IRS Audits Blacks at substantially higher rates than others

[ZiprHead]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly. And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

White people take the EITC far more than black people.

 

[Oleg]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly. And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

White people take the EITC far more than black people.

And?

 

[laughing dog]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly.

And it is a very stupid straw man.

And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

Since people of all races are eligible and receive the EITC, why would black people have a higher level of auditing than other races after controlling for factors like income, etc... (which the study did)?

 

[Oleg]

And it is a very stupid straw man.

There's no strawman.

Since people of all races are eligible and receive the EITC, why would black people have a higher level of auditing than other races after controlling for factors like income, etc... (which the study did)?

Ah, man. And why don't all races come out even in all statistics? Perhaps they're more likely to commit fraud or error? Or black households are more likely to be single parent and the IRS computer has to check which parent is allowed to get the credit?

 

[laughing dog]

And it is a very stupid straw man.

There's no strawman.

Wrong again.

Since people of all races are eligible and receive the EITC, why would black people have a higher level of auditing than other races after controlling for factors like income, etc... (which the study did)?

Ah, man. And why don't all races come out even in all statistics? Perhaps they're more likely to commit fraud or error? Or black households are more likely to be single parent and the IRS computer has to check which parent is allowed to get the credit?

You seem unable to grasp the obvious. An audit rate that is significantly higher after controlling for the other influences should be an indication of an obvious problem to a rational disinterested observer.
So in the analysis, a single black parent is being compared to other single parents of comparable household size and income.

In essence, you are positing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error than other similarly situation people of other races as a potential explanation. If you are serious about that, why would you think that? If you are not serious about that, then I apologize.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly. And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

White people take the EITC far more than black people.

And?

Higher scrutiny of EITC takers doesn't explain the race disparity. Duh...

 

[Oleg]

In essence, you are positing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error than other similarly situation people of other races as a potential explanation. If you are serious about that, why would you think that? If you are not serious about that, then I apologize.

Do you think there is a God and HE made all people and groups equal? As there is no bias in the IRS algorithm, the obvious answer is that blacks commit higher levels of fraud or error when requesting EITC. What other factor is there? I mean, men are charged and convicted for sexual crimes at a rate substantially higher than women. Is that because of "institutional sexism"? Or do men simply commit more sexual crimes? I get that your worldview cannot accept that people and groups are not equal in their proclivities and behavior. But I don't follow your religion.

 

[Oleg]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly. And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

White people take the EITC far more than black people.

And?

Higher scrutiny of EITC takers doesn't explain the race disparity. Duh...

If the EITC audit is race blind (which no one has demonstrated that it isn't), what do you think explains the disparity? Is it some racist miasma? Can't see it; can't touch it; but it must be there?

 

[laughing dog]

In essence, you are positing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error than other similarly situation people of other races as a potential explanation. If you are serious about that, why would you think that? If you are not serious about that, then I apologize.

Do you think there is a God and HE made all people and groups equal? As there is no bias in the IRS algorithm, the obvious answer is that blacks commit higher levels of fraud or error when requesting EITC. What other factor is there? I mean, men are charged and convicted for sexual crimes at a rate substantially higher than women. Is that because of "institutional sexism"? Or do men simply commit more sexual crimes? I get that your worldview cannot accept that people and groups are not equal in their procivities and behavior. But I don't follow your religion.

It is clear you do not follow reason or the content of the posts. I have not made any claim of racism or institutional racism, so why you continue to blather on about that is beyond me. Why you persist in repeating the nonsense about all people and groups are equal would be fascinating if it was not both irrelevant and boring.

You are explicitly arguing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error compared to other people in similar circumstances. Another way to say that is you are arguing that black people who claim EITC are either substantially dumber, sloppier and less ethical than other races. I will give you credit for being open about it.

 

[Oleg]

You are explicitly arguing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error compared to other people in similar circumstances. Another way to say that is you are arguing that black people who claim EITC are either substantially dumber, sloppier and less ethical than other races. I will give you credit for being open about it.

One of the tropes about lefties is that they are blind to crime stats. They somehow believe that racial groups commit offenses at a rate in proportion to their percentage of the general population. This belief is demonstratively incorrect but they cling to it like a homesick abortion.

