Estate tax repeal pending in Congress raises debate over charity, wealth gap
Jun. 3—A proposed repeal of the federal estate tax has advocates arguing about whether it would be a long-overdue fix for small business owners and farmers, or an unnecessary move widening the gap between the haves and have nots even further.
Both U.S. Senators from Ohio are sponsors of the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2025, introduced by Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate, to eliminate the so-called death tax that is part of the federal gift and estate tax system.
"Ohio's family small business owners and farmers spend a lifetime feeding and fueling our nation, and they often hope to pass down their businesses to the next generation. I'm supporting this bill to give hardworking families and farmers relief from the costly tax burden that makes it hard — or even impossible — for them to provide for our communities for generations," said U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, in a prepared statement.
Opponents say a proposed repeal of the federal estate tax would create broader wealth disparity, discourage charitable bequests and would not benefit the vast majority of Americans.
As of Monday, versions of the bill were in the House Ways and Means committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
The rhetoric around the legislation talks about farmers and small businesses, but a lot of the provisions touted have such high caps that they also help quite large estates, said Blaine Saito, an associate professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law whose focus is on how tax law shapes social policy, the management of the tax system and tax law's interaction with democratic ideals.
2025 individual exemption is $13.99M
Most Americans never pay any gift or estate tax. In 2025, the exemption is $13.99 million for individuals and $27.98 million for married couples. The higher exemption of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ends this year and will return to the base of $5 million plus an inflation adjustment for individuals. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act proposes increasing the federal estate tax exemption to $15 million a year for an individual, adjusted for inflation, and to make it permanent beginning in 2026.
"A full repeal, or even a very high exemption amount would benefit those with a lot of wealth that they can pass on to their heirs, generally the very wealthy people in society," Saito said.
Even the lower exemption rate is not likely to reach most family-owned small businesses and farms that fall below that threshold, he said.
The estate and gift tax dates to 1916 after President Theodore Roosevelt sought to break up large family trusts and end the excesses of the Gilded Age.
"Repealing the estate and gift tax would be one way of getting back toward large transfers of inherited wealth and further wealth disparities," Saito said.
Tariffs more pressing concern to business owner
Bill Castro, partner and general manager for El Meson, his family's Hispanic-fusion restaurant featuring dishes inspired by cuisine across Spain, the Caribbean and Americas, said he doesn't know what to think about a possible permanent repeal of the so-called death tax.
Three generations of the Castro family work at El Meson at 960 E. Dixie Drive in West Carrollton, founded by Castro's parents.
"I worry every day to pay my payroll, I worry every day to keep my staff working," he said, as many patrons are cash-strapped and dining out less often or only for special occasions.
For Mother's Day, El Meson had more reservations than usual, but it was offset by food prices that doubled.
"My level of reservations have increased but my level of profitability has decreased," he said.
If they want to help small businesses, Castro said lawmakers should consider not taxing server tips and doing something about the economy, particularly the tariffs that have led to escalating prices and financial concerns.
"These other issues are current, affecting us every day," he said.
Estate taxes can harm farmers
Harlan Twp. Trustee Ed Porginski, who owns Sugar Run Farms near Morrow in Warren County, said he supports a repeal of the federal estate tax. Similarly, he supported state lawmakers who permanently repealed Ohio's state-level version of the estate tax about a dozen years ago.
He raises cattle, pigs and grows crops, but mostly his business is selling beef for the freezer. He said it's unlikely any of his three children will want to take over the family farm. One of his sons raises cattle on his own property, another son is a paramedic and he doesn't think his daughter is interested, though she runs the farm's website and social media for her parents.
His support for the estate tax repeal comes from watching people he knew destroyed after losing their livelihood and farm near Mason where their family lived for generations when their parents, at about age 70, were both killed in a plane crash.
"They lost that farm, they couldn't pay their tax," Porginski said. "That was the first time I was introduced to that. That hit really close to home."
Tax exemption affects charitable giving
In 2024, the U.S. Treasury collected approximately $33 billion in estate and gift tax revenues from only about 0.1% of estates that had to pay the tax, according to the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank.
Tax law change has led U.S. charitable giving to drop by billions a year since 2018.
