LOL, Hope it didnt stink too bad. Dont leave out the first part "From a Policy Standpoint".  Trump is horrible at articulating his point, his ideas for the most part I agree with.  

You are not getting my point.  The point is that those things are taxed and nothing is going to change anytime soon if ever.  I totally agree there needs to be an accounting to what is taxed and exactly where that money goes.  I know in some neighborhoods, I actually see that money used.  I see improvements in roads, schools, rec centers, parks etc.  I have also seen the opposite where you see nothing.

My main point is that the estate tax is no different than the taxes we pay for a bonus or if we win the lottery or if someone wins the lottery and give you 50 grand or any of the personal gain taxes we pay now.  Why should we the public give the rich a free ride when we do not get one as well.  So my stance is hell no to any of these billionaires trying to get something passed that totally benefit them but not trying to give us the 99% the same benefit.  Get rid of the bonus or personal gain taxes we pay and then I can see myself agreeing with getting rid of the estate tax.

Okay so how it works is that taxable income is what is assessed in the example.  This implys that both Worker One and Two have applied applicable deductions to their gross income to arrive at a tax bracket for which this example applies.  Well thats the only way to think about the example because that is what tax actually is... a return is (income - deductions) * tax rate... in laymens terms.  Owed tax and entitled returns are the same thing mathmatically, just opposites. 

The problem is if you tax the rich too much they would just leave which means we get nothing. A lot of companies move their company to Canada and other countries. 

Taxing the rich to death means they will leave and you'll miss them when they're gone. Besides, Government wastes a lot of money they could easily cut back on certain things.

I believe people forgot about Mitt Romeny.  When Mitt Romeny showed his tax returns we all found out that he paid less in taxes then his own maid.  It's crazy how people actually believe the Rich pay taxes the same has the average person on the street.

The crazy part is that we want to spend another 50 billion on a wall and 50 billion on the military when we could put that money and try to improve education level of the country and thus get people to work, creating new jobs, industries and pushing the country forward.

1. No one paid 90% tax rate back then. There was a lot of loopholes and more than you think back then. Second, a strong defense in military spending is necessary for not only protection, but it pushes technology further for us and generated us a lot of money.

2. We spend over a hundred billion dollars on illegal immigrants a year as it is. If the wall can stop them from coming in (or at least make it harder) it can benefit us greatly. 50 billion for one year an estimated 150 million a year to maintain can benefit us in the long run.

 3. Other countries don't tax as much on their companies like we do that's why we see a lot of companies building their HQ in other countries to avoid higher taxes. Which means we get nothing at all. 

There is also something called the Laffer curve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s

1. We have ourselves and our allies to protect. With countries like Russia and China we need to keep investing in our military and make sure we have the best technology available. Having the best military and teaming up with NATO makes it where no country wants to mess with us so it saves us a lot of money and lives in the long run. The military has helped innovate and create a lot of technology we use today. GPS, microwaves, air travel,ect.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/modern-civilian-tech-made-possible-wartime-research-development/

2. Illegal immigrants cost American taxpayer jobs. We have to spend 135 billion dollars for illegal immigrants and they hurt our education system since we have to lower the standard and spend more resources on them (I know from personal experience). They only make up a good chunk of the workforce due to cheap labor because they don't pay taxes or do the simple things like getting car insurance/register their cars. More Americans would get those jobs if they paid a little more or if we have a shortage for some reason we could easily create a similar H-2B program for it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/record-135-billion-a-year-for-illegal-immigration-average-8075-each-25000-in-ny/article/2635757

3. We waste so much money in the government we could easily eliminate high taxes on companies. Big companies or billionaires wouldn't move to those countries if we were more competitive. Since we both agree companies and people move their money elsewhere we get nothing from it. Offshore accounts aren't just for taxes, but for protection to diversify your portfolio. Some Countries also use the U.S as an offshore banking so it's a mutual thing. 

The laffer curve is an economic theory that some disagree while some agree with. I personally agree with it because why couldn't a company or a billionaire move their money else where if they start getting taxed a lot.

1. This site you listed does not validate their numbers.  The do not list any of their sources on how they get their calculations.  Also when I say list I mean a link that I can go to to verify their data.  Without the links those numbers are pretty much made up.

