[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S254-S255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      TIME TO TACKLE UNFAIR TAXES

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, there are a lot of things wrong with our 
nation's Tax Code, but two things in the code that have always struck 
me as particularly egregious are the steep taxes imposed on people when 
they get married and when they die. While it will probably take some 
time to build the kind of public consensus that will be necessary to 
overhaul the Tax Code in its entirety, there is broad public support 
for us to do something in the short term about these taxes--the 
notorious marriage penalty and the death tax--and in the process take 
two meaningful steps closer to a tax system that is simpler and more 
fair.
  Mr. President, what rationale can there possibly be for imposing a 
marriage penalty? All of us say we are concerned that families do not 
have enough to make ends meet--that they do not have enough to pay for 
child care, college, or to buy their own homes. Yet we tolerate a 
system that overtaxes families. According to Tax Foundation estimates, 
the average American family pays almost 40 percent of its income in 
taxes to federal, state, and local governments. To put it another way, 
in families where both parents work, one of the parents is nearly 
working full time just to pay the family's tax bill. It is no wonder, 
then, that parents do not have enough to make ends meet when government 
is taking that much. It is just not right.
  The marriage penalty alone is estimated to cost the average couple an 
extra $1,400 a year. About 21 million American couples are affected, 
and the cost is particularly high for the working poor. Two-earner 
families making less than $20,000 often must devote a full eight 
percent of their income to pay the marriage penalty. The highest 
percentage of couples hit by the marriage penalty earns between $20,000 
and $30,000 per year.
  Think what these families could do with an extra $1,400 in their 
pockets. They could pay for three to four months of day care if they 
choose to send a child outside the home--or make it easier for one 
parent to stay at home to take care of the children, if that is what 
they decide is best for them. They could make four to five payments on 
their car or minivan. They could pay their utility bill for nine 
months.
  A constituent of mine from Tucson, Arizona put it this way: ``We need 
your help as young married middle class Americans to plan our family's 
future. We need help to plan our retirement, our children's education, 
our dignity. Please help get rid of the marriage tax.''
  Mr. President, this constituent is simply asking that a young family 
be able to keep more of what it earns. Taxing marriage is wrong. It is 
bad social policy and bad economic policy. We ought to do away with it 
this year. And with that in mind, I have joined Senators Faircloth and 
Hutchison and 35 of our colleagues who have cosponsored S. 1285, the 
Marriage Tax Elimination Act. A similar bill on the House side, H.R. 
2456, has 233 cosponsors. Given the broad support the initiative enjoys 
in both chambers--and around the country--I think we stand a good 
chance of getting this done this year. We should.

[[Page S255]]

  The death tax is just as wrong, and we ought to do something about 
it, too. It is wrong to make grieving families face the funeral 
director and the tax collector in the same week. And it is wrong to 
break up family-owned businesses just to extract an additional tax from 
someone one last time before he or she is laid to rest.
  The death tax imposes a heavy toll on families, as well as the 
communities in which they live. Maybe that is why 15 states have 
repealed their state death taxes since 1980.
  Mr. President, in its January 12 edition, the Wall Street Journal 
carried a story about the impending sale of America's largest African-
American newspaper chain, Sengstacke Enterprises, Inc. The chain's 
pioneering leader, James Sengstacke, passed away last May, and the 
chain is now faced with the daunting task of raising enough cash to pay 
the estate tax--something that is more commonly known as the death tax.
  I do not know the Sengstacke family, but their story is compelling, 
and I hope our colleagues will listen closely as I read a few lines 
from the Journal's report. The article begins by noting that the 
newspaper chain is comprised of the daily Chicago Defender and three 
weeklies--the New Pittsburgh Courier, the Tri-State Defender, and the 
Michigan Chronicle. And then it goes on with the extraordinary story of 
the family business:

