[gberardi]

Actually, Karma Police, when you put it that way, I have to wonder why you would be satisfied with $15 million, knowing that there was 100% more available. If anything illustrated the opposing viewpoint more, it was this statement.

I like how we keep talking about statistics and lies, though. I admit that my 4e-5 gives an inaccurate view, but then we get back to 2% if we only count the number of Americans who died. How, then, does it affect more than "people claim"? Do we have to play with statistics and only include those people who die and had more than X dollars in value in their estates?

Statistics and lies. 2% doesn't sound like a lot. 12,600 paying a "death tax" out of the entire population definitely doesn't sound like a lot. Either way, it's a very small segment of the population that gets affected by this law.

Not that I am claiming that it is right, of course. I'm just trying to stop the emotional claims that many people seem to make. Most people just won't be affected by this law, and making it seem like it is separate from the death tax is just dishonest. If you truly believe it is wrong, then you can make an argument that isn't designed to mislead someone to your conclusion.

The gift tax and the estate tax are related. The gift tax was a way to prevent someone from avoiding the estate tax by giving away their things right before they died. The estate tax's purpose? Originally it was to raise revenue. From what I've been reading, the idea that the rich can afford to pay a heavier burden has been with the country since the beginning. $100 is worth more to someone with less than it is to someone with more. $100 is a choice between groceries and medication for one person while it can be the choice of picking between a new investment option or not investing for another.

If you think I am being too simplistic and purposefully trying to mislead you to a different conclusion, I am simply pointing out that you don't pay for air to breathe because it is easy and abundant for everyone, whereas NASA pays a lot for research and development to get breathable air into the space shuttle. You can tell me all you want about how you value the air just as much as NASA does, but it seems to me that air is worth a lot more to you if you don't have it. Why would money be different? Because the rich somehow understand the value more, $100 is worth more to them than it is to someone who can't pay the bills?

The people who understand the value of a dollar will get ahead with that knowledge. It doesn't change the fact that basic necessities need to be paid for, and someone who has no money will find $100 to be incredibly useful as opposed to someone who is rich.

Back to the estate tax, the original purpose was to raise revenue, and the original thought was that the richer you are, the more you can afford to pay. At least, that seems to be what I have learned in a couple of days of research. I am not an expert on this topic at all.

Once the income tax was established, it taxed income and wealth. It is why you read or hear about class warfare all the time, and why people keep talking about "punishing" the rich and "rewarding" the poor.

Currently, I think that the estate tax is like capital gains. You didn't pay taxes on the gains yet because you didn't sell it. If you sell it, then you pay taxes. Regardless if you think we should have a capital gains tax, the tax exists. If you give the property to someone else with no payment, that's a gift, and let's assume that there is no estate or gift tax for a second. What happens? Someone just got a lot of wealth for free.

I don't see a problem intrinsic in that. I am not a fan of the idea that the rich NEED to give their wealth to the poor. Contrary to what some people may claim, just because I don't immediately agree with them, I am not and have not ever been a member of the communist party. I am honestly trying to learn about the issue, and emotional name-calling on either side of a debate is just more cruft for me to get through.

Let's say that the estate tax applied to everyone who dies instead of just 2% of those who die. The "punishment" would be spread across everyone, then. Of course, we then get back to the idea that those who have less will miss the money more. "I couldn't pay rent this month!" vs "I couldn't invest more!"

Do we get rid of the estate tax? That way, no one gets "punished" for having wealth, and the government will just have to find a different way to pay down its debts. 2% of the families of the deceased get to have more inheritance in exchange for what? What's the benefit? I guess I am just wondering what happens then. Will the government just find a different way to pay for its debt? Won't that just mean that the tax is applied elsewhere, "punishing" the rich in another way?

Once again, I appreciate this discussion, and I am learning a lot. I prefer to be convinced with facts, reason, and logic. I also think I am pretty good at seeing BS, such as arguments about triple taxation when no taxation was done in the first place, which can convince me that a "real" argument can't be made. Other people make stronger arguments, and I am actually willing to believe that the estate tax is unfair to the very wealthy. I just don't see it as unfair to all taxpayers, which is what I usually hear as an argument.