2.  If we waste so much money in the government then we do not need to spend so much like 65% just on our Military.  With the amount of money we spend on the Military right now we could improve every school in America twice over.  Hell, we could give free rides to any college for all kids so all our children has a chance to have a higher education which would put them all to work, creating Jobs improving the economy.  I have no problems with improving the tax code, I have a problem just giving the rich a free ride and believe somehow they will put back into the US.  This has already been done multiple times and each time the corporations just repurchase their stock, pay their CEOs more and just purchase bigger items and still move their assets to even cheaper countries.

I actually have a little bit of insight in a few of the things you guys are discussing if you don't mind me jumping in.

1) So I did a bit of reading on how military spending affects GDP a few weeks back. Obviously being an economic question, theres a lot of disagreement as to the effects (economists never agree on anything), but the common consensus that I found was that, in the USA, military spending has a close to neutral effect of GDP. Some papers show it with a slight negative effect (dampening GDP due to increased federal debt) while others show it with a slight positive effect (increasing GDP due to the economic contributions of military development and R&D). 

What this largely means, is that while the effect of the spending itself is relatively neutral, it is inefficient. Spending a portion of that money elsewhere (say, education or infrastructure) would likely produce a greater positive effect on GDP (without ballooning the federal debt which would be the effect of increasing spending everywhere). 

Sources: 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07388940490463906 - "Findings are robustly substantiated and reveal that military spending and growth have neither a statistical nor an economic impact on each other. This suggests that current U.S. political debates opposing or favoring military spending on the grounds of its economic merit are irrelevant."

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/defense-spending-and-economy - "The existing studies found that a dollar increase in federal defense spending results in a less-than-a-dollar increase in GDP when the spending increase is deficit financed. Combining this with a tax multiplier that is negative and greater than one, the authors estimate that over five years each $1 in federal defense-spending cuts will increase private spending by roughly $1.30. "

2) Illegal immigrants do cost the government much more in output than they pay in taxes. However, the question is a lot more complicated than that when you take in the effects of how they spend their money.

First of all, the cost to taxpayers. Yes, there is a cost. What that number is however, isn't quite as clear. What was provided above (roughly $100billion after factoring in taxes paid) is pretty much the highest estimate out there. Other estimates range from $6billion to $50billion to $85billion (after roughly adjusting for population changes). So yeah, there is a cost, but I'd say an average estimate would be closer to $70billion than $130billion.

Next comes unemployment. The typical logic is that immigrants take jobs, but that isn't factoring in the demand they create. Because of this, the impact on unemployment is basically null.

Finally, wages. Again, the effect isn't as strong as many people think. Most studies find a small decrease in wages of the high school dropout demographic and basically no impact, or even a slightly positive impact elsewhere.

Then there are the positive effects. Most notably, illegal immigration helps keep costs down. This goes for pretty much everything from food to houses. Because of this, the spending power of American families increases, meaning their earnings go further. This leads to overall, illegal immigration largely being a wash. You have slightly higher government spending but reduced consumer costs, increasing spending power and helping businesses. Because of this, high cost efforts to reduce illegal immigration largely are harmful economically.

Sources:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-illegal-immigration-costs-113-bi/ - Presents numerous estimates for taxpayer cost of illegal immigration.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/05/04/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/ - Summary from Brookings about the effects of immigration.

3) I don't have any real academic information to share about this last point, but I want to say that reducing government waste would be great. However, that needs to come before or alongside tax decreases. Decreasing taxes without also reducing unproductive government spending inflates the budget which creates longterm woes far outweighing short term gain (that information is from a CBO report somewhere but I can't remember which one and it seems like common sense so I don't think I need to source it). 

4) Finally, quick note about the Laffer curve. It is a full parabola. That means just decreasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue. There is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. Proof needs to be put forward to show that decreasing taxes will increase revenue in order to use the Laffer Curve in your argument (assuming anyone puts any stock in the Laffer Curve at all). 

Yea like the fucking military.  So much fucking waste in military but republicans give the military a blank check...  Amazing what 43 million dollar natural gas station in Afghanistan can do...  Where they had to spend most of the money converting vehicles to natural gas in order to use the damn thing...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-burns-43-million-to-build-gas-station-in-afghanistan-2015-11-02

But no let us just cut social programs in USA and let the military waste all the fucking money in the world.  I am so fucking proud of all the money wasted by our military.  If your against it then you are a fucking traitor and a pussy!