Americans And Law-Breaking: Racial Disparity In Crime Rates

The history of the United States is rife with examples of racially discriminatory laws and practices that have disproportionately impacted people of colour. From the colonial period onwards, various laws have been enacted to restrict the rights and freedoms of African Americans, with the explicit purpose of preserving slavery and white supremacy. Even after the Civil War, state governments in the former Confederacy attempted to limit the voting rights of Black citizens and enforce segregation in public places. This period also saw the emergence of Black Codes, which severely limited the rights of African Americans, including their ability to own property, conduct business, and move freely. Similar discriminatory practices have been observed against Native Americans, with the Dawes Act of 1887 aiming to break up tribal lands and assimilate Native Americans into white culture. In more recent times, there has been a rise in white supremacist violence, and while law enforcement agencies possess the necessary powers to address it, they have often failed to do so effectively, leading to concerns about racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Tax laws

The federal income tax system can be a powerful tool for reducing racial inequities. However, as designed, it often falls short of its promise. In this article, we will discuss the impact of tax laws on racial disparities, specifically focusing on tax breaks for homeowners, tax credits for families, and tax audits. We will also provide recommendations for reforming the tax code to promote racial equity.

Tax Breaks for Homeowners

The tax code offers several tax breaks for homeowners, such as the mortgage interest deduction and the exclusion of rental income from taxation. While these provisions are intended to encourage homeownership, they often disproportionately benefit White families. This is because White families are more likely to own homes and have higher-valued properties. As a result, they receive larger tax benefits. On the other hand, Black and Latino families face higher mortgage denial rates and have lower homeownership rates.

Tax Credits for Families

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) are tax credits that help reduce poverty and raise the after-tax incomes of working families. These credits disproportionately benefit families of color and are effective in narrowing racial income gaps. However, the design of these credits can magnify past and present racial inequities. For example, the phase-in of benefits and the minimum earning requirements prevent families with very low incomes, who are often families of color, from receiving the full benefits.

Tax Audits

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conducts audits to ensure taxpayers pay the correct amount of taxes. However, deep cuts in IRS funding have led to a reduction in audit rates, especially for high-income filers and large corporations. This has resulted in a decrease in revenue collection and may contribute to racial disparities. Black taxpayers are three to five times more likely to be audited than other taxpayers, and the IRS continues to audit EITC claimants at relatively higher rates.

Recommendations for Reform

To promote racial equity, policymakers can consider the following:

• Taxing capital gains and retirement savings at the same rates as income from wages.
• Reforming tax breaks for homeowners to make them more inclusive and effective in encouraging homeownership.
• Modifying the EITC and CTC to provide full benefits to families with very low incomes.
• Increasing IRS funding to conduct more complex audits and ensure high-income filers and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes.

The federal tax code has a significant impact on racial disparities. By addressing the issues discussed above and promoting equitable tax policies, we can work towards reducing racial inequities and creating a more just society.

Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws

The Black Codes were a series of restrictive laws imposed on African Americans to limit their rights and freedoms and restrict their economic opportunities. They were passed in the aftermath of the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery, as white Southerners attempted to return Black people to their prewar status as slaves. These laws were designed to be racially deceptive, appearing neutral and fair on the surface but, in reality, specifically repressing Black people.

The Black Codes were introduced to maintain white supremacy and a steady supply of cheap labour. They included vagrancy laws, which allowed an African American to be declared a vagrant if they were unemployed and had no permanent residence. Those who were declared vagrants were compelled to pay a fine and those who could not afford it were forced into labour. The Black Codes also restricted the type of property Black people could own and the professions they could enter. For example, in South Carolina, a law prohibited Black people from holding any occupation other than farmer or servant unless they paid an annual tax of $10 to $100.

The Black Codes outraged many in the North, leading to the introduction of a civil rights bill by Republicans in Congress. The bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, a supporter of states' rights who opposed giving African Americans in the South the right to vote. However, the Republicans managed to override the veto, passing the civil rights law and introducing the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which prevented states from "abridging equality before the law". Eventually, the Black Codes were abolished during the Reconstruction period.

