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

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

That's pretty sweet for them, then. What about me? I should make about $80k this year.

That's pretty sweet for them, then. What about me? I should make about $80k this year.

"In 2004 under President George W. Bush, Washington let corporations temporarily bring money from offshore profits at a flat rate of around 5.25%. But a few years later, Bush's own chief economic advisors said there was no evidence that jobs were created as a result."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/09/12/bringing-overseas-corporate-profits-back-to-us-not-necessarily-a-job-booster/

Guess what??  They bought back shares instead of bringing jobs.

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."

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)

You sound like someone who's butthurt rich people have a lot of money. For the life of me, I'll never understand the rationalizing behind what you are proposing, which is basically stealing. It also encourges rich people to stop reaching new heights, which would ultimately hurt the poor and the middle class.

(1) The rich hire others to INCREASE their wealth, if they realize that increasing their wealth will ultimately decrease it, they will stop hiring. Even if that was not the case, (2) taking money from people who earned it legally isn't moral, it's theft. It doesn't matter if the majority voted to steal that money, it's still theft.

Oh, and like the guy you quoted, I obviously don't have 5 millions in my bank account.

(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.