Kashea McCowan Nicole Cardoza Kashea McCowan Nicole Cardoza

Learn about Harriet Tubman on the $20.

From wading in the water to following the drinking gourd towards the North Star, Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist, scout and spy for union soldiers in South Carolina, and conductor of the Underground Railroad, was “Bound for the Promised Land.” She fought for her own emancipation and led many enslaved people to freedom. More than a century later, Tubman still is making her mark and is set to grace the face of the twenty dollar bill, an Obama-era initiative, as soon as 2028. But fans of the renowned political activist have differing views about the banknote’s new design. While some people are excited to see this freedom fighter acknowledged on the front of the bill, others say that it goes against the very thing she fought for—liberation from the capitalistic system that slavery was built on. The fact that Andrew Jackson, an oppressor of enslaved people, still will be placed on the back of the $20 bill—some say—is utterly disrespectful (Time). But, what would Tubman think?

Happy Friday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. This week we've written frequently about issues related to the economy. I feel that the conversation about Harriet Tubman being featured on the $20 bill is an interesting lens to the role of money in our lives.

Thank you all for your contributions! This newsletter is made possible by our subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • Learn more about the legacy of Harriet Tubman through books and documentaries (Smithsonian).

  • Get educated about how slavery helped build a world economy (National Geographic).

  • Get involved in the conversation and state your opinion about the redesign of the twenty dollar bill that is set to be released as soon as 2028.

GET EDUCATED

By Kashea McCowan (she/her)

From wading in the water to following the drinking gourd towards the North Star, Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist, scout and spy for union soldiers in South Carolina, and conductor of the Underground Railroad, was “Bound for the Promised Land.” She fought for her own emancipation and led many enslaved people to freedom. More than a century later, Tubman still is making her mark and is set to grace the face of the twenty dollar bill, an Obama-era initiative, as soon as 2028. But fans of the renowned political activist have differing views about the banknote’s new design. While some people are excited to see this freedom fighter acknowledged on the front of the bill, others say that it goes against the very thing she fought for—liberation from the capitalistic system that slavery was built on. The fact that Andrew Jackson, an oppressor of enslaved people, still will be placed on the back of the $20 bill—some say—is utterly disrespectful (Time). But, what would Tubman think?
 

We will never know Tubman’s thoughts on the matter, but those stemming from her family tree—her descendants—are looking forward to seeing their Aunt Harriet printed on the front of the bill. As efforts for the release of the banknote accelerates, Rita Daniels, Tubman’s great-great-great niece and her ninety-three-year-old aunt, Pauline Copes Johnson, Tubman’s oldest surviving relative, are proposing to build a learning center in her name in Bridgeport. The Connecticut city is significant because it was one of the main stopping points for Tubman on the Underground Railroad (Cheddar). Family members like Ernestine “Tina” Martin Wyatt, Tubman’s great-great-great grandniece and her daughter, Lauren Jillian Wyatt, honor their Aunt Harriet’s past and retell stories told to them about the great warrior and steadfast, freedom fighter. The Wyatts believe that new efforts to remember Tubman’s legacy are vital. 
 

“She was a leader who has earned the right to be on the bill,” says Tina. “We have to remember when this country was formed, it was done so within a racially segregated, male-dominated society. Women were not allowed any titled or lead roles or consideration; black women were not even thought of.” (Glamour)
 

Though Tubman’s family is grateful for the recognition of their beloved relative, many historians are diving deeper into the history of Tubman’s past, what she fought for, and the irony of it all. 
 

Harriet Tubman, also known as Araminta Ross, was born in Dorchester, Maryland around the early 1820s in a capitalistic system that profited off of free human labor. It is this same system that prompted her rebellion in 1849, as she was beaten, whipped, and abused to the point that caused her to suffer from a traumatic brain injury that resulted in dizzying spells, seizures, severe headaches, and unconscious episodes. 
 

Like grain and wheat or gold and silver, enslaved people were seen as a commodity and were bought and sold like home goods. Their price tags were determined by their age, strength, ability to work, and health. If there were any injuries or handicaps determined to lower their value, they immediately were sold or traded to the highest bidder. Tubman’s injuries—although caused by her kidnapper—put her at a major risk of being sold off away from her family, and the thought of someone having that much power over her life sparked a rebellion in her. 
 

