Who cares?  They are already rich.  The rich suppress the minority here.  The rich are minority but rule over majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/trump-electoral-college-minority.html

Seriously Lucker you have to come at me with better shit.  Quite honestly the more you talk the more it shows you don't know shit.  You even admitted you don't even live in this country.  So why don't you take a back seat and see how shit is so corrupt here?  I won't comment on your country if you don't comment on mine especially if you don't know shit.

(1) There is literally no tax in the United States designed such that a person should, upon making MORE money, be left with LESS money after taxes than if they had done nothing.  I won't say it's completely impossible, with the crazy, massive patchwork of tax breaks, credits, incentives, penalties, etc., but if it happens it directly contradicts the designed function of our tax code.  Agree/disagree—if disagree, evidence please.  If agree, I trust you will not ever bring this point up again. 

(2) Do you really intend to say that ALL taxation is theft?  Because that is literally what you're saying.  (If it's not mandatory/compulsory, it's not taxation but rather donation.) 

2.5  If taxation is not inherently theft, and assuming that SOME taxes must be collected, do you think that the taxes should be designed to inflict the least palpable harm?  Or should the taxes be spread more equally across the population, even if it means taking money from people who will, as a result, starve, be unable to afford medical care, lose their jobs, lose their small businesses, etc.?  Or do you favor a third option (other than "do less harm to people" and "tax more equally")? 

I was specifically talking about estate tax and inheritance tax. The deceased had already paid their share of fair taxes, why do you feel entitled to take more of his/her money? because you think they have too much of it? What is too much money anyway? Who gets to decide? 

One can simply argue that 100k dollars is too much money to be passed to your kids without giving some of it to the government, because 100k dollars can be considered too much money. Hell, even 100 can be too much.

More than half of the people voted for Clinton, but the weird voting system in USA ...

The headline shows a fundamental lack of understanding how taxes work. Poor incomes already have 100% tax cuts and pay no taxes. With the Trump plan you will pay no taxes for up to 50K$ family income which is quite nice for poor and middle class. High incomers will get most of the tax cuts because they pay most of the taxes.

The Top 1% continues to pay a larger share of the federal income tax burden than the bottom 90 percent combined

https://taxfoundation.org/official-statistics-inequality-top-1-and-redistribution/

You didn't answer point (1). 

(2) If taxation in general is not necessarily theft, why is an estate tax necessarily theft? 

If you are against the estate tax because of the fact that its collected revenue overlaps with wealth already diminished by income taxes over the person's lifetime, are you eqully vehemently opposed to sales taxes collected from money you already are paying income taxes on?  (Or vice versa) 

"Who gets to decide?"  Well, I believe that taxes in the United States are mostly set by legislature, and although our legislative bodies are not ideal they are at least vaguely accountable to the people via elections.  The nitty gritty of collection and the accompanying judgment calls are delegated to agencies like the IRS.  Do you really not know this information? 

I'm not sure I understand what the point of your final argument is.  Is it supposed to be a slippery slope thing?  If so, it's ridiculously weak.

2.5  You also didn't answer this.  I guess you don't have to, but I was really curious what your answer would have been. 

How does the change on that graph compare to the change in the comparative shares of income of those groups over time?  This is not a rhetorical question. 

P.S.  Regarding "pay no taxes", I get the feeling you are talking about Mitt Romney's 47% (that don't pay income taxes).  I believe you'll find that "pay no taxes" isn't generally true of this group when you consider things like payroll taxes.  I don't believe that income taxes should be viewed in a vacuum, disregarding other taxes and their combined overall impact, but you may disagree. 

If I sound ridiculously stupid discussing the matter with you it's because I am ignorant and simply not informed enough about the system of taxation in the USA or elsewhere, and as we know, ignorance breeds stupidity, apologies for that. I'll stop using terms like estate tax and inheritance tax because I am not entirely sure what they entail yet.

The only thing I can tell you is that I think taking money only from millionaires, after they've passed away, sounds like a very discriminatory concept. And yes, it does sound like theft to me when it's applied to a very small group of the population. And what's the rational behind such applying this tax selectively? "They have too much money", which is, again, a very subjective definition. 

The original post you quoted was me respoing to Signalstar, who argues that passing a lot of money to your relatives encourge them to be lazy. I find that argument extremely hypocritical, because it is, in a way, similar to the argument the people on the right make when they disucss welfare programs; "they encourge the poor to be lazy". At least, when rich people are encourged to be lazy, they will be not be a burden on the rest because they can simple live off what they have, unlike the poor.

Hats off for Trump and the rich for fighting against it, that's how minorities should react when they're oppressed. Some people worked their entire lives to provide the best life they can to their children, for many, it's the sole motivation that keeps them going, not the government. 

Finally, I am not dodging your questions,I am simply not informed enough to answer them

Actually, it's raise taxes on the people who voted for him.