Congress should not repeal the death tax
By Christian McClellan '06
Public opinion of the estate tax or so-called "death tax" is wildly divergent. The House of Representatives has already passed a permanent repeal of the estate tax which currently awaits Senate approval. At this juncture, rather than partisan ideology and obfuscation, the issue needs intense intellectual scrutiny. While some are mired in the partisanship surrounding this contentious issue, those truly interested in creating optimal policy will do so only through thoughtful consideration of the benefits and costs of the estate tax. Consideration of the policy must weigh its benefits as an instrument of revenue generation, namely its progressivism and its ability to tax otherwise untouched capital gains, against its possible distortionary effects on saving and labor supply as well its possible negative effects on entrepreneurship: farms and small businesses.

While the estate tax is relatively small, revenue is revenue and repealing it would necessitate some combination of reduced government spending, increased government debt or corresponding tax increases. Since these bear their own ill effects, it should be noted that in addition to providing supplementary revenue, the estate tax provides a number of ancillary benefits. Primary among them is its expedience at addressing issues of equality of opportunity and wealth distribution. It is indisputably the most progressive instrument in the government's tax arsenal: It can and has been narrowly tailored to apply to only the richest individuals. Returns are filed for fewer than five percent of adult deaths, and fewer than half of these returns have to pay the estate tax.

By allowing lawmakers to locate this tax burden on the very wealthiest individuals, they have an increased ability to limit accumulation of wealth and promote equality of opportunity when the national trend is towards increased disparity between rich and poor. Additionally, the estate tax burdens unrealized capital gains which would never otherwise be addressed by regular income taxes. Finally, the estate tax has been shown to encourage charitable giving at the time of death.

Notwithstanding these benefits, the estate tax's possible negative effects must be considered. First, the tax may affect saving, both in would-be givers and recipients. With respect to givers, findings indicate a small decrease in savings resulting from the gift tax. It should be noted that, despite conservative claims to the contrary, it is impossible that the growth effects of this increased savings would create additional tax revenue sufficient to offset the revenue lost in repealing the estate tax. Research on recipients reveals that the receipt or anticipated receipt of an estate gift increases consumption by 4-10 percent. Reduced inheritances due to an estate tax would substantially increase recipient savings.

The same giver-recipient framework can be used for analyzing the estate tax's effect on labor supplied. Research on the effect of tax rate on labor supply generally has shown a small tendency to reduce labor under increased taxes. Does this specifically apply to those facing the estate tax? A 1999 study finds that those facing higher estate tax rates work less. While this finding is possibly partly caused by the estate tax, it is entirely likely that those facing the estate tax are wealthier and are less likely to work irrespective of the estate tax. For recipients, findings are clearer. The receipt of an inheritance of $350,000 reduces labor force participation by 12 percent in singles and decreases the likelihood that both spouses work by 14 percent in couples. It is clear, at least in the case of recipients, that the estate tax probably increases labor participation.

Finally, the estate tax's effects on entrepreneurship, namely its effect on small businesses and family farms, must be examined. First, the effects of the estate tax on these individuals are largely overstated. Only 11 percent of returns list any farm or closely held business assets. More striking, only two percent of estates paying the estate tax have significant farm or family business assets. Within these individuals, the effects of the tax are unclear. One study finds that these farm and small business owners' purchases of life insurance are less responsive to the estate tax than other individuals. As life insurance is a good strategy for covering the burden of the estate tax, this behavior either suggests that these individuals do not anticipate difficulty with the estate tax, or do not consider transmission to descendants a high priority.

Despite evidence suggesting few harmful effects to farms and small businesses, policies can be enacted to further reduce this burden. Already, small business and farms receive a number of deductions, exemptions and favorable valuation rules. These policies have created a high floor under which most farms and small businesses avoid the estate tax entirely. If these threats to entrepreneurship are so feared, further policies which exempt estates largely composed of farm or small business assets could be introduced.

Ultimately, the estate tax is an important tool, allowing regulators to more directly repair holes in the taxation of capital gains and address issues of wealth accumulation and equality of opportunity. Reduced saving and labor among givers as a result of the tax is either canceled or overwhelmed by the effects smaller inheritances have on recipients. The tax's effect on farms and small business is overstated at best and could be further reduced with policies directly targeting this minority of taxed estates. It goes unmentioned by conservatives pushing for its repeal that the largest direct effect of this repeal would be to lift a tax burden from America's super wealthy. Removing this obfuscation, John Kenneth Galbraith's observation rings true: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

McClellan can be reached at chmcclellan@amherst.edu

Issue 24, Submitted 2005-04-20 15:32:45