It
may sound surprising
at first, but the people
working the hardest to
save the federal estate
tax, or “death tax”,
are some of the country’s
wealthiest. There are
reasons for that. For
example, one of these
people makes money by
selling “death tax insurance”
to small businesses,
and then making even
more money by buying
small businesses when
they have to be sold
to pay taxes because
their founder died without
such insurance.
This
insurance salesman
is worried, because
the death tax will
be completely phased
out by 2010.
But
unless Congress takes
action, it will return
in 2011. That means
if someone dies in
2010, his estate will
pay nothing in inheritance
taxes, but if he survives
until January of the
following year, the
estate will have to
turn over half of its
assets to the government.
Because this would
provide a perverse
incentive for wealthy
individuals to die
during 2010, an economist
referred to this this
as the “Throw Momma
from the Train Act
of 2001.”
Why
have death taxes at
all? One reason is
there is a small number
of extremely wealthy
people who want to
keep the death tax
alive, and back up
to its confiscatory
2003 levels, because
they claim eliminating
the federal inheritance
tax would decrease
the amount of charitable
giving, thus endangering
American charities.
Of
course, the best way
to help charities is
to boost the economy.
It’s a well known fact
that charitable donations
increase when the economy
is strong. And permanently
repealing the death
tax would give our
economy a big boost.
A
recent report from
the Heritage Foundation
estimates that the
federal estate tax
alone costs the U.S.
between 170,000 and
250,000 jobs each year.
This additional employment
never appears in the
economy because the
investments that would
have resulted in higher
employment are not
made.
Those
additional jobs would
do more to help Americans
than any charity ever
could. By repealing
the death tax, we’d
open the door for hundreds
of thousands of low-income
workers needing the
chance to enter the
workforce. We’d move
them from the welfare
rolls to the work rolls,
and the additional
revenue the government
would collect from
these new workers would
far outstrip the amount
it would lose from
total repeal of the
inheritance tax.
Also,
the death tax prevents
the economy from achieving
its investment potential
and slows down wage
growth. Workers are
more productive when
they have new tools,
machines and factories.
And that increased
productivity boosts
wages and salaries.
In
fact, trimming the
death tax has actually
increased the amount
of money given to charities.
The Congressional Joint
Economic Committee
found that last year,
with inheritance taxes
coming down, a charitable
bequest reached a record
$21 billion, a 25 per
cent increase from
1999. The death tax
merely crowds out charitable
giving. When estates
are paying more to
the government, there’s
less for donations
to worthy causes by
heirs. But when we
bring those taxes down,
our charities benefit.
It’s
already well known
that charities won’t
be left behind. More
than two-thirds of
Americans donate money
to charities. That’s
one reason why charitable
organizations are a
critical part of the
American fabric.
But
many of the “charities”
cited by death-tax
supporters aren’t involved
in helping the poorest
of the poor; they’re
making life better
for the richest of
the rich. Of course,
no one would want to
live in a country with
no art galleries, ballet
companies or horticultural
gardens. However, these
so called “charities”
ought to be supported
by wealthy private
interests, and not
propped up by donations
from people looking
to avoid paying a death
tax.
No
charity in the world
creates hundreds of
thousands of jobs per
year, but repealing
the death tax would.
And those who would
likely benefit the
most are the working
poor. We can have both
a healthy economy and
healthy charities,
but the death tax is
a danger to both.
If
you would like more
information regarding
asset protection, trusts,
family limited partnerships
or the subject of this
article please call
or email our office.