IRS Audits Blacks at substantially higher rates than others

[laughing dog]

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.

"My side"? What on earth are you babbling about now? Disparate impact may be evidence of some sort of discrimination.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Being audited by the IRA which is a stressful and unpleasant situation that no taxpayer welcomes or has a choice about is not remotely equivalent to someone voluntarily trying to obtain a lucrative job and being chosen for it. So you failed to make whatever point you thought you were making .

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here:
Historical racism is a primary factor that led to current economic conditions of Blacks.
Current economic condition of Blacks is a significant factor in EITCs.
Having more EITCs in sub-population increases frequency of audit for that sub-population.

 

[Elixir]

The fact that the participation of actual racists is not required to produce a racially biased outcome, is what makes it systemic racism.

 

[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.

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

Notably you are not addressing my explanation of why it's not a problem.

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?

So, the left is more careful about not saying the quiet parts out loud. That doesn't mean it's not obvious what it's about. And note your later post in this thread mentions "bigoted"--you're definitely hinting at the quiet part.

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.

"My side"? What on earth are you babbling about now? Disparate impact may be evidence of some sort of discrimination.

Your non-responses make it clear where you stand.

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.

Being audited by the IRA which is a stressful and unpleasant situation that no taxpayer welcomes or has a choice about is not remotely equivalent to someone voluntarily trying to obtain a lucrative job and being chosen for it. So you failed to make whatever point you thought you were making .

Once again you are being willfully blind--I was using the same logic you were. If it's bigoted for the IRS to go where the errors are (and they are most certainly doing that here as correspondance audits are effectively always triggered by errors) then its bigoted for the NBA to continue to not hire Asians.