 

[laughing dog]

You are explicitly arguing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error compared to other people in similar circumstances. Another way to say that is you are arguing that black people who claim EITC are either substantially dumber, sloppier and less ethical than other races. I will give you credit for being open about it.

One of the tropes about lefties is that they are blind to crime stats. They somehow believe that racial groups commit offenses at a rate in proportion to their percentage of the general population. This is belief is demonstratively incorrect but they cling to it like a homesick abortion.

You are an expert on homesick abortions? Who'd have thunk it?

I don't think you want people parading their turds of tropes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So once again they can't actually find discrimination and resort to using disparate impact as "evidence".

Once again, you miss the point. Nowhere in the OP did I claim discrimination. The algorithms (made via explicit choices by people) create a disparate outcome. No one forces the IRS to make these decisions to come to this outcome.

This results suggests there is something wrong. Most people when confronted with something that appears wrong and unfair wish to change the process. So instead of misconstruing the OP content and making excuses for this unfair outcome that increases the level of distrust of the IRS which may possibly reduce the level of voluntary compliance, why not ask what can be done to improve the situation?

BTW, now that the IRS knows about this, and if it follows your implicit advice of "tough nuggies", then it becomes discrimination via inaction.

1) While you didn't say discrimination you're still implying there's a problem.

2) I see no reason to think this isn't simply socioeconomic.

3) There's still the issue of correspondence audit vs in-person. Most "audits" are simple correspondence audits. Complex tax matters and no tax software is asking for such things to happen.

What we need is a good online near-automatic tax system run by the IRS and the files are downloadable to be used by more sophisticated tax programs for those for whom the simpler system isn't good enough. The IRS requires the tax program makers to provide a free option for the simple returns, but they're often hidden in minefields and it doesn't include the ability to download the IRS data.

Now, some of us are still going to have to have tax programs and deal with the shit. Self employed + Self employed + Foreign account = lots of paperwork for us. (But, please quit making us report 90% of the same info to the IRS and FINCEN!) Doing it right is going to take a big bite out of the revenue of tax preparation business, though, and so far they have managed to prevent any meaningful fixes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Conservatives can't grasp this, because they are unable to understand "racism" as a mental bias in the first place: to the conservative, "racist" can only be an insult, a personal accusation of moral wrong akin to being a "sinner" in Christian tradition. So they get confused when talking about systems of racism, and think it must mean "a bunch of people being sinful at the same time" rather than (as it is actually used) as an observation that systemic biases lead to predictably differential class situations based on perceptions of race.

Incidentally, it makes you guys look dumb when you accuse others of conspiracy theorizing, while also uncritically accusing "the wokes" of secretly enacting all manner of wacky conspiracies from abducting children at the pizza hut to faking global pandemics to planting dinosaur bones to using Critical Race Theory to teach pre-algebra to illegal aliens.

The problem with this is that what's presented as evidence of this supposed systemic racism is almost all either bogus or really socioeconomic in nature. Often the proposed fixes are blatantly racist, though. (Things like deprioritizing offenses blacks are more likely to commit.)

Social movements that succeed become basically useless--which means everyone whose job (or even self-value as a volunteer) comes from pushing it becomes unemployed at that point. In practice this translates into them pretending the problem is still a big deal to justify their own jobs. We see this in other areas, also--look at the war on drunk driving, keeping trying to push the limits lower to justify their position. Hey, the problem is the people not obeying the existing laws, not that the existing laws are too lenient. (If anything, they're a bit too tough--being in control of a motor vehicle isn't the same thing as driving drunk. I believe we could solve most of this excess by not applying DUI laws to parking lots of places that serve alcohol and residential driveways.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Asian women have higher incomes than White men. Systemic racism.


Whites, Asians, and Hispanics are grossly underrepresented in the NBA and NFL. Systemic racism.

Those examples might be examples of systemic racism if you can show that the race was the cause (ie. "differentiating agent" )of those disparate examples. Can you show that?

No, you can't demand evidence that race is the cause. Your side keeps playing the disparate impact card--explicitly declaring that the cause is race unless explicitly proven otherwise and likely not even then. You don't get to play it only when you want to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Asian women have higher incomes than White men. Systemic racism.


Whites, Asians, and Hispanics are grossly underrepresented in the NBA and NFL. Systemic racism.

