Read on Twitter
Post-Midnight thoughts: Regarding the recent announcement that NJ will award an additional tax break for PPP recipients to match the federal break...isn't there a ton of research showing PPP distribution wasn't equitable? Doesn't that mean the break will be equally unequitable?
The Gov & lawmakers often, correctly, argue that the state tax code must advance equity. If minority owned businesses struggled to get PPP loans, as reported, then how does it make sense to base a costly tax break on a program that worsened disparities? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minority-owned-businesses-were-last-to-receive-ppp-loans-adding-to-their-despair/
This is why requiring racial impact statements for bills is so important. As things are now, lawmakers can pay lip service to racial equity all day & night w/o ever making real strides to deliver. Racial impact statements would help to tangibly advance such goals.
"...more than 83% were to organizations identified as white-owned businesses, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. Black-owned businesses received less than 2% of the loans, and 6.6% of the loans went to Hispanic-owned businesses." https://publicintegrity.org/health/coronavirus-and-inequality/small-business-loan-data-includes-little-on-owners-race-paycheck-protection-program/
At best, state lawmakers have decided to provide a costly tax break for businesses without having a clear picture on PPP recipients and, thus, who would directly benefit from the proposed break. It's unnecessarily rushed policymaking...again. It doesn't have to be this way.
If lack of clarity is just the deal here, it shouldn't be a stretch for lawmakers to acknowledge it and commit to promoting specific policies, investments, and programs that will directly advance equity in order to make up for this likely inequitable program.
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