Along with her two brothers, Ben and Henry, Tubman ran away on September 17, 1849. Their overseer at the time issued a runaway notice in the Cambridge Democrat, a Maryland newspaper, offering a reward of a mere hundred dollars for each returned enslaved person. After being a part of the population revered as a common good, Tubman decided to have faith in her hunches, and she built up the courage to escape from the slave auction blocks that constantly traded its currency for her liberty. 
 

“Harriet Tubman did not fight for capitalism, free trade, or competitive markets. She repeatedly put herself in the line of fire to free people who were treated as currency themselves. She risked her life to ensure that enslaved Black people would know they were worth more than the blood money that exchanged hands to buy and sell them. I do not believe Tubman, who died impoverished in 1913, would accept the “honor,” writer Feminista Jones wrote in the essay “Keep Harriet Tubman—and all women—off the $20 bill.”
 

Zoe Samudzi, a feminist writer in Oakland, told The Post that she is mulling over the irony that a Black woman who was bought and sold is being commemorated on the $20 bill without [The Treasury] also taking steps for economic recompense for Black folks who are descendants of enslaved peoples. Though there are many others who anger at the blatant irony of the new design idea, there also are people like Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, a professor of history and African American studies at Harvard University, and Clara Small, a retired history professor at Salisbury University, who are in full support of the $20 bill initiative (The Washington Post). Small says she hopes the addition of Tubman to the $20 bill is a sign of progress, something the freedom fighter likely would approve. This gives hope that maybe women will be accepted as equals; as a president she says.
 

“Money is a powerful means of communication. It is a part of our national identity and can help to remind us of our common purpose. Our money should not only reflect our country’s origins, but also who we have become over the past 250 years—as well as who we aspire to be,” says Ellen Fiengold, writer of the article  “A Harriet Tubman $20? That’s just the Beginning.”
 

If the legacy of people such as George Washington, who enslaved more than a hundred people when he died, and Andrew Jackson deserve a place on our currency, then surely activists such as Harriet Tubman who represents freedom, fearlessness, and heart deserve the same honor and much more. 
 

The United States is supposed to be the land of the free. And today, we still see the restlessness of the differences in race creep up in our daily lives. Some may see it as disrespectful to paint Tubman’s face on the twenty dollar bill, but it is more disrespectful not to acknowledge her efforts at all—a woman who fought so hard for the liberty of enslaved Black people. And though capitalism is a foul system, her face will be a daily reminder of where we came from and where we are going. Her legacy, literally, will be passed along hand to hand for generations to come. And it is in honoring and looking up to revolutionaries and risk-takers like her that perhaps will help us paint the world in vivid color rather than the blacks and whites of old.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Harriet Tubman fought for her own emancipation and led more than seventy people to freedom.

  • Fans of the renowned political activist have differing views about the banknote’s new design. Some people are excited to see this freedom fighter acknowledged on the front of the bill while others say that it is utterly disrespectful.

  • Our money should not only reflect our country’s origins, but also who we have become over the past 250 years—as well as who we aspire to be.

  • Her face will be a daily reminder of where we came from and where we are going.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Natalie Baddour Nicole Cardoza Natalie Baddour Nicole Cardoza

Address the jobs lost by women of color.

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a solemn report: between November and December of 2020, the U.S. lost over 140,000 jobs (U.S Department of Labor). Many of these jobs had been held by women, who have been pushed out of the workforce in startling numbers. Since February 2020, women have lost 5.4 million jobs (Fortune). They are leaving the workforce at four times the rate of men (NPR). “Even in more stable times, jobs typically held by women were among the lowest-status and worst-paid work,” explains Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy (NY Times). For example, women account for about three-quarters of workers in education and a majority of those in food services (sectors that have been hit hard by the pandemic).

Happy Thursday and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. Thank you for all the well-wishes as I navigate the storm, and your donations to those in need. The most damaging part of this nasty weather is its compounded impact on a nation already struggling to survive. Natalie's reflection on the jobs lost by women of color over the past few months is an example of this.