Those examples might be examples of systemic racism if you can show that the race was the cause (ie. "differentiating agent" )of those disparate examples. Can you show that?

Can you show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I don’t think Asian women earning more or the NBA being mostly Black is “systemic racism.” Disparity in outcomes, alone, is not “systemic/institutional/whatever” racism. If lefties truly felt it was, they wouldn’t be so inconsistent in deploying the accusation.

I see, you were trying to make a point with this stupid "examples".

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

And if the way we choose NBA players doesn't change we must conclude that their selection process is bigoted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would I show that race was the cause of the IRS audits? I made no so claim, and neither did the study. I do think that if the algorithms are not changed, then the continuance of this disparate outcome would be due to bigotry.

Well, okay. So that's why "structural racism" = disparate outcome is a silly conspiracy silly. And there's nothing wrong with the IRS algorithm. EITC has a high fraud/error rate. You'd expect it'd get a hightened level of scrutiny.

White people take the EITC far more than black people.

Which is supposed to prove what?? The claim is a higher audit rate, not a higher total number of audits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since people of all races are eligible and receive the EITC, why would black people have a higher level of auditing than other races after controlling for factors like income, etc... (which the study did)?

Let's look at that study:

Appendix Table
A.6 shows that audit disparities appear to be largely driven by differences in the selection of
correspondence audits, whereas Black and non-Black taxpayers appear to be selected for field
and office audits at similar rates.

Note that correspondence audits are triggered by the numbers not matching. There is basically a 100% chance you did something wrong in filing your return, or that somebody you're intertwined with did something wrong in theirs. (Although this doesn't always mean your tax bill changes, it can be triggered by mislabeling something.)

Thus if there is anything to be done here it's figure out why they fuck up so much more. The IRS isn't discriminating. (Note that the somebody-else possibility isn't a large part of the effect--if you both claim it's going to show up as questioning both returns and the single male rate is a lot higher than the single female rate. Note, also, that we don't see the pattern with joint EITC filings.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is clear you do not follow reason or the content of the posts. I have not made any claim of racism or institutional racism, so why you continue to blather on about that is beyond me. Why you persist in repeating the nonsense about all people and groups are equal would be fascinating if it was not both irrelevant and boring.

You are explicitly arguing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error compared to other people in similar circumstances. Another way to say that is you are arguing that black people who claim EITC are either substantially dumber, sloppier and less ethical than other races. I will give you credit for being open about it.

You continue to claim this represents a problem--yet in actually looking at the study it's quite clear it does not.

 

[laughing dog]

It is clear you do not follow reason or the content of the posts. I have not made any claim of racism or institutional racism, so why you continue to blather on about that is beyond me. Why you persist in repeating the nonsense about all people and groups are equal would be fascinating if it was not both irrelevant and boring.

You are explicitly arguing that black people are more likely to commit fraud or error compared to other people in similar circumstances. Another way to say that is you are arguing that black people who claim EITC are either substantially dumber, sloppier and less ethical than other races. I will give you credit for being open about it.

You continue to claim this represents a problem--yet in actually looking at the study it's quite clear it does not.

It is not surprising you feel that way. But your feelings do not make it so.

 

[laughing dog]

Since people of all races are eligible and receive the EITC, why would black people have a higher level of auditing than other races after controlling for factors like income, etc... (which the study did)?

Let's look at that study:

Appendix Table
A.6 shows that audit disparities appear to be largely driven by differences in the selection of
correspondence audits, whereas Black and non-Black taxpayers appear to be selected for field
and office audits at similar rates.

Note that correspondence audits are triggered by the numbers not matching. There is basically a 100% chance you did something wrong in filing your return, or that somebody you're intertwined with did something wrong in theirs. (Although this doesn't always mean your tax bill changes, it can be triggered by mislabeling something.)

Thus if there is anything to be done here it's figure out why they fuck up so much more. The IRS isn't discriminating. (Note that the somebody-else possibility isn't a large part of the effect--if you both claim it's going to show up as questioning both returns and the single male rate is a lot higher than the single female rate. Note, also, that we don't see the pattern with joint EITC filings.)

Neither the linked article nor the OP (which is mine) claimed discrimination. Why are you obsessed with that straw man?