I'm pretty conservative (ok, REAL conservative), but I have mixed feelings about repealing the 'death tax.' When it comes to frugal people having to sell a family business to do the wealth redistribution required by current laws, clearly, that's wrong.
But, the other side is for the hugely rich. I've heard statistics that are something like 2% of taxpayers pay 80% of taxes (or something like that). If that's true, then they must make a large percentage of the income, too. For a Ken Lay (assuming he hadn't been caught and Enron still existed) to be able to pass on a few billion to his heirs might not be the most efficient use of wealth. And when it comes to a series of family members being able to accumulate more and more wealth through multiple generations, like the Ford family, it is conceivable that just a few families could accumulate AND HOLD huge wealth that would be kept out of the economy. I'm not saying the government should take it, but is seems to me that such wealth should be somehow put to use in a way that helps the economy.
A few years ago, there was a joke going around that Bill Gates could buy India. And if he had, Microsoft would be a nuclear power today! Wealth begets wealth, and if too much is centralized in the control of too few people, it may not be good for the country.
So, my thinking is that the estate tax, or something similar, should be retained, but with very high limits, such as 100 million, to pick an arbitrary number. Something that only a very few wouold be impacted by. |