       Founded by Robert Sengstacke Abbott in 1905, the Chicago 
     Defender helped ignite the Great Migration--the move of tens 
     of thousands of Southern black sharecroppers northward to 
     Chicago and other cities. When Mr. Abbott's nephew, John 
     Sengstacke, took over in 1940, the Defender grew from a 
     weekly to a daily, printing stories that challenged 
     discrimination on nearly every front, from the U.S. Army to 
     the baseball field.
       Mr. Sengstacke was instrumental in persuading Brooklyn 
     Dodgers owner Branch Rickey to hire baseball's first black 
     player, Jackie Robinson. For several decades, the Defender 
     was viewed as the most important training ground for aspiring 
     black journalists.

  Mr. President, the tragedy is that the death tax may force the 
Sengstacke family to part with this treasured piece of their heritage--
a family-owned company that has, among other things, worked hard to try 
to stamp out the scourge of discrimination around the country. 
Contemplating the thought of the chain being taken over by outsiders, 
the founder's grandniece, Myiti Sengstacke, said, ``No one--black or 
white--is going to understand and cherish the vision my uncle had for 
starting the company other than someone in his family.''

  Other families around the country have similar stories to tell. Here 
is what a good friend and constituent of mine wrote in a letter to me 
last year:

       Since my father died, our lives have been a nightmare of 
     lawyers and trust companies with the common theme, ``you have 
     to protect the family business.'' It was hard enough trying 
     to recuperate after my father's long illness, and then 
     adjusting to the reality he was gone.

  This family in Arizona built up a printing business from just one 
employee 39 years ago to over 200 employees today. The founder--the 
family patriarch--was one of the most generous people I have ever met. 
He gave to just about every charitable cause in our community, and he 
made our community a much better place in the process.
  Mr. President, hard work and thrift, creating jobs, and contributing 
to the community are among the last things we ought to penalize. And so 
I sponsored the Family Heritage Preservation Act, S. 75, to repeal the 
cruel death tax. Twenty-nine of our colleagues have joined me as 
cosponsors of that measure, and the companion House bill, which was 
introduced by Congressman Chris Cox, has 166 cosponsors. A recent poll 
commissioned by the seniors group, 60 Plus, found that fully 77 percent 
of Americans are supportive of death-tax repeal.
  We took some important steps in the direction of death-tax relief 
last year when we approved a phased increase in the unified credit and 
new protections for a limited number of family-owned businesses. 
Unfortunately, the ``family-business carve-out'' made what is arguably 
the most complex portion of the Tax Code even more complicated. Here is 
what representatives of small businesses told the House Ways and Means 
Committee on January 28.
  The National Federation of Independent Business told the committee 
that even though the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act gave small-business 
owners some relief from the unfair death tax, small-business owners 
should not be paying this tax at all. Jack Faris, the President of 
NFIB, said that the organization continues to fight for complete 
elimination of this onerous tax.
  The Small Business Council of America described last year's changes 
this way. ``The new Qualified Family-Owned Business Interest Exclusion 
is now the most complex provision in the Tax Code. At best, it will 
help less than five percent of family businesses facing sale or 
liquidation from the death tax.''
  These sentiments are consistent with the message we heard from 
delegates to the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, who 
placed death-tax repeal fourth among their 60 recommendations to 
Congress and the President. And with good reason. The death tax is 
gradually destroying family enterprise, first by slowing business 
growth, then by forcing companies to restructure through mergers or 
sales.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, repeal of the death tax would 
free capital resources for more productive investment, leading to an 
average of $11 billion per year in extra output, an average of 145,000 
additional jobs created, and personal income rising an average of $8 
billion per year above current projections. So not only would death-tax 
repeal be good for families, it would help the economy as well.
  Mr. President, repealing the marriage penalty and the death tax 
should be among our top priorities this year. Together, these two steps 
will get us closer to the kind of Tax Code we all say we want--one that 
is fairer, flatter, and simpler. Let us do this for America's families.

                          ____________________