>>>>So, you are advocating for very high federal estate taxes that would take most of the wealth out of a family?
>>>
>>>I'm advocating for reasonable federal estate taxes with a high enough threshold that most families wouldn't be affected. I'd also like to see the threshold indexed for inflation.
>>>
>>>http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes/a/historicalestatetaxchart.htm and wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxes/a/estatetaxchart.htm show that since it was enacted, both the threshold and the tax rate have varied. I haven't the time to see how the thresholds compare when corrected for inflation. The top rate shown of 77% seems high to me. I haven't really thought about what the right number is, but I think it probably should be comparable to the top income tax bracket.
>>
>>Why have any threshold at all?
>>Why not just take the entire part of every estate?
>>The owner is dead, he won't care.
>
>Because that's not the point. Pretty much every time money changes hands, we tax it. So when money changes hands from the deceased to the beneficiary, we should tax it. Like all other taxes, it should be reasonable.

Remember, you were showing some agreement or sympathy for Bill's assertion that large estates are somehow bad and must be taxed away so that no family dynasties are formed.

Estate tax is the second bite.
The money was already taxed when earned.

Why the fig leaf of the "high enough threshold?"
So, the threshold is if the exemption is set high enough that you and your friends pay marginal or no tax?
But those evil rich people will fork over the bulk of their estates?