"Thanks for the condescending response."

Well, it wasn't condescending. These are all Text-based discussions; the only inflection you perceive is the one you infer. I tend to speak (and type) matter-of-factually. I try to be even more precise when it includes reference materials.

"The income threshold phaseouts for the second round of payments"

That's where we disagree, then.

The Advance payment went down by $5 for every $100 over the limit. The Advances changed. The income limit threshold never changed. And, it's moot, now. All of it is based on 2020 Actuals.

"would now qualify for a partial Rebate Recovery Credit for the first payment, but still get nothing for the second round."

It seems we also disagree on the fact that the stimulus is for 2020 as a whole, even though the payments were broken into two parts. They either qualify or they don't, and then the Advance payments are individually compared to the income for 2020 and the funds already received.

"I never discussed anything involving dependents, so not sure why you brought that up."

It's a macro; I've provided the text and links so often, it's now automated. Sometimes I remove specific parts, but not this time, since it was meant to provide a resource.