Native Intelligence:

a column by

Jack D. Forbes

Native American Studies

University of California, Davis

This column's focus:

The Attack Upon the Family

The family and its strengthening is vital to all societies and is especially crucial in a period in which the income-producing ability of ordinary people is under assault by so-called "free" trade and by corporate-inspired automation. The family is fundamental in all Native American cultures and, in fact, it is the family which traditionally exercises ownership of resources and land-use rights in most indigenous communities. Unfortunately white outsiders have harped so much about "the tribe" that we have almost forgotten the primacy of the family.

First American families were always "extended", that is, they included not simply a husband, a wife, and children but also grandparents, great grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and so on, as well as adopted relatives. Because of the "clan" system being used among many groups relatives could extend outward to everyone belonging to the same clan even if they belonged also to a different tribe.

But our families have been under attack for many years. The tax rules of the Internal Revenue Service, adopted mostly under Republican presidents since 1981, are extremely anti-family. At the same time they are also extremely pro-corporation and favor wealthy individuals. These anti-family tax laws affect the majority of Native people who must make their living away from a reservation or reserve. (They also affect those living on reservations since relatives living in off-reservation areas are less able to help their unemployed kin.)

Why are the income tax laws anti-family? Here are a few examples: traditional families try to care for their kinfolk but current income tax laws do not allow for any deductions for contributing to the support of parents, grandparents, or other needy relatives, except dependent children. Thus, if I contribute $l00 each month to the support of my mother ($1,200 per year) I am not allowed to claim that even though my support might actually save local welfare agencies money.

Another example relates to medical expenses. Unless we have huge bills we can no longer deduct medical costs even for ourselves, and never for other extended family members. Another example: we can no longer deduct any expenses for producing an income (such as the cost of uniforms, the cost of transportation to work, the cost of operating and owning a vehicle, etc.) Current law requires such a huge amount to be spent that "miscellaneous deductions" are impossible for most of us, and we are not, in any case, allowed to deduct the cost of necessary transport.

On the other hand, wealthy entrepreneurs are allowed to deduct the cost of operating vehicles, are allowed to "write off" the cost of purchasing vehicles, are allowed to "write off" the cost of all income-producing properties, etc. They are also allowed to deduct most of the expenses for ocean cruises (if "business" is transacted or discussed), fancy hotel expenses (for "business" conferences), gifts, etc.

Everything imaginable is done to enhance the income-producing capabilities of those who are engaged in "business" or in the "professions". But the same effort is not extended to ordinary people who must work for someone else. The same effort is not extended to helping extended families help themselves and their members.

Of course, one can argue that the deduction of interest expense for owning a home helps families, but the rich can deduct the interest expense on a second or vacation home as well. Moreover, the elimination of the deduction for interest on ordinary purchases tended to hurt working people much more than the wealthy (who can more easily borrow large amounts of money on home equities and then deduct the interest payments). Likewise, the deduction of real estate taxes help the wealthy more than families since there is no limit on the deduction of taxes for land and houses held purely for speculation or profit.

To make the income tax laws pro-family we will need to (first) kick out the majority of members of the House and Senate and (second) demand of their successors that the legitimate expenses of maintaining a family be recognized. For example, if deductions are allowed for dependent children they should also be allowed for dependent parents, grandparents and other relatives (including adopted ones). In addition, one should be able to deduct one's contributions to relatives and one's expenses to produce an income (an automobile or the cost of transportation). Medical and dental expenses should also be fully deductible (until we have a Canadian-style single-payer health system).

These ideas represent a start on a pro-family tax system. They will help us rebuild our families and restore the collective strength our ancestors depended upon.

[August 25, 1995]

[Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of Columbus and Other Cannibals, Africans and Native Americans and other books.]

Phone: (916) 752-3626/3237