However, the end of Reconstruction in 1877 saw the return of many Black Code provisions in the form of Jim Crow laws. These laws enforced strict racial segregation and deprived African Americans of fundamental rights and economic opportunities. Jim Crow laws spread throughout the country, segregating public transportation, city parks, schools, and neighbourhoods. The Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld the legality of segregation, stating that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the Jim Crow laws were officially abolished, marking a significant victory in the ongoing struggle for civil rights for African Americans.

Racial discrimination in the North

Post-Civil War Racism in the North

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era was characterised by the passage of federal legislation designed to protect the rights of the formerly enslaved. However, white supremacists came to power in all Southern states, intimidating Black voters with the help of terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. "Black Codes" and Jim Crow laws deprived African Americans of voting rights and other civil liberties, instituting systemic and discriminatory policies of unequal racial segregation.

Racism in the North in the 20th Century

During the 20th century, institutionalised racism and legal discrimination against citizens of African descent in the United States hardened. Throughout the post-Civil War period, racial stratification was informally and systemically enforced to solidify the pre-existing social order. Poll taxes, acts of terrorism such as lynchings, and discriminatory laws such as grandfather clauses kept Black Americans disenfranchised in most Southern states.

Racism in the North in the 21st Century

Biden's Efforts to Address Racial Discrimination

On his first day in office, President Biden committed to an ambitious racial equity agenda, signing two Executive Orders to redress disparities and inequities faced by underserved communities. However, despite these efforts, significant racial disparities exist in various aspects of American life, such as neighbourhood quality, employment in adulthood, and wealth accumulation.

The FBI's handling of white supremacist violence

The FBI has been criticized for its handling of white supremacist violence, with some arguing that it has failed to adequately address the issue. In response to the increase in white supremacist violence, Congress has held hearings to discuss the urgent need to address it. However, instead of investigating why law enforcement agencies have failed to address white supremacist violence, some lawmakers have proposed giving these agencies additional powers.

The FBI has been accused of not publicly reporting on domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence since 2005. In addition, the FBI has been criticized for reclassifying its tracking of white supremacist violence investigations, hiding them under the broader category of "racially-motivated violent extremism." This has raised concerns about the FBI's commitment to addressing white supremacist violence effectively and in a manner that upholds the constitutional rights of all citizens.

Furthermore, there are concerns about how the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have used their existing authorities, particularly against communities of color. For example, the FBI has been accused of targeting Black civil rights activists, Muslim, Arab, and Middle Eastern communities, and other marginalized groups. The FBI has also been criticized for categorizing Black people as threats and running programs to spy on and investigate Black activists who speak out against white supremacy.

To address these concerns, it has been suggested that Congress should investigate the failures of law enforcement agencies in addressing white supremacist violence and hold them accountable. It is important to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the proper training and resources to address white supremacist violence effectively and uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens.

The Dawes Act

The Act was named after Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, who authored it. It was passed on February 8, 1887, and authorized the President to break up reservation land, held in common by the members of a tribe, into small allotments to be distributed to individuals. The amount of land allocated depended on the recipient's family status and age. For instance, the head of a family would receive 160 acres of farmland, while a single person or orphan over 18 years of age would receive 80 acres.

The purpose of the Dawes Act was purportedly to protect Native American property rights, especially during the land rushes of the 1890s. However, the results were often detrimental to Native Americans. The land allotted was sometimes desert or near-desert, unsuitable for farming. Additionally, many Native Americans did not want to take up agriculture, and those who did lacked the necessary tools, animals, seeds, and supplies.

There were also issues with inheritance. Young children who inherited allotments may have lacked the knowledge to farm due to their time spent in boarding schools. Multiple heirs inheriting a single allotment also caused problems, as the size of the holdings became too small for effective farming. Furthermore, tribes were often underpaid for their land, and when individuals did not accept the government's requirements, their allotments were sold to non-Native individuals, resulting in a significant loss of tribal lands.

The Act ended the communal holding of property by Native Americans, and by 1934, the amount of land owned by them had decreased from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million acres. The Dawes Act, along with subsequent legislation, resulted in the loss of over 90 million acres of tribal land, causing about 90,000 Native Americans to become landless.

Frequently asked questions