Looking back, I see you did mention the basic fact, but it wasn't really getting at the same thing I was getting at with the "version control" comment.  Let me try another angle:  I don't think the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument really works when nobody can seem to agree on where the heat source actually is, or even prove that there is one. 

However, I have to admit that the above objection doesn't matter as much if you are restricting your argument to simply "the Abrahamic religions have historically proven themselves to be super crazy popular so there must be something in them that people find compelling."  In that case, well I can't disagree with that but I don't see why you would claim that the story of Abraham himself is one of the biggest selling points.  What are you basing that opinion on? 

Ka-pi96 said: Why would you want to understand a viewpoint that's wrong though?

Nothing is flat out wrong most of the time.

Oh, I do understand the viewpoints and I know exactly the motivations behind them.

No, I don't want to sympathize with people who think Nazis are good people.

Nice post

The dead person is not paying any taxes.  Because they're dead.  Dead men tell no tales and pay no taxes.  There are plenty of things they could do with their money when they're gone that will incur no taxes at all.

The person paying the tax is the person who is inheritting what will likely be a minimum of 5 million dollars and did nothing really to earn it aside from being liked by someone who died.  

As for the justification, it's pretty basic.  The government needs money to function.  Programs that are necessary for the successful functioning of a society cost money, and we have to get that money from somewhere.  The idea is to take the money from people who will be least burdened by it.  The estate tax doesn't kick in until about 5 and a half million dollars, and at that point, the effective tax rate is about 10% if you have a really shitty estate lawyer.  Before you cry for victims of the estate tax, remember that someone who is inherriting 7 million dollars, will pay about 600,000 in taxes.  We're talking about the difference between being able to buy 10 lamborghinis or only being able to buy 8.

You can argue that it's unfair, but then life is sometimes unfair.  For instance, it's unfair that one person is going to inherit millions of dollars, through no effort of their own, and another, through no fault of their own,  isn't able to afford basic things like healthcare, food, or housing.  We don't try to completely balance things out by distributing the money equally, but we do try to redistribute enough so that the basic needs of the citizenry are met and we can have a functional society.  That's kind of the basic function of government.

Perhaps it would help if I framed it a little differently.  Here are two different ways of looking at it.  I would appreciate it if you answered the follow-up questions. 

#1: 
The government is currently raising X dollars in taxes.  They do this by income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. etc and the estate tax.  In order to do tax reform in a revenue neutral way, abolishing the estate tax would mean a raise in income tax, or some other tax. 

My follow-up question is thus:  Would you be for or against a proposal to abolish the estate tax while simultaneously raising other taxes to make up the difference? 

Anyone who is against this proposal isn't really opposed to the estate tax but just wants to cut taxes and is using the estate tax as a convenient boogeyman to do so. 

#2: 
The estate tax is nothing more than a "delayed income tax".  Delayed until you die.  Granted, it doesn't work exactly the same as income tax does, but if you have accumulated wealth during your lifetime, surely this could be considered income.  My follow-up question is thus either (A) If you disagree with the "delayed income tax" concept, why? or (B) If not, what is worse about a delayed tax versus one that affects you when you're alive? 

Why shouldn't it be both?  In other words, using random numbers as an example, why would a 35% income tax be better than 30% now and 5% later? 

(To me, I'd think that the longer I get to hang on to my money, the better.  That's why I love the estate tax:  they don't collect it until I'm already dead.  That seems like a better deal than having to pay the same tax while I'm alive.) 

why people still agree that government shouldn't tax religion...

Liberal = right leaning
Conservative = right leaning

Social democratic/socialist = left leaning

Left leaning != (as in not equal to) liberal

So my question to the other side (of the atlantic) why do you call people that want social reforms ”liberals”?

Who thinks Nazi's are good people?