Subject: inheritance Comment: It always surprises me how much clout the argument against the inheritance tax continues to have. As a person who will probably gain by the elimination of the inheritance tax I recognize that I represent an extremely small percentage of the population. I also recognize that I had nothing to do with being in a position to receive this "free" money and that if this money is not taxed that other people who did earn their money will most likely have to eventually pay additional taxes or receive less services. Although everyone dislikes being taxed they do not really want to see most government services removed, whether it be military , streets, social security, police, or schools etc. It makes sense to me that the majority of taxpayers ( in this case over 95%) would want to see the inheritance tax continue, not under the concept of redistribution of the wealth but as a reduction of their own tax burden on money they earned. One of the arguments made against the inheritance tax is that it is a disincentive to accumulate wealth and therefore possibly slows the growth of the economy. I maintain that there is a way to accommodate this argument and also to reduce the majority of the population's future tax burden. There should be two levels of inheritance: one for those who actually earn inheritance taxable amounts and the other for those who simply are born right . For those who have earned their money through entrepreneurial savvy, hard work or even luck, a modest tax would be imposed on their wealth. They would know that no matter how much wealth they accumulated the tax imposed on their efforts, perhaps 15%, would not greatly diminish the fruits of their efforts. If one of the goals of these people was to be able to pass on to their kids the bulk of their wealth they would not be stifled by the idea that the government "was going to take it all." On the other hand if you are one of the lucky ones to be the beneficiary of a parent's production, much less a great great grandfather's financial success, you will be faced with a larger Tax on the portion of the wealth that you leave to your heirs that you did not create. Since the United States was founded in part to eliminate aristocracies and their undo power it only makes sense to reduce the inevitability of a preponderance of the nation's wealth ending up in the hands of a very small percentage of our citizens. Unfortunately money does equal influence and power. A larger exemption than in the past, maybe $2-3 million, and working small businesses and smaller family farms would not be subject to inheritance tax. For the remainder of those who inherited their wealth a tax of 35% would be reasonable. At a time when our country is accumulating a huge debt funding a questionable war where only the military has been asked to sacrifice and now trying to rebuild a city where mostly the poor suffered it only seems responsible to have the most fortunate of us help the country when it is needed most. Maintaining a reasonable inheritance tax is not only fair it seems to me to be imperative. Walt Ingram 407 13th st Bellingham, Wa. 98225 |