"A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy."

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

I'll do your example. But I'm changing the numbers because this doesn't apply to people making $100,000.00 (and no matter how much you would like it to be so, making $100,000.00 is NOT the same as making $10,000,000.00).

I make $10,000,000.00. No, better, my father makes $10,000,000.00 (I'm going to answer from the point of view of the person getting the money, not the poor stiff in the ground). The government comes in and takes half in income tax. OK, now we're down to $5,000,000.00. Not as much as we started with, but not bad.

So dad suddenly dies, and he bequeaths everything to me. I'm eager to get that $5,000,000.00, because I want a penthouse and a Ferrari. Here comes that greedy government, and they want another $2,000,000.00. So now that $10,000,000.00 is down to $3,000,000.00, and the government has taken 70% of what my dad made! We're together so far, right?

OK, so given the choice between $5,000,000.00 and $3,000,000.00, I'm taking the 5 mil. Everyone would, it's a no-brainer. But that's all free money for me. I didn't earn it, unless I was actively helping dad make it, in which case he was probably already paying me. And although dad may want me to live comfortably off the money he earned, it was not my labor that produced it. It's grand that I could have the opportunity to have $3,000,000.00 handed to me, and if I bitch about wanting more, I'm just a greedy schmuck who needs to learn how to earn money to truly appreciate the value of a dollar.

I guess it all comes down to how you feel about government spending. You may think that government spending is wasteful (and it most certainly is). I think that's a separate problem. But I think that the money from the super rich, the multimillionaires in this country, would be better off helping fund government programs like education, transportation, social welfare, the judiciary, the military, etc. rather than just passing on to the heirs to spend or horde for their kids. Even when taxed at an absurd rate, the estate tax does not mean that the heirs of wealthy people will suddenly be poor. Examples earlier showed that the estate tax tends to tax roughly 15-20% of the estate at best, which, when talking about estates worth millions means that the heirs end up with millions. No one is suddenly a pauper.

So no, I don't think the estate tax is bad.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
It is my opinion that the Estate Tax is absolutely necessary if we are to remain a competitive society. Heirs of the super rich tie up huge amounts of capital. And they are overwhelming NOT as able or productive as the progenitor who acquired the wealth.
So I say lets rename it the "Paris Hilton should get a real job" tax.

You're just bitching because her welfare does not come from you (government).

You cannot dictate to and have absolute authority over those who are not your dependence. Thus you seek to resolve that conflict by bringing down wealth and lining your pockets. Building the throne of a dictatorship, one fortune at a time.

 

[Vic]

Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

 

[piasabird]

No one is acutally paying an honest 40% tax. The more money you have the more way there are to create loopholes.

 

[piasabird]

This is more like raping your grandparents.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

That is a weak argument. All money has already been taxed. If I go to my doctor, I pay him with after tax money that he has to pay taxes on too. There is nothing that says you only have to pay taxes on money once. Once you come into possession of new money, you have to pay taxes on it, be it salary income, capital gain, or inheritance.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

That is a weak argument. All money has already been taxed. If I go to my doctor, I pay him with after tax money that he has to pay taxes on too. There is nothing that says you only have to pay taxes on money once. Once you come into possession of new money, you have to pay taxes on it, be it salary income, capital gain, or inheritance.

Well that first $2M of inheritance is tax free. And I think awards in civil litigation are not taxed either.

This thread actually had me thinking about a sick scenario. In 2010 the death tax is repealed entirely, and starts again in 2011.

So imagine, a man sits by his father's hospital bed. It's Dec 31, 2009. The father's estate is 10M. That son is praying his heart out for his dad to hang on just one more day. We're talking millions of dollars just one day apart!

Same situation but its now Dec 31, 2010. The estate tax resumes Jan 1. That son is now praying "Die you old coot, die die die!"