Bequests fell by about $20 billion in 2018, the first year the higher estate and giving tax exemption took effect, according to a study by researchers at Indiana University and the University of Notre Dame.
The federal estate and gift tax, which imposes a tax rate up to 40% outside the exclusion, encourages charitable contributions by allowing dollar-for-dollar deductions for bequests.
"Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there is little evidence that wealth transfer taxes reduce capital accumulation or efficiency, and they certainly can be structured in ways that take account of the special considerations raised by small businesses or family farms," Brookings said.
Saito agreed, and said that measures that help small businesses and family farms include allowing deductions for the full cost of capital.
Brookings advocates an inheritance tax instead of an estate tax. An inheritance tax would correct the unfairness of taxing income from work, saving, or even a lottery win, but leaving inheritances untaxed.
"Our estimates show that inheritance taxes not only can raise more revenue and be more progressive than the existing estate tax, they can also broaden the income tax base, improve equity and raise economic mobility," the institution said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history. A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible. Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians. Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Skiers Consider Boycotting Utah
As always, skiers on Reddit have all kinds of opinions, however wild they may or may not be. This week, r/skiing's keyboard warriors have decided to address the current reconciliation bill up for debate in the US Senate and the provision to it, which amongst other things, would mean the potential sale of a few million acres of US public lands. One particularly fired-up skier has taken to r/skiing to say that in light of the bill, Utah skiers should start boycotting the state. For context, the bill's provision that concerns the sale of public lands was published by the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is led by Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee."It's time to boycott Utah. Utah Sen. Mike Lee wants to sell millions of acres of public land. He needs to feel it where it hurts the most: his economy," the post by Reddit user Hobbitsliketoparty, is titled. Want to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. The post details that, indeed, up to 3.3 million acres of US public lands would be sold across 11 western states, including Utah. In Utah specifically, this could include land near Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, Millcreek, Parley's, and more BLM land close to some of Utah's National Parks like Zion and Arches. Under the provision, National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations,' would be excluded from the sale. Land sold under the bill would be for the purpose of building housing in order to ease housing shortages in the US. u/Hobbitsliketoparty has done their research, because they also state that 'but there's no requirement that the land be used for affordable housing. Developers and private buyers could snap up access points, trailheads, and wild spaces. That access could be gone for good.'The bill's provision has some vague language about proposals to purchase the land would need to include a description of how intended development would address local housing needs, including supply and affordability. However, there's no stipulation on holding the proposer to that once the sale is carried out. Considering Utah Senator Mike Lee's creation and support of the bill, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is proposing a boycott of funding to Utah's outdoor economy in protest. "If we let this happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. Politicians should not be allowed to auction off public land with almost no public input. And Utah has a history of this. From shrinking Bears Ears to resisting wilderness protections, they've been chipping away for years. If Utah's leadership insists on selling out our public lands, we should stop funding their outdoor economy. That means skipping the ski trips. Skipping the canyoneering. Skipping the visits to the Mighty 5. In 2017, Outdoor Retailer pulled its convention out of Salt Lake City after similar attacks on public land. It worked. Maybe it's time we acted again," reads the post. Several commenters point out and thank u/Hobbitsliketoparty for doing their research and reiterate the fact that while many of Utah and other state's ski areas are on public lands, often managed by USFS, the permits they operate on also exempt them from the sale. But that doesn't mean that trailheads and access points for other, non-inbounds skiing recreation wouldn't be threatened by the sale. It's hard to say whether boycotting skiing in Utah and the rest of its outdoor tourism economy would send the right message to Sen. Lee. For one, the Senate vote is slated to take place sometime in the next few weeks, which means, by the time ski season rolls around, there will already be a decision. Also, food for thought—boycotting Utah's outdoor tourism economy as a revenue source for the state would potentially fuel supporter's of the bill's fire by giving them more ammunition to sell off public lands. But I get it, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is angry like a lot of Americans right now about this potential attack on our public lands, but rather than boycotting a local tourism industry, the best course of action would be to call your local senators and let them know you oppose the bill, or use a handy form from an organization like the Outdoor Alliance or Protect Our Winters to do Consider Boycotting Utah first appeared on Powder on Jun 20, 2025
