Death and Taxes

An April 2 editorial ["More Tax Cuts for the Rich?"] said that allowing the government to take 55 percent of a person's assets after death is a "far more rational response" to our economic crisis than our proposal to permanently reduce the death tax.

We do not believe the government should be entitled to confiscate over half of someone's assets after death, especially when those assets were already subjected to federal income taxes.

The Post charged that only the "wealthiest of the wealthy" benefit under our plan, but it's precisely those people who already employ the best accountants and lawyers to help avoid the death tax. The Post failed to acknowledge that it's small-business owners and farmers who cannot: Many have relatively low profit margins and are considered "wealthy" by the government only because they own expensive equipment or land.

Small-business owners generate up to 80 percent of jobs in America. One would assume that in a recession the government would want to leave more resources in the hands of those who create jobs and drive economic growth.

The Post also charged that reducing the death tax would reduce charitable giving. We have faith in the philanthropy of small-business owners who would be more inclined to give to charities if their estate tax burden was reduced.

When The Post argued that our plan would drive up the deficit, it failed to acknowledge that we stipulate that estate tax reduction must be paid for.

We believe that allowing entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses rather than paying more than half their value to the government when they die will promote economic growth, create jobs and help the

deficit.

JON KYL

U.S. Senator (R-Ariz.)