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few books/movies work in how many "accidental" deaths occur in 2010

 

[theeedude]

I was addressing the whole that money is being taxed twice argument. I just see it as a total red herring. All money is taxed when it changes hands.
If you get a gift, which is what an inheritance is, you have to pay taxes on it just like any other income. If you get $2M tax free, the government is doing you a favor compared to working people who don't get $2M of tax free income, even though they spend many years of hard work to make that much money, while the trustfund baby doesn't lift a finger to get it. If anything, I want the government to favor working people creating new wealth than trustfund babies passing it along to each other.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: shira
Actually, I did the same checking as you, and got the same results.

On further checking - actually going through Form 706 and instructions, I discovered that your result is correct and mine is wrong. Wow. I've done some additional research and here's how the estate tax works:

1) First, the gross estate is calculated, less credits and deductions. This is the $3 million we've been using.
2) Logically, at this point, I assumed the $2 million exclusion would then be subtracted, and the tax on the balance calculated. But that's not how estate tax is actually supposed to be calculated. Rather . . .

3) The result of (1) is defined as the "taxable estate", and the tax schedule I linked to above is used to figure the "Tentative Tax" on that figure.
4) At this point, the "Maximum unified credit" is calculated using the $2 million exclusion amount in the same tax schedule. This figure is always $780,800 - the tax that would be paid on a $2 million estate if there were no exclusion at all.
5) The Maximum unified credit amount ($780,800) is then subtracted from the "Tentative Tax," which results in the final estate tax.

That is, the tax computed using $2 million is subtracted from the tax computed using the total value of the estate, with the difference being the actual tax. The net effect of this is that for 2007 and 2008, all estates of greater than $2 million are taxed at exactly 45% of the amount over $2 million, whether that excess amount is $1 or $100 million.

What's really weird is that the Form 706 instructions even bother to show the Unified Rate Schedule (page 4), since for 2007 through 2009, none of the brackets below 45% can possibly be relevant for anyone who actually owes estate tax. I was totally misled.

That'll teach me to use logic.

You lied to me through the internet. Bastard.

I'm a bad person.

Now, lemme tell you all about the AMT . . . .

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: piasabird
This is more like raping your grandparents.

Exactly. And raping your granddad would make you gay, so clearly republicans are against it, while secretly being for it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But is it not also immoral to take one's wealth once they die? Should they not be able to do with their wealth as they choose? Why is it "moral" for the gov't to take from it?

Also, what is the "limit" in your mind? When does that limit become unethical?

I would love to see an intelligent counter to these questions. Something other than "they didnt earn it". I really dont see how passing any amount of wealth (1 mill, 10 mil, 100 mil, etc) detriments the poor or middle class.

No, you don't, and that's the problem - it's already been answered repeatedly, but you haven't seen it.

There is a cost to society. If you don't like that, go find some unclaimed land somewhere, build a house, and get killed by someone else who wants it.

Since there is a cost to society, the cost is called "taxes". Every society has them.

The questions above are calling all taxation 'unethical'. That's absurd. It's saying that the absence of any society, that complete anarchy, is preferable to what we have with taxes.

Once you accept the basic concept that some taxes are needed, it's simply a question of degree - how many taxes, and from whom? That's an entirely different issue that the one his questions raise, which object to ANY taxation, suggesting that everyone should be able to whatever they want with all their money.

There's not going to be any exact line in the sand of where to draw the figures; it's necessary to use inexact lines in terms of justifying why 55% and not 54.5 or 55.5, which does not mean that it's wrong. It means you need to have some tolerance for doing the best you can and recognizing the practical issues.

The question I haven't yet seen an answer to is, whatever amount you DO have to tax, while sharing it across different people, is it best taxed to the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or to estates, if you have to pick one, and can't just say 'I won't wanna tax anyone'.

As for how it detriments the poor and middle class not to have the estate tax, the simple and direct answer you can get easily is that the taxes have to be shifted from the estates onto the poor and middle classes. The more complicated issue you don't see is the harmful effects on society of an excessive concentration of wealth. Go read people like Buffet or any other author on the topic if you want more info, I know it's a waste of time to repeat it.

