowledge, as the two concepts frequently diverge from one another.

When the government acts as an employer, it remains bound to compensation based strictly on formal educational credentials; however, private enterprises ought to focus more intently on an individual's actual proficiency and their tangible ability to execute tasks.

The predicament you're describing strikes me as being characteristic of a public sector issue.

Nathan Kelly5 said:How exactly was this productivity calculated? Is it total GDP per employee?

This graph doesn't actually prove anything other than the fact that workers were heavily exploited back in 2000 due to labor supply and demand. If we look at 2016 as a baseline after the American labor market opened up following integration with the European Union, can anyone explain why wages have lagged behind productivity for an entire decade? Isn't that gap just extra profit for capitalists, fueled by the supply and demand conditions within a closed economy? It’s essentially unpaid labor.

We also need to view the private sector separately from the public sector. It’s fairly obvious who the real source of inefficiency is in this country. Once you see the data specifically for private-sector employees, it will likely look even more dramatic.

Charts like these feel politically motivated and don't say much on their own; the real question is who is analyzing them, for what purpose, and what kind of narrative they are trying to push.

Looking at the chart itself, the intentions don't seem positive. It feels like a pure deception for the 99.99% of the population who aren't deep enough into economics to interpret it correctly.

Furthermore, the metric itself tells us nothing about actual productivity. Based on these indicators, you could argue that workers in factories in Pakistan or India—who work themselves to death for a few dollars—have lower productivity than some bureaucrats at an entity like Exelon. That's only because one group is being exploited by the West for low output, while the other holds a monopoly.

One should be cautious with these types of graphs. On their own, they rarely tell the whole story.

Shall we approach this from the perspective of microeconomics or macroeconomics?

Let's start with micro. Labor productivity can be measured as output per worker—for instance, revenue per worker or value added per worker, where $p = q/l$.

What influences productivity? Primarily technology, worker skill levels, and capital investment.

For example, imagine a crew digging with hand shovels versus a single worker operating a tractor.

Clearly, the output of the person on the tractor is far greater than the entire crew with shovels combined. This is the direct result of technology (the tractor), skill (the operator knows how to use it), and capital equipment (the investment in the machine).

So, if I understand you correctly, are you upset that the person on the tractor has higher productivity? Are you suggesting it's unfair that the people with shovels are being overworked?

Or is it simply a matter of chance that their manual labor doesn't generate enough value to command a decent wage?

No one is claiming the workers are to blame, but discussing labor productivity is basic Economics 101.

Could you please address my example before we move into analyzing actual datasets?

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Does this example address your points regarding Exelon and Pakistan?

What exactly is political or dangerous about this?

Nathan Kelly5 said:Wages get slashed the moment the market allows it. The government consistently sides with big capital to drive down labor costs—think work permits for retirees or loosening restrictions on foreign labor. To them, "the market" only exists as long as supply and demand force workers into a corner where they’ll accept nothing more than basic housing and food just to survive. Once that balance shifts in favor of the worker—which is how a free market is actually supposed to function—they suddenly scramble to implement emergency measures to protect corporate interests.

I recently went in for a job interview—we're at that stage now where they just call you out of the blue. I honestly have no idea how they even find my resume; it’s clearly being passed around by recruiters and agencies building up databases just to sell them off to the highest bidder. When the topic of salary finally came up, their response was basically, "We just need to make sure we survive the fall." My thought was, well, you called me, didn't you? lol...

unknown, I’ve only ever been in a position where I was paying someone else for their work once, and it wasn't exactly like I was looking to turn a profit on the deal, so I can't really speak to that specific mindset. All I know is I once paid a college student. $13 Even for me, an hour felt like a bit of an undersell. It seemed like she was working around the clock—dropping in for five or six hours whenever she could find the time—really pushing herself, only to end up with just three.$1.25 Monthly. I suppose that might pass for a college student, but let’s be honest—it's hardly a living. I can't imagine how people surviving on minimum wage manage.

When considering wage levels, there is a mechanism far more critical than simple market forces: labor productivity.

Regardless of how market relations fluctuate, wages cannot realistically sustain long-term growth without a corresponding increase in productivity.

Keith Martinez5 said:I have to respectfully disagree with you there—if you take a look at the federal tax regulations, you'll see things work a bit differently. Let me paste the relevant section here for you:
2. INCURRENCE OF TAX LIABILITY REGARDING RECEIVED – PAID FEES

Section 53.

4. in the case of credit cards, the moment the transaction is approved by the bank where the taxpayer holds their checking account,

Under the current regulations governing cash transactions, credit cards are treated strictly as non-cash instruments.

George Price10 said:I was the one providing the service to them. I had no idea I wasn't supposed to have a tax ID. The whole system for small business owners in the US is incredibly confusing. It's almost as if we aren't part of the same unified system.
I'll just wait for them to call.🙂 Thanks!

You are technically allowed to have one, but it serves no practical purpose if you haven't actually performed services or received them—specifically if you're just reporting income that falls below the standard deduction threshold. You can certainly wait for them to reach out, but I would advise preparing for an expense, though the likelihood of one occurring isn't particularly high.