The IRS Enables the Return of Refund Anticipation Loans

New Orleans   Refund anticipation loans or RALs, as they were known, were one of the most predatory products on the market in their heyday targeted solely to low-and-moderate income workers who were most desperate for their tax returns. They were on the other side of the digital divide so less likely to file with the IRS electronically. The money was theirs, and tax preparers, especially the big boys of the market, H&R Block, Jackson & Hewitt, and Liberty Tax Services all exploited this desperation.

This was a 21st century national campaign for ACORN, and we forced the first negotiations with H&R Block after 330 actions in a 6 week time period during the height of the tax season, and eventually ended up with agreements with all three of the companies to wind down RALs. Disclosures of the interest rates were part all of the agreements, but it didn’t really matter since even if it said the interest rate on the loan to get their money one week earlier than the IRS would deliver it would cost them 349%, displayed in a poster or on the computer screen, if you have to have the money to pay rent or buy groceries or fix the car and you have to have it right now, disclosures, no matter how predatory don’t matter. Eventually we got HSBC to withdraw as the primary lender to the companies for RALs for what they termed, “reputational reasons” because the loans were so exploitative. Finally, the IRS and eventually other government agencies jumped in and also condemned RALs, and they finally faded from the market.

Now, thanks to the IRS, they are back, and there is even less doubt about the potential victims now. In 2017, the IRS decided to deliberately delay refunds until February for any taxpayer that claimed the earned-income tax credit or the child tax credit. These credits are only available to lower income workers. Presidents from Clinton to Bush to Obama have argued that EITC is the best and largest “anti-poverty program in the United States.”

On their website the IRS claimed they were concerned about an “error rate” of between 20 and 27% for filers in order to justify these delays. Something is fishy here. This is the IRS. The error rate should be an exact number based on information they have at hand on how many corrected filings they required, so giving a fudged number raises questions in my mind. Furthermore, their advice is to preparers who enable incorrect filings, which the IRS concedes are largely based on the complexity and confusion involved in the EITC program. Why was the pain not pushed to the preparers, rather than the families filing who were delayed unreasonably in receiving their returns? Oh, and meanwhile the number of audits of higher income filers is in the dumps now!

The preparers saw an opportunity and seized it by offering RALs again. Admittedly, these were no-interest loans this time offered against the amount of the return, and they had loan limits depending on the company’s policies. The big boys report over 1.5 million RALs are reported already this tax season with a month to go. Block did 840,000, Liberty175,000, and Jackson Hewitt 485,000. For the preparers, this is just the cost of customer acquisition, since it is cheese in the trap to catch low-income workers who would be forced to fork over the preparation cost to get their refunds.

No matter how much sugar you put in the coffee, this is once again the IRS partnering with private preparers to expand their businesses. The only real question is how long it will be before RALs are back in full and terrible force again?

The only good news in this tawdry story is that overall filings are down so far this year, so some people at least have decided to wait all of the vultures out.


Public Subsidies of Low Wages

publicbenefitsNew Orleans      The Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California has released a report looking at many federal and state subsidies directed at relief for lower income Americans.  All good.  What they found though is that a huge percentage of this kind of support is not in Republican ideological terms, helping people get their lives together to get jobs, but is in fact subsidizing the low wages of existing work.  In the words of the chair of the center, our old comrade Ken Jacobs, “This is a hidden cost of low-wage work.”

The Center’s new report defined a working family as any family that included a worker averaging at least 27 hours of work weekly.  Under that definition, looking at the statistics that were available to them, almost 75% of the people helped by federal programs like food stamps, EITC, and Medicaid are headed by workers.  Based on their calculations the cost of such public support for working families was over $152 billion per year.  Working families were the biggest beneficiaries of federal programs aimed at the poor in all but six states.  Make a mental note or jot this down on a piece of paper nearby:  this does not include anything involving health care support based on the Affordable Care Act because no figures were available yet for such calculations.

Don’t misinterpret these figures.  I’m 100% for what I call “maximum eligible participation” as a key ingredient for “citizen wealth.”  In fact I think we need to redouble our efforts to make sure all families that are eligible for any of these programs are in fact receiving the benefits.  That’s what they are for, so we should make them work.

Where the rubber hits the road on welfare versus work is that the ideological drift since President Clinton has shifted most federal and state support towards workers and away from providing the underpinnings for the poor that would platform their ability to build stable lives, and, yes, even access more education and work.  There is only so much money and so many ways to slice the pie though, so instead lawmakers have retreated from attacking poverty and moved instead towards subsidizing lower wage work as we have increasingly become a service-based, lower waged economy over the last generation.

The inescapable argument of the Berkeley report is that if employers were paying fair wages, less subsidy would be required. At one level the report is feeding into the right ideology that maybe there is something wrong with workers getting food stamps, EITC and other support.   At one level the report is feeding into the right ideology that says we should support lower waged work and that maybe there is something wrong with workers getting food stamps, EITC and other support.  That is not their theme and is inadvertent, but that’s the cloud that hangs over a figure like $152 billion, as more red states will claim they should cut back support to workers, as we have seen recently with the retraction of support for providing food stamps for many men without dependent children.  Every dollar of that money is well spent, and more should be spent in fact, but as long as we are publicly subsidizing low wages, we are not able to provide more critical support to the lowest income families to pull them out of poverty, and that’s worse than a shame.