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. 

Yes, poor and lower middle clas still pay a lot of other taxes like sales, fuel taxes, government fees and indirectly property tax through their rent. Death and taxes are for sure. The article still does not explain how poor will pay higher taxes if none of these changes effect them (income/corporate/inheritance).

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/trump-tax-reform.pdf

(1) 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.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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. 

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

The rich do not spend their money for the most part. They hoard and save it which helped them get rich in the first place. Consumer spending is by far the largest sector of the US economy. Because of the estate tax some of that money goes to benefit society. It also encourages rich heirs to be innovative and entrepreneurial instead of being lazy and sitting on their money. As it stands, Japan's estate tax means that a sizable fortune would be wiped out in 3 generations unless the heirs invested that money and tried to make it grow. Also if anyone wants the government to receive a smaller amount they can give the money away to charity or invest it in something that will likely create jobs and keep that money flowing through the economy. As it stands the tax only applies to wealth over $5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. That is an extremely high threshold and only benefits the super rich. All of Trump's kid stand to earn hundreds of millions in extra income if this tax is wiped out including Ivanka who works in the White House and has been holding dinners for lawmakers trying to get support for these tax initiatives. It cannot be allowed to pass!

1.  I don't mean to discourage you from participating in discussion, and I hope to see you get back into it after you find out more on the topic, should you choose to do so. 

2.  True, it's subjective, but I think that could be compensated for by putting the tax threshold really high, to allow room for error, so to speak.  And how is an estate tax that only collects from millionaires really different in concept from, say, the top level of a progressive income tax that only collects its highest percentage from million-makers?  Finally, regarding "collect while you are alive" versus "wait till you are dead, then collect", I really don't see the problem there. 

3.  True, I am not completely on board with his reasons, but my post directly replied to what you gave as one of your two main arguments against him, and the one you spent by far the most time on. 

Since you brought it up, let's go back to "estate tax repeal/welfare lets the rich/poor be lazy" for a moment.  I do not personally think a position based mainly on "take away all their money to make them stop being lazy" is sound, rather things like "After a person is already inheriting more than enough to live on comfortably for the rest of his life, why not tax some of additional amounts rather than tax the working poor who it would hurt a lot more?" and "Aside from humanitarian reasons, the economy benefits from propping up the destitute to be able to participate on a minimal level rather than just starving." 

4.  OK, but I had thought this 2.5 was a pretty basic level conceptual question.  Ordinarily I would completely understand if you didn't feel you were knowledgeable enough to be comfortable taking a position on it, but you clearly felt you were qualified to have a position on repealing the estate tax, so I just thought I'd ask you what you thought the entire system for collecting taxes ought to be centered around at its heart.  If you say, "I don't know", or "I thought I knew but now I am not sure what to think so I don't want to give my previous answer", that's a fair answer. 

Assuming that SOME taxes must be collected, do you think that the taxes should be designed to inflict the least palpable harm, even if it means an unfair tax that takes a lot more from people from whom a lot more can be taken without crippling them?  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")?  (from above, modified)

Okay, but regarding the response I made to the main point of your post, which I perceived to be "the burden of taxation has been getting heavier on the rich and lighter on the poor, therefore tax cuts for them are justified" (and please let me know if I misconstrued your point), I repeat my question, "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."

Yes. I live in rural Georgia in a town where the average family makes less than $25k per year and they believed every word he said. 

They will pay no income tax under Trump's plan, so they get 100% tax cuts.