loganmule

It looks as if you and I will have to agree to disagree, Gault.

I went back to your original post, and found no cogent argument to support your position. Over 99% of estates don't result in tax liability to begin with, and many of those that do incur the tax because of UNTAXED property appreciation, as has been pointed out. Also, only certain types of property are taxed merely by virtue of one's ownership of it (generally, real estate; occasionally, intangibles). If you make the right choices about the kinds of property you own, only income on it or any gain on its sale is subject to tax. As for the double tax argument, we're already stuck with that...in fact, most taxpayers pay more in regressive taxes with after-tax dollars than they pay on their income (think sales taxes and excise taxes, for example).

I think individuals pay too much tax. I believe that politicians of all stripes are poor stewards of our tax revenue, both in terms of the programs funded and with regard to inefficient spending. None of that matters. A budget will be approved, and it will need to be funded. All kinds of taxes are levied, and if the estate tax on those who are very rich is eliminated, the lost tax revenue will need to be made up somewhere else. Under these circumstances, I'm happy to see the estate tax remain in effect. Multi-millionaires may take issue with me (you must be one of them, Gault), but all us little folk don't want to have to take up the tax slack so that the rich can get richer.