OK, I will admit that we perhaps are using competing senses of the word "fair".

But as for the estate tax:
A) You don't pay shit unless your estate is worth more than $1.5 million. [Correction: $2 million.]
B) You don't pay much unless it's more than $5 million.
C) Most such estates include very substantial assets that have grown in value in nontaxable ways, so
D) "Estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains." [edit: Or, in fact, it may be much more; see below.]

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit: and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

(thanks FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html )

"We have found no study disputing these findings. In fact, they may be understated. For one thing the authors couldn't find any way to estimate the unrealized capital gains on art work or other collectibles, which can make up a sizeable part of some estates. More importantly, the very richest Americans aren't covered by this study, because the Federal Reserve Board survey on which the study is based doesn't include them. It is quite likely the averages are even higher for billionaires, whose fortunes are often built on appreciated stock or real estate that would go untaxed at their death but for the estate tax."

if thats your preferred list you deserve to be smacked. Edwards? Clinton? Obama? The other democrats but Gore? wtf is wrong with you.

Oh well.. i guess you want the country to collapse onto itself.

To be clear, I'm not patronizing you when I say this, I am seriously asking.

What are you trying to say with this post? When I read it I basically get that you are highlighting a bit of why rich people are paying more than the average citizen and you are explaining why the changes in your first graph would accur if we moved to the new system...

But that doesn't really address what I said in my last post.

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit: and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

Its all well and good to play tough guy when you're not the one being squeezed. Down the line when they start applying the squeeze to your bracket I'm sure your tune would be different.

You really need to take a step back and think about it. What is more fair than applying the same thing to everyone? Particularly when it still accomplishes the goal of getting the rich to pay far more than their representative share and the poor to pay far less than their representative share. Its not only fair but workable from a humanitiarian standpoint.

Once you also realize that it means we get rid of the IRS and the entrenched beaurocracy along with its monumental price tag we free up even more money. I think the fair tax is one of the ideas that Miyamoto would say solves multiple problems at once.

I won't say the system is perfect and I won't say its as fair as it can be, but I doubt you could say with a striaght face that the current system is perfect or fair and I would be surprised if many people thought that this wasn't a step in the right direction.

Anything that gets rid of the IRS can't be all bad =P

LOL, what's your problem with democrats other than Gore?

Gore: Environmental advocate.  This is THE most important issue, hands down.

Kucinich: Record of strong support for individual rights, the 2nd most important issue.

Colbert: He's obviously a rather smart guy, and would most likely support progressive policies.  He would also be less likely to frame the issues in politics-speak, which might actually lead to meaningful discussion in the media.

Those 3 would be superb.

Edwards: Consumer advocate.

Richardson: He supports medical marijuana.

Obama: Basically, he doesn't have a lot of a record, but at least he seems to be reasonably progressive compared to some.

Those 6 would each likely support (in varying degrees) environmental protection, medical care, individual rights, etc.

Clinton: She constantly speaks in PC terms, avoids questions, and worst, voted for the patriot act and the war.  She basically is a booby prize candidate, only worth supporting to keep republicans out.

Paul: Like Colbert, he wouldn't be part of the establishment of newspeak and would open up the screwed up political system.  He is a big supporter of individual rights, and would try to get rid of a lot of crap in the government.  He would probably end the country's ridiculous corn subsidy which would do wonders for taxes, medical care, energy independence, and general health.  However, he might go too far and go after social security and welfare, and wouldn't support public health care.  Other than that he'd be #4.

Hamster: It wouldn't be like Bush.

Republicans: Most of them have supported the treasonous Bush and his attacks on individual liberty, taxes (he has raised taxes.  the national debt = future taxes), government openness, and anything good in the universe.  Giuliani can't do anything but brag about 9/11, as if he had anything to brag about.  McCain has gone crazy since around 2000 (when he was a viable candidate) and is now supporting Bush and the war.  The others are a bunch of bad jokes.

To be clear, I'm not patronizing you when I say this, I am seriously asking.

What are you trying to say with this post? When I read it I basically get that you are highlighting a bit of why rich people are paying more than the average citizen and you are explaining why the changes in your first graph would accur if we moved to the new system...

But that doesn't really address what I said in my last post.

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit: and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

Its all well and good to play tough guy when you're not the one being squeezed. Down the line when they start applying the squeeze to your bracket I'm sure your tune would be different.

You really need to take a step back and think about it. What is more fair than applying the same thing to everyone? Particularly when it still accomplishes the goal of getting the rich to pay far more than their representative share and the poor to pay far less than their representative share. Its not only fair but workable from a humanitiarian standpoint.

Once you also realize that it means we get rid of the IRS and the entrenched beaurocracy along with its monumental price tag we free up even more money. I think the fair tax is one of the ideas that Miyamoto would say solves multiple problems at once.

I won't say the system is perfect and I won't say its as fair as it can be, but I doubt you could say with a striaght face that the current system is perfect or fair and I would be surprised if many people thought that this wasn't a step in the right direction.

Anything that gets rid of the IRS can't be all bad =P

Mccain supports the War in Iraq because we are there now. That's what he's always said... and he's right.

It would be unfair for us to leave a war WE started... to let the people who didn't ask us to start the war in the first place kill each other.

You can say "but but... Bush started it" but guess what. Bush was made president. So that makes Iraq our responsibility now. Just because your a democrat and a republican made a decision doesn't mean you can pull out and wash your hands clean of the situation. Anything that happens after a pull out of troops is as much on your and my hands as it is Bush's.

It won't be "but there terrorists will attack us." or some BS like that but it WILL be bloody civil war and likely genocide... possibly followed by Turky and Iran invaded and splitting the country in half.

How are countries supposed to trust us when whenever we make a mistake we can pull up and leave in 4 years by going "Whooops that was that other political party... not us! Not our problem."

America uses blaming the other party for all the mistakes as a "get out of jail free card" and I'm sure other countries are sick of it by now.