4 ms·
I think the question is, reasonably, being asked why a government spending benefit that targets one racial group is legal when the audit activity that relates t
by NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
I think the question is, reasonably, being asked why a government spending benefit that targets one racial group is legal when the audit activity that relates to the spending benefit is not, because the spending benefit targets one racial group.
- runako 3y agoThat's a completely different question than that raised by benmmurphy. Again, this is something that will have been discussed at extreme length in the literature, legislative bodies, and the courts over a period of many decades (EITC dates to the '70s, but the scholarship, discussion, and thinking behind it go back further than that). If I had to guess, it would look something like: - poverty is bad for our country, so we should try to alleviate it. - here's a plan that will help - but it will help Black people more than white people, maybe we shouldn't do it (this is a recurring theme in US governance) - that's not ideal, but there is a history to consider (said "history" ended legislatively 7 years prior to the EITC being enacted so a nudge in the other direction likely did not feel unfair to those enacting the EITC). Generally, Americans are more okay with having government help the needy than actively target anybody. This is why there's not a broad push (yet) to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, etc.