Craig, I have never supported non-taxation. Common sense says that just isnt possible. Im not so stupid to think our government, whether it be federal, state, city, whatever, can simply run on nothing. Come on man. I've never said or even implied "I wont (dont?) wanna tax anyone". If you read my response to Atomic, you will see although I understand the position of taxing estates, I dont agree with it on principle. It's simply a difference of opinion. but dont assume I feel the same across the board.

Blackangst, my comments were actually targeted at CADsortaGUY's comment I bolded above. The implication of his comment, intended or not, is against all taxation.

It's a response to your post because that's the post I saw it in and because you indicated agreement with his position, saying you wanted to see an answer to his position.

I'm unclear on your reason for opposing the estate tax, and your answer to my question, about:

whether any given $1M dollars in taxes you need to collect cause the least pain coming from the poor, the middle class, the wealthy, or from estates.

Understanding that some balance across all or most of the above is needed.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Looks like Palehorse is foaming at the mouth, again.

One of those magnificent canned anti-govt rants from a guy who supposedly makes hiis living working ... for the govt...

I'm not "anti-govt" you dolt, I'm anti-excessive-taxation!

The money and property that is taxed as an "estate tax" has already been taxed through property taxes, for years, capital gains taxes, and income taxes. There is no excuse - none - to tax that money yet again just because somebody is too dead to argue with you!

Second, every fvcking time the socialists and Leftists take aim at the "super rich," they end up hitting the middle-class instead!

Anyone smart enough to earn extreme wealth is ALSO smart enough to hide it properly before they die. So who do you think will take the brunt of hit? I'll tell you who: the moderately wealthy and the middle class!

And that is entirely unacceptable.

Uh, no...the estate tax does not apply to ANYONE in the middle-class...period.

Then again, it's the goal of shmucks like the OP to redistribute ALL wealth to the minorities, poor, and lazy. They would also LOVE to eliminate the middle-class altogether - doing so would enlarge their army of poor to then take on "teh evul rich folk"...

bah...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
If you have a 2 million dollar estate, you aren't the middle class.

I would term them "moderately wealthy"... oh, wait, I already listed them as the intended target alongside their middle-class brethren!

The "super rich" get off scott-free... every time.

And your last paragraph is appallingly stupid. If you redistribute all wealth to the minorities, poor and lazy, you've just made them the rich. If you redistribute all wealth equally, yes, the middle class is removed, as are the poor and wealthy... but I don't think anyone is advocating that.

bullsh1t. The problem is that NONE of the "redistribution" ideas that the Left comes up with actually work - and they never will! But that doesnt stop them from trying to get more and more of everyone else' money to try again and again to re-distribute it... and fail... again... and again...

We should be DOWNSIZING the government, ELIMINATING programs, and LOWERING taxes, not increasing all of the above at a ridiculous rate!

As for the rest of your drivel, please see the shiny example in my last post.

good luck.

What is all this "redistribution" noise? The purpose of taxes isn't to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, the purpose of taxation is to pay for things the government needs to spend money on (which includes your job, last time I checked). That money has to come from SOMEWHERE, and if we can't tax the rich, who should we tax? The guy working at McDonalds? Because I bet he has a lot of extra money kicking around that he could send to the government. I'm fine with the concept of lowering taxes, but that's not really the point. No matter how low taxes are, they aren't going to be zero, and that money has to come from somewhere.

That's the whole problem with this debate, the focus is always on taxes, and it's usually on whether or not the tax system should hurt which group. Except that's silly, only communists use taxes as the end (and despite noise to the contrary, nobody here is a communist), for everyone else, they are a means to an end. And that's the dirty little secret, no matter how much you bitch and moan, you're in favor of taxes. You just want to have your cake and eat it too, which is why taxes are almost always treated as a separate issue than spending by conservatives.

I see you at least acknowledge that they are related, but against you're missing the point. So what if we downsize the government and eliminate programs and lower taxes? Somebody still has to pay them, right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Looks like Palehorse is foaming at the mouth, again.

One of those magnificent canned anti-govt rants from a guy who supposedly makes hiis living working ... for the govt...

