[jacobolus]

> If you believe in individual accomplishment then a death tax is abhorrent to that cause.

You keep repeating that like a mantra (which would be unsurprising for a Republican political candidate given that it is part of the official party platform and talking points for the last couple decades, and is pushed endlessly by the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and similar organizations), but you haven’t (and they never do either) actually explained the logical connection between the two parts of that statement (and you keep dodging every other question and ignoring every other answer).

I believe in individual accomplishment, and I believe that estate taxes are quite reasonable and well justified by essentially all of the commonly accepted moral principles of mainstream philosophical liberalism on which the society and legal system of this country (i.e. the US) are based.

Basically, you are attempting to establish your logical claim with no logic, and no explanation of any kind, simply through inane repetition. That's not a discussion. That's a religious crusade.

By the way, “abhorrent” is usually reserved for things like torture and mass killing. Its use in relation to changes in the marginal tax rate are absurd.

[TGJ]

Then you don't really believe in individual accomplishment. I've stated that the wealth that is created is taxed as it is made. Taxing wealth more after a person dies just to transfer it to the inheritor is a slap in the face to the person that created the wealth in the first place. Society has no claim on a dead mans property as the property has been paid for by the income taxes each year, sales tax of the state, property taxes, SS, and all the other little taxes out there. By taxing property/wealth after death and ignoring the taxation that already occurred on that wealth you simply support redistribution and do not support individual accomplishment. I have to repeat because you don't seem to acknowledge this.