I did a bit of research here. As with above, you should confirm this on your own, but it looks like, to qualify for a second PPP loan, you must show a 25% reduction in revenue from 2019 to 2020, for either any quarter, or the entire year.
I was having trouble figuring out whether to count the quarterly difference based on hours worked/invoiced or check/deposit dates. It looks like it depends on the method of accounting you use. Most sole proprietors probably use the Cash method (check which box you checked on your schedule C) and that would mean you use check/deposit dates. More guidance may be released to specify which method of accounting you can use, or if you can choose whichever one you prefer.
I also read that, if you didn’t get a loan in the first round, you should be able get one now without showing the reduction in revenue.
Thanks. Hmm, if I’m not mistaken, this was a repost of their final comment in that thread from 2 weeks ago.
I would have liked to see a lot more inline responses/discussion, rather than such a long reply to all comments.
I appreciated your thoughtful critique of EA. I read your original article and this post, but I have not read any responses other than the comment below by EdoArad. I apologize if there is any overlap here.
I understand that you think it’s important for wealthy donors to “engage in direct reparations where possible, or at least commit to contribute a significant amount to prevent further harm in the specific sector where wealth was generated.”
If they can do more good spending their scarce resources in other ways, why wouldn’t you want them to do that?
I can understand that there is a feeling of justice being accomplished if that happens. Is there reason beyond that?
What if a donor can save the equivalent of 1000 lives buying bednets, while only the equivalent of 100 lives by making some kind of reparations? Would you still advocate that they make the reparations? If so, how would you justify those 900 deaths?
Thanks for this. I have been meaning to get the Double Dash, but did not know about the Alliant. I’ll have to review my spending patterns but that may be the better option.
FaceBook’s Giving Tuesday (tomorrow!) is an example of a donation match that requires paying online.
Actually I just re-read it and saw the $1500 limit which, unfortunately, takes it out of the running for me. Been meaning to sign up for the Double Dash for a while. Does anyone know if that 2% cash back applies to Facebook Fundraisers or if any of the others do or are a better option in that respect? I will likely try to do $10-15k this year, so limits are a deal-breaker, unless they are pretty high.
Chase Freedom seems like a good option for Giving Tuesday. I am not finding your referral link for it though (I don’t see BofA one either for that matter).
Fantastic stuff Aaron. Even as someone who has followed EA forum/newsletters/blogs for 2-3 years, there were quite a few things I didn’t know about. Thanks!
Excellent criticisms thanks. I do, occasionally, have ideas like this that seem worth posting, but that I am unlikely to ever get around to if I wait until I have time to give them the full research treatment. I suppose it would make sense to note that in the original post.
It also occurs to me that, while the idea that organ sales should be legal seems like a pretty mainstream view in EA circles, there are likely some members of the forum that disagree with that. Perhaps that could be someone’s reason for downvoting.
Yes that makes sense for sure. Thanks for the feedback.
Would the people who down-voted this be willing to give a brief note about why?
Or maybe a better idea. A “black market non-profit” that vets donors and purchases kidneys in order to start donation chains with them (rather than benefit a specific person). As long as it operates, it saves a lot of lives. If it gets into legal trouble, it’s a pretty good story to get press coverage, and to help shift public opinion.
You mean because it was $1 or because it’s not usually enforced? The $1 part doesn’t seem essential. Could make it $100k.
Yes, I had considered doing another post, but I guess I was thinking probably not. It would certainly be diminishing returns, yeah. I, and I’m sure many others, wouldn’t want to start seeming spammy about it. Maybe after a couple of years.
@Davidmanheim I am not sure if they are still doing it, but I know they were doing a survey. It is linked to in the Google Doc of their summary that I linked to above.
Thanks David! Great suggestions. I am just back from a trip, but I will dig in more deeply this week and make some revisions and reply to you in more depth—either here or via email. Thanks again!
Good idea. I will definitely do that.
I see what you’re saying, but I (intentionally) didn’t ask about future plans so I’m not sure if that part works. While I definitely don’t want it to be high pressure, I do want to somehow emphasize the importance of tracking future actions. I wonder if this strikes a balance.
Thank you for taking the time to share what you have done. In order to help us understand the longer-term impact of the book, would you mind if we followed up with another short survey a year from now? If that’s alright, please enter your email address below—it will not be shared with anyone, or used for any other purpose.
I really appreciate you taking the time to back-and-forth with me about this!
Thanks Aaron. Glad to hear you might try it.
Good point about that survey question. I was really trying to get across the importance of tracking future actions, but I agree that it could come across off-putting. What do you think of this?
Thank you for taking the time to tell us about what you’ve done. We’d love to hear about what you may still do as well. If you think you might make future donations or changes in line with the principles of Effective Altruism, can we send you a single, short follow-up survey a year from now? If so, please enter your email address below—it will not be shared with anyone, or used for any other purpose.