Thank you all for your contributions! This newsletter is made possible by our subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

GET EDUCATED

By Natalie Baddour (she/her)

Earlier this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a solemn report: between November and December of 2020, the U.S. lost over 140,000 jobs (U.S Department of Labor). Many of these jobs had been held by women, who have been pushed out of the workforce in startling numbers. Since February 2020, women have lost 5.4 million jobs (Fortune). They are leaving the workforce at four times the rate of men (NPR). “Even in more stable times, jobs typically held by women were among the lowest-status and worst-paid work,” explains Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy (NY Times). For example, women account for about three-quarters of workers in education and a majority of those in food services (sectors that have been hit hard by the pandemic). 

Additionally, between schools shutting down and a lack of childcare, many working mothers have no choice but to stay home for their kids. Sometimes the decision comes down to finances: because women still earn 82 cents for every dollar a man makes and typically earn less, it might seem to make more sense for a male partner to keep his job (NPR). But even when that’s not the case, our society often perpetuates the harmful notion that women are best suited for caregiving duties and should sacrifice their careers for their kids.

While it is important to note that women in general have disproportionately left the workforce during the pandemic, the news reports that overlook the intersections between race and gender are missing a pivotal point: that women of color have been significantly affected (NY Times). 

Over the last year, employment has been down nearly 7% for Hispanic women, 5.6% for Black women, and 3% for white women (Reuters). By August, only 34% of Black women who’d lost their jobs due to the pandemic regained employment, compared to 61% of white women (Catalyst). 

There is a multitude of factors that contribute to these job losses. Systematic racism often prevents women of color from securing the same opportunities as their white counterparts; thus, white women are more likely to hold jobs that offer the flexibility to work from home (Eater). Overall, only 19.7% of Black workers and 16.4% of Hispanic workers can telework, compared to 29.9% of white workers (Economic Policy Institute). 

Women of color also disproportionately hold jobs considered essential and most vulnerable to the pandemic, accounting for 53% of workers in the food service industry and 80% of workers in the health and social assistance field (Center for American Progress). When it comes to firing, women of color are often the ones at the top of companies’ layoff lists; they tend to hold the most marginal, low-authority roles, therefore losing their jobs at excessively high rates (Harvard Business Review).

Women of color also were disproportionately excluded from the benefits of last year’s federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which exempted many essential workers in grocery and retail environments (Washington Post). Employers were also allowed to exclude health care providers, and emergency responders from the act’s mandated paid sick days and child care leave. The U.S. Department of Labor defines “health care workers” so vaguely that it can include anyone employed in a healthcare facility, from cafeteria workers to maintenance staff and janitors. (Center for American Progress). Workers of color are overrepresented in these industries that offered little government support; Black employees comprise one-sixth of frontline workers (Axios). Given the lack of support, many women of color were forced to quit their jobs. In December 2020, the FFCRA ended, severing a crucial lifeline to those few able to receive benefits (U.S. Department of Labor). 

However, Biden proposed a new coronavirus bill that includes a $1,400 stimulus check, one that he hopes can now go to eligible adult dependents and families with mixed-status citizenship (CNET). Biden also plans to extend the child tax credit to families with lower incomes. If approved, families will be able to claim up to $3,600 per young child and $3,000 per older child every year (USA Today). The bill will also add a temporary expansion of the childcare tax credit and expand access to childcare (Vox).  

But while measures may temporarily ease some of the burdens on BIPOC women and mothers, they do not fully address the structural inequities that are the foundation of such job loss disparities. Even before coronavirus, people of color were far more likely to receive poverty-level wages than white workers; in 2017, 19.2% of Hispanic workers and 14.3% of Black workers were paid poverty-level wages, compared to 8.6% of white employees (Economic Policy Institute). 

Based on all these statistics, it’s easy to see why women of color have suffered the most job loss during this time. The pandemic has erased years of gradual economic progress, and the effects are still going to be felt even after it is over. While Biden’s new coronavirus bill provides a brief glimmer of hope, America needs more direct, long-term policies to give these women ongoing support. Paid sick and family leave are crucial, and new measures should be taken to provide low-income workers with full-wage replacement no matter how big or small the business is. Our country is in a crisis, and women of color need to be at the forefront of our most important conversations. To see change for those most in need, we must demand it now.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • The U.S. has failed at providing adequate paid family leave for distressed Americans, leaving millions of essential BIPOC workers without support.

