is it “institutional racism” if the law itself doesn’t exclude or discriminate in who uses it?
How did Asian’s fare in the use of this tax rule?
Is the problem possibly cultural?
“”How did Asian’s fare in the use of this tax rule?””
The brand new “C’mon Man” Tax Code has discovered a heretofore hidden racial factor. Surreptitiously hidden inside the White Supremest vocabulary, inside the very word Caucasian itself are the Asians...
CaucASIANS
Just how long the Asians have been concealed within the CaucASIANS will take decades of Federally Funded research. We now know why UC Berkeley was so wise to alter their admissions. When Asians began to not just qualify for entry, but also graduate at increasing numbers, the stobe-cold racist Berkeley Admissions Administration altered their racist lenses to consider Asians as more white than not. Now, with the sinister CaucASIANS being found out, even more blatant anti-racist racism can be implemented to correct the injustice.
While at present no historical revision is planned, it is possible that a certain quota of already-granted diplomas, undergraduate and graduate, will be disallowed. According to an anonymous source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, all options are on the table. Some CaucASIANS will have 24-72 hours to present their diplomas for decertification.
Later, all the money earned due to the fraudulent diplomas will be taxed at 110%.
The link above is to the actual article. It’s a little (and just a little) more nuanced than the selective quotations given in the excerpt above.
The actual IRS report supposedly cites the academic work of two activist, woke, CRT, socialist/communist (?) college professors as informing its conclusions.
Surprise! Who didn’t see that revelation coming?
BTW, as other comments and the article itself noted, tax returns do not collect information on the filer’s race, etc. So the study team used “predictive analysis” to determine racial percentages for its conclusions. So the conclusions are based on guesses. Masters degree in Operations Research-based guesses but guesses never the less.
Too bad the 50 lbs.-brain types doing the analysis didn’t provide the estimates percentage of tax filers that are white. Or the ratio of white tax filers taking a particular tax credit vs the total number of white tax filers. For example, significant numbers of white tax filers rent, so not even every white tax filer can benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Ditto for capital gains, charitable donations, etc. But showing that not even all white taxpayers benefit might not fit the narrative, so…
Another seeming omission is the impact of the pretty generous standard deduction. A number of taxpayers see no point in itemizing deductions if the standard deduction more than covers the amount AND you don’t have to document it. Perhaps knowing the percentage of returns that were excluded from the “analysis” because of using the standard deduction would be useful.
The study also noted it was only showing the effects of existing policy not making tax law change recommendations. So the intent is to inflame without the IRS being reminded by Congress that it made the laws the policies are derived from. That disclaimer is a deniability clause so the study team’s supervisors can reject/table the report without action if the pushback becomes too heavy.