I'm not "anti-govt" you dolt, I'm anti-excessive-taxation!

The money and property that is taxed as an "estate tax" has already been taxed through property taxes, for years, capital gains taxes, and income taxes. There is no excuse - none - to tax that money yet again just because somebody is too dead to argue with you!

Second, every fvcking time the socialists and Leftists take aim at the "super rich," they end up hitting the middle-class instead!

Anyone smart enough to earn extreme wealth is ALSO smart enough to hide it properly before they die. So who do you think will take the brunt of hit? I'll tell you who: the moderately wealthy and the middle class!

And that is entirely unacceptable.

Uh, no...the estate tax does not apply to ANYONE in the middle-class...period.

Then again, it's the goal of shmucks like the OP to redistribute ALL wealth to the minorities, poor, and lazy. They would also LOVE to eliminate the middle-class altogether - doing so would enlarge their army of poor to then take on "teh evul rich folk"...

bah...

Ever notice how palehorse, drunk on the koolaid, fails to recognize that his stated goal of more people moving up to the middle class requires the poor to get more money?

His theory seems to be, take enough away from the poor, and they'll become middle class. Take away the government assistance, labor power, a decent minimum wage, etc...

He really doesn't get at all the concept that the poor are going to work similarly whether paid 10 cents, a dollar, 10 dollars or 25 dollars an hour - the difference isn't the poor, it's in the power setup of the system. He has "PDS" - Poor Derangement Syndrome - where all government programs aimed at enriching society by helping the poor should simply be blocked and the poor insulted.

I think that a very common aspect to these debates is that insecure people try to feel better about themselves by siding against the poor, as if that makes them the same as the rich.

They'll do this obsessively, ignoring their own interests.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Looks like Palehorse is foaming at the mouth, again.

One of those magnificent canned anti-govt rants from a guy who supposedly makes hiis living working ... for the govt...

I'm not "anti-govt" you dolt, I'm anti-excessive-taxation!

The money and property that is taxed as an "estate tax" has already been taxed through property taxes, for years, capital gains taxes, and income taxes. There is no excuse - none - to tax that money yet again just because somebody is too dead to argue with you!

Second, every fvcking time the socialists and Leftists take aim at the "super rich," they end up hitting the middle-class instead!

Anyone smart enough to earn extreme wealth is ALSO smart enough to hide it properly before they die. So who do you think will take the brunt of hit? I'll tell you who: the moderately wealthy and the middle class!

And that is entirely unacceptable.

Uh, no...the estate tax does not apply to ANYONE in the middle-class...period.

Then again, it's the goal of shmucks like the OP to redistribute ALL wealth to the minorities, poor, and lazy. They would also LOVE to eliminate the middle-class altogether - doing so would enlarge their army of poor to then take on "teh evul rich folk"...

bah...

Ever notice how palehorse, drunk on the koolaid, fails to recognize that his stated goal of more people moving up to the middle class requires the poor to get more money?

His theory seems to be, take enough away from the poor, and they'll become middle class. Take away the government assistance, labor power, a decent minimum wage, etc...

He really doesn't get at all the concept that the poor are going to work similarly whether paid 10 cents, a dollar, 10 dollars or 25 dollars an hour - the difference isn't the poor, it's in the power setup of the system. He has "PDS" - Poor Derangement Syndrome - where all government programs aimed at enriching society by helping the poor should simply be blocked and the poor insulted.

I think that a very common aspect to these debates is that insecure people try to feel better about themselves by siding against the poor, as if that makes them the same as the rich.

They'll do this obsessively, ignoring their own interests.

I'm not sure if I'd phrase it quite that way, and I won't try to guess palehorse74's mindset...but I think you're right in the general sense. A BIG part of conservative economics seems to be this idea that being poor is a weakness...and weakness needs to be punished.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

Out of curiosity and a bit off-topic, how would a system like this work according to your implementation? Would there essentially be no passing down of anything?