  • Women of color disproportionately hold low-paying essential jobs (accounting for 53% of workers in the food service industry and 80% of workers in the health and social assistance field), therefore being ineligible for benefits and more susceptible to layoffs. (Center for American Progress)

  • During the pandemic, employment has decreased nearly 7% for Hispanic women, 5.6% for Black women, and 3% for white women. (Reuters)

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Nia Norris Nicole Cardoza Nia Norris Nicole Cardoza

Understand inequities in child welfare.

Last summer, cities across the country were forced to address the role of law enforcement in creating unsafe spaces for its communities. Now, many are keeping the pressure on to see action. The Black Lives Matter LA chapter is addressing the intersection of law enforcement and child welfare, an often inequitable system harming the most vulnerable families (BLM LA). Today we are learning about the disproportionate representation of Black families in the child welfare system.

Happy Tuesday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. I've been learning more about the topic of child welfare because of how the landscape is shifting through COVID-19.

On one hand, remote learning, social distancing rules and budget cuts have reduced the number of opportunities for other grownups to report potential child welfare situations. Smultaneously, local leaders are advocating for reduced involvement with law enforcement in these cases – as part of efforts to reduce policing and reimagine public safety. I appreciate Nia's overview of the child welfare space and the racial disparities all the more urgent in this tense time. I hope you do, too.

We're in the final stages of bringing on our first full-time staff member, thanks to the support of our community! Consider subscribing for $7/month on Patreon. Or, you can give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.

Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • Sign this petition from Black Lives Matter Los Angeles to remove police presence in child services investigations and #ReimagineChildSafety.

  • Support organizations that are focused on family reunification, and providing direct support to families such as Children’s Rights and Movement for Family Power.

  • Consider: How does this disparity affect child welfare resources in my community? How can I escalate an issue in a more equitable way?

  • Remember: child welfare can be greatly supported when you support housing, education. food and other essential services in your local community. Consider how your local organizations and mutual aid networks help reimagine child safety.

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Last summer, cities across the country were forced to address the role of law enforcement in creating unsafe spaces for its communities. Now, many are keeping the pressure on to see action. The Black Lives Matter LA chapter is addressing the intersection of law enforcement and child welfare, an often inequitable system harming the most vulnerable families (BLM LA). Today we are learning about the disproportionate representation of Black families in the child welfare system. 

Black children make up 33% of children in foster care, although they comprise only 15% of the total child population (National Conference of State Legislatures). They are also significantly more likely to be removed from their families for the same issues that are overlooked in cases with white children. 

Initially, the child welfare system was designed to reunite previously separated families, and it excluded Black families entirely. When the stereotype of the “welfare queen” became prolific in the 1980s, the welfare system became a means of separating Black families and facilitating unnecessary transracial adoptions. Congressional acts passed in the mid-1990s  limited funds to support families of origin, but left funds for adoption and foster placement uncapped, incentivizing  family separation. Other acts, including the Paired with Inter-Ethnic Adoption Act, facilitated a wave of unnecessary adoptions by parents from another race (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy). 

These policies incentivize American states to adopt a more punitive approach to child welfare, directing more funds to separation than direct support to families (PBS). Funding for adoption and foster care is prioritized over directly funding families in need (PBS). The federal Title IV-E Foster Care Program offers unlimited funding to foster care placements, and limits funds for services to keep families intact (Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems). 

Poverty is a predictor in the removal of children from their home, and Black parents are more likely to face poverty. (For more on racism and intergenerational wealth, check out our previous article here.) There are multiple case studies where children of color have been removed from their caregivers due to lack of money only, including a case of a family facing eviction, and a hospitalized mother who did not have someone to watch her kids. 

