Why do people vote for Hilary and Obama?

[Final-Fan]

Look, the government collects taxes to provide infrastructure and services to society. 
Who pays the taxes?  The people. 
Which people?  The ones who can pay. 
How much?  The amount society thinks it needs. 
Should some people pay more than others?  This is the tricky one.  Well, the easy part first.  The people who can barely feed, house, and clothe themselves obviously can't afford much.  We'll give them a free pass, but society needs that much more from the rest.  Next up:  The ones who can't pay for college for their kids.  Let's just take a little.  Next:  These ones are living pretty good, even if they don't have a summer home or anything.  We'll take a pretty good chunk.  Next up:  These ones can afford to give their girl a Porsche for her Sweet 16.  They can afford a pretty penny.  Finally:  Jackpot!  These guys have mansions in three states and could still live off of stock dividends if not for the twice-yearly world tour!

Aside from the fact that you think "Jackpot!" at the thought of having rich people pay more than their fair share I think you are identifying a system that I have already said I understand. The rich do need to pay more as a reality of the system. Where I disagree is when you start applying laws to them that don't apply to others. I am fine with laws that are based on expenditures or even incomes provided they treat people evenly across the board, with the possible exception of the poor.

"I don't see why taking more from the final category is immoral. Even the dead ones."

Getting more tax revenue from the rich isn't inheritly immoral, but as for the deceased I think it is immoral. Partly because you aren't taking from them but from their family that they left it to. But also because you aren't taking more from their familieis...but rather you are only taking from their families. But if you took anything at all from the middle class then they would be up in arms because it was happening to them.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/542.html

Over 40 million Americans don't pay taxes, and 90% make less than $30,000 a year. Is this class warfare? No, it's an acknowledgement that society does not benefit from turning struggling people into destitute people. (And you, "possibly", concur.) The middle class is not up in arms about having to pay taxes.

I really don't know why you cannot see that the estate tax's taking only from estates worth over two million dollars is not directly analogous to the income tax's taking (almost) only from people making over twentywhatever thousand dollars. Why is that? Please explain it to me.

"Coming at it from a different angle: some people here have noted that the estate tax is a defense against the creation of a permanent class of "capitalist nobility" -- whole sections of society that can live off of inherited, self-sustaining assets. In fact, these people already exist. Imagine what would happen if the trend wasn't held in check!"

This "capatalist nobility" thing is bunk. There might be a handful of rich families who have pas{sed} wealth on for more than 4 generations but for the most part large family wealth is split up and willed to so many people that it is hardly considered wealth anymore. If you split a $1 billion estate amongst 5 people every generation the result after four generations is that at most (assuming the people haven't squandered it) someone would have ~1.6m. As for any self-sustaining assets you are basically saying that these people have their money invested in an area that is providing jobs and growth...how is that a bad thing, we want the rich to be invested.

Quite frankly your argument is nonsensical. On the one hand the amount you are taking is insignificant and it won't be missed and they should hardly notice....but on the other hand it is apparently the only thing keeping this capitalistic nobility in check! Well which is it? Sorry but the way you are acting is like anyone with $10m is sure to become a billionaire if you give him 20 years. And that is simply not the case. Just having a few million dollars doesn't mean you will make more and it doesn't mean you will keep it.

Yeah, except for the part about that not being true. That's assuming that each generation stuck it under their mattresses their entire lives and never made a cent they didn't spend, which is just ludicrous. (And also "squandering" in this day and age.) Up until now both of us have been discussing the investment angle; why assume it doesn't exist all of a sudden? It sounds like I'm not the one with a nonsensical argument.

I'm not saying they'll never miss the money; I'm saying that they'll do just fine without it. There's a difference.

"This wealth isn't created out of thin air. Something has to create it, and it's (as usual) the working class. The magic of capitalism just moves the fruits of their labors up the food chain into the hands of the investor class. How is that "fair"? Down with capitalism! Oh, wait, "fair" is your schtick."

Are you really going down this road? So you are saying that employees should share profits now? Really so the next time you invent the can-opener, we should be giving a percentage of profits to every worker in the factory? It sounds to me like you want to disincentivize ingenuity and incentivize working a generic 9 to 5.

Sorry but the idea that just hoping on to someone's good idea at the last minute is sufficient to get a share is insanity. (Blah blah blah, I love capitalism.)

Everyone wants the benefits without the work involved in between, its human nature..but it just isn't an economic system that works.

I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying that it's unfair. It is. But it's capitalism, and it works, and we can suck it up and live with it. Just like the rich can suck on the fact that 1/3 of their mansions might go to the IRS if they die a billionaire. You obviously didn't read the "Oh, wait, "fair" is your schtick."

I welcome a response to all the points I make in this post, but please focus on the bolded portions.