Edit:
I'm sure I'm completely missing something here so sorry for the ignorance.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

Hey I guess if you have no valid argument about the estate tax lets make up a new tax and say how bad it could be.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

Then just leave income taxes the way they are but take 100% in inheritance tax.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I want 100%. Been saying this for years. The ideal system of taxation is 0 taxes while alive and 100% back when you're dead. I sincerely doubt, however, that Warren is going to be willing to go that far (or at least not in public). Nor can I assume that a hack like the OP is going to accept the reasonable of the 0% while alive if it's 100% at death.

Then just leave income taxes the way they are but take 100% in inheritance tax.

Plus Warren probably wouldn't mind, since he is willing almost all his money to charity anyways.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I was addressing the whole that money is being taxed twice argument. I just see it as a total red herring.

offffffff course you do! You'd vote to take 100% if they let you!

All money is taxed when it changes hands.

no, it's not.

Face it, the only reason any of you are against full inheritances is because this doesnt effect YOU! It's a Jealousy Tax, plain and simple.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That money has to come from SOMEWHERE, and if we can't tax the rich, who should we tax?

We already tax "the rich," and you damn well know it. In fact, they pay more taxes, in terms of percentages of the national tax revenue, than anyone else in the country!

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
I was addressing the whole that money is being taxed twice argument. I just see it as a total red herring.

offffffff course you do! You'd vote to take 100% if they let you!

All money is taxed when it changes hands.

no, it's not.

Face it, the only reason any of you are against full inheritances is because this doesnt effect YOU! It's a Jealousy Tax, plain and simple.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That money has to come from SOMEWHERE, and if we can't tax the rich, who should we tax?

We already tax "the rich," and you damn well know it. In fact, they pay more taxes, in terms of percentages of the national tax revenue, than anyone else in the country!

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

I have said why I am against inheritance taxes being lower than income taxes. Your pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth is not going to fly. You probably think you shouldn't pay any taxes, no?

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

It IS a crime...but jealousy and greed can often turn normal people into criminals..

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: smack Down

Those who support estate taxes cant honestly say you think the government can put money to better use than you could. At least if you had it, you could give to the charities and do the things YOU want.

No one likes paying taxes and everyone has a better use for their money. Please explain why the money you get for doing nothing should not be taxed but the money I earn should be.

The money he is getting has ALREADY been taxed over the lifetime of the original earner - or do you conveniently wipe the money clean once it changes hands?

Example: you earn $100,000 and pay $30,000 in income taxes - putting $70,000 in the bank.

On New Years eve, you and your wife die.

You think it's OK for the government to come in and take $30,000 more of that money before your kids get it - thus taking a grand total of 60% of your earnings? No?

Then why the fvck is that OK when a few more zeros are involved?!?

Note: if you answered "yes" to that question, then you're f'n nuts. period.

Hey I guess if you have no valid argument about the estate tax lets make up a new tax and say how bad it could be.

My example was a perfect analogy to the estate tax, short a few zeros. What about it makes you think otherwise?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: palehorse74

IMO, taxing their lifelong incomes and gains, AGAIN, when they die, is essentially a fvcking crime. In terms of civil and human rights, I rank it up there with double-jeopardy.

It IS a crime...but jealousy and greed can often turn normal people into criminals..

I guess you think it's a crime to tax all forms of income that the wealthy rely on, like dividends, capital gains, and inheritances, and only the working stiffs should have to pay for the government in payroll, income, and sales taxes.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I have said why I am against inheritance taxes being lower than income taxes. Your pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth is not going to fly. You probably think you shouldn't pay any taxes, no?

Why the bullsh1t accusation? I pay roughly 28% in combined income taxes every year, and I'm quite willing to do the same for the rest of my life. I've never been against all taxes, but I sincerely believe that the estate tax system is an example of double-taxation.

The gains and income that lead to a persons lifelong wealth are taxed appropriately every step of the way, so please explain to me exactly what it is you think justifies taxing those exact same earnings again upon death.

It is my contention that if your reasoning is simply to prevent "undeserving" trustfund-babies, then you really have no legitimate argument for the double-taxation.