In these instances, appropriate supports like housing assistance and respite care were not offered to the families. Instead, the children were removed from their guardians and placed in foster care. These particular case examples were categorized as  “emergency removals without prior judicial authorization”, and this type of  removal is particularly susceptible to racial bias (Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems). Poverty also contributes to many neglect cases: a child can be removed for being malnourished, due to the family’s food insecurity. However, it would be much less harmful  to fund the family than to place the child with another family (Practice Notes).

Black parents who struggle with substance use disorders are also more likely to have their children removed than white parents with the same issue. Black mothers are 1.5 times more likely to be drug tested (or have their baby drug tested) after birth, although positivity rates are about equal in Black and white mothers (Journal of Women's Health). Additionally, incarceration disproportionately affects Black Americans, putting parents at risk of their children being placed in foster care, and their parental rights being terminated entirely (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy). 

Before the child welfare laws in the late 20th century were passed, Black families were largely barred from participating in child welfare services at all. Black children were deemed to be unwanted by white adoptive parents and were largely cared for by extended family and church networks when their parents could not care for them. The AACWA was the first legislation that included Black children in child welfare services, and supported reunification or establishing permanency efforts for children in foster care (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy)

Similar acts also facilitated the placement of Indigenous children in the childcare system. Indigenous American children are 2.9 times more likely to be placed in foster care than white children (ABA). The Indian Adoption Act of 1958 effectively allowed the United States Government to remove Indigenous children from their homes and place them in with white families. However, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) allowed tribal courts to intervene in child welfare placements, and required the states to place children in homes that were consistent with indigenous culture (APA). However, the ICWA has not been consistent in its implementation and a 2013 ruling allowing a white family to adopt an Indigenous child has put the law in peril (Washington Post). 

The American Bar Association recommends that child services workers recognize and understand biases, as well as working directly with families to better understand their situations. They also recommend that child welfare agencies hire more diverse staff (ABA). Recent policies have shifted more towards keeping families together and to offering services to families who are struggling prior to removing children (Child Welfare). One example is  community doula programs that are publicly funded to give support to parents who face poverty (DONA). Although it is clear that children should not be with abusive parents, it is still critical to consider the mitigating factors of many child welfare placements. Separating families due to poverty or racial profiling is unaccepable. It’s time to prioritize funding families directly to keep them intact and healthy. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Initially, Black families were excluded from child welfare systems entirely. It wasn’t until child welfare legislation was fully developed in the late 20th century that the focus shifted to families of color.

  • Later, the welfare system became a means of separating Black families and facilitating unnecessary transracial adoptions.

  • Black children are separated from their parents at 2.2 times the rate of white children and Native American children are separated from their parents at 2.9 times the rate of white children.

  • More funding is directed toward foster care and adoption than to directly funding families that are in the child welfare system due to poverty.

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More
Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza Nicole Cardoza

Fight racial tax inequity.

Happy Monday! The NYTimes released Trump's taxes and I'm sure we'll be hearing a LOT about it this week. As you follow the news (or tune it out, your choice) consider how racism and racial bias have helped to craft a tax system that enables some people to struggle with tax debt and others to avoid paying taxes at all.

And hello new faces! Here's quick links to learn more about the ARD, read the archives, follow us on Instagram, and switch from daily to a weekly digest 👋🏾 
 
Thank you for all your support! If you enjoy this newsletter, consider giving one-time on our website, PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or subscribe for $5/mo on our Patreon.

– Nicole

TAKE ACTION

  • Explore how racial disparities affect the income tax system in this interactive Form 1040, via the Tax Policy Center.

  • Review the tax policies of both Presidential candidates

  • Consider: How has generational wealth impacted your life today? What experiences would change based on your family's generational wealth?

GET EDUCATED

By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)

Yesterday the New York Times released President Trump’s tax information. The comprehensive report leads with news that Trump paid $750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017 (NYTimes). In a press conference response, Trump called these allegations a lie and that the “IRS does not treat me well” (NYTimes). But when we zoom out at the history of federal taxes in the U.S., I think it’s more accurate to say that “the IRS does not treat” marginalized communities well, not billionaires. And part of this is because of the racism embedded in our tax code.

