Copyright 2000 The Hartford Courant Company
THE
HARTFORD COURANT
June 18, 2000 Sunday, STATEWIDE
SECTION: COMMENTARY; Pg. C2
LENGTH: 235 words
HEADLINE:
ESTATE TAXES: TWO VIEWS;
SUPPORT, IMPROVE A FAIR TAX
BYLINE: Steven R. Stroiney; Vernon
BODY:
It is shameful that the U.S. House has passed
the most regressive tax cut -- repeal of the estate tax [Page 1, June 10,
"House: Death, But No Taxes"].
Although the estate tax
repeal has been promoted in the name of small businesses and family
farms, 97 percent of estates subject to the tax are neither a farm nor a
business, according to statistics presented by The Courant.
Also, only
the largest 2 percent of all estates are taxed at all. The beneficiaries of the
proposed repeal are almost exclusively the wealthiest Americans.
Proponents of repeal argue that a person has a right to pass on
accumulated wealth to whomever he or she wishes. However, I believe that we also
hold as a general principle that a person should receive money by earning it
rather than by having rich parents.
The estate tax is a compromise
between these two principles. It prevents huge fortunes from passing through
many generations but allows modest inheritances to go untaxed.
We may
wish to alter the estate tax, but we should not repeal it. If we are concerned
about small businesses and family farms, we should exempt them or raise the
tax-free limit for these estates rather than eliminating the tax on the other 97
percent of estates.
It may also be desirable to alter the code to make
it fairer and to reduce tax avoidance schemes. Rather than ending the estate
tax, we should support and improve it.
LOAD-DATE: June 20, 2000