 

Let’s start with our federal tax. Generally speaking, it reduces racial disparities by taxing the wealthy more than the poor and investing tax revenue into programs that support lower-income communities. But the apportionment of these taxes is rooted in slavery. Back then, to determine the number of seats per state in the House of Representatives, the Framers recommended apportioning them based on population size. This put the North and the South in conflict because population sizes varied greatly in each area. Many citizens were living in the North – consisting of urban areas with a high density of people. In contrast, the South had fewer free people spread across high-acreage farms.

 

However, the South had significantly more enslaved people in the North, and they considered them “valuable property” that could be leveraged for more representation. So, the South fought that free and enslaved people should count towards population size. The North fought to make representation dependent on the size of a state’s free population. Ultimately, the Framers agreed to the “three-fifths compromise,” the abhorrent decision that representation in Congress was based on a state’s free population plus three-fifths of its enslaved population (Britannica). 

 

But this meant that taxes would be applied the same way. So the Apportionment Clause, written by delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, emphasized that “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States” (The Conversation). This meant that even though Southerners may have more people counting towards their representation, their taxes wouldn’t scale significantly because of it. That was a real fear of many people during the time; about 40% of the population were enslaved people (Forbes).

 

The decision to use apportioned tax regulations to protect Southern states from higher taxes has prevented more progressive tax reform. This same argument has been used to block a federal tax proposal on the wealthy in 1894 and, over 100 years later, question the legitimacy of wealth taxes proposed by candidates in this election (NPR). Some argue that because this apportionment no longer applies, taxes should be redefined to address the wealth gap (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

 

It also enabled significant wealth creation for Southerners that enslaved people. It allowed them to benefit from the labor of enslaved people with marginal tax implications. Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman argue that this mentality is a driving force of the anti-taxation sentiment present in today’s society, particularly against the wealth (Forbes).

 

Not only does our current tax code inadequately address the wealth gap,  it also doesn’t reflect the systemic racism and discrimination that exacerbates it. Our federal tax liability is influenced by things like our income, savings, and what we spend on a mortgage or education. But the opportunities to spend and earn in these aspects of society aren’t equal. People of color have historically been paid less, are less likely to have savings, often declined from mortgage opportunities, and less likely to be accepted into college – among other things (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). Our work income is also taxed more highly than our income from wealth, but people of color have been systemically disadvantaged in building wealth throughout their lifetimes. 

 

State taxes aren’t much better. In fact, the report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that they increase income inequality. States make most of their money through regressive taxes: taxes that have an increased burden on lower-income communities. These taxes include sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. It doesn’t matter if you make $10,000 or $10million a year, you’ll pay the same amount of taxes*. But its impact is more considerable on those that have less to spend. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

*There’s research that shows that people of color, particularly Black people, often pay more in property tax than their neighbors due to the systemic racism in real estate. But that’s for another newsletter.
 

Lower-income people are more likely to be audited too. It’s easier than going after wealthy business owners and corporations with confusing (and often evasive) revenue streams and assets (Popular Science). And funding cuts at the IRS have encouraged auditors to choose cases that require less bandwidth. Ironically, these wealthy constituents – who are overwhelmingly white – are the most likely to have unpaid taxes (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

 

To offset this lack of bandwidth, the IRS started a program to outsource tax collection to private firms. These private companies are empowered to act under the IRS to recoup lost revenue from tax payments and get to keep a percentage of what’s earned for themselves. And most of the taxpayers targeted are low-income. A report from the Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the IRS that represents taxpayers, found that 33% of funds collected by private firms in 2017 came from Americans facing “economic hardship” (Washington Post). The IRS has programs designed to protect low-income earners from getting overwhelmed with tax debt, but private companies are financially incentivized to get any dollar they can. And private debt collection has a long history of racial discrimination (ACLU).


But the most shocking part of all this (to me, at least) is that the IRS doesn’t even collect racial data. So although we can infer how the tax codes affect communities of color, there is no hard data, and tax law decisions may not consider these disparities (Popular Science). It might be for the best; you could argue that more discriminatory practices could be applied because of this added information. But on the other hand, it would illuminate more spaces where we can create a more inclusive economic structure that supports us all. Even if the data isn’t captured, it’s clear that racism and racial bias has shaped the tax code we see today.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

RELATED ISSUES

PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT

Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.

Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza

Read More