Government would need a lot of money even if it were only to do the things that everyone agrees it must do.

Everyone agrees? OK, that is the absolute minimum, least common denomenator government after conservatives and libertarians get finished with paring down the government to its bare essentials.

That would mean a lot less money required to run the government show, and, along with reducing fraud, waste and mismanagement, earmarks, pork, and payoffs, we just might not need more than a flat tax that earners contribute to on an equal percentage basis.

The progressive tax is theft of our earnings by the government for redistribution to the needy. It should be called what it is--charity, not "welfare". So let us tithe for charity to meet the needs of the unfortunate, as good Christians do.

Let us do away with the progressive tax, lower the substantial government overhead involved, and reduce the dependence mindset created by welfare, instead of charity.

So, you can't point to a single example where the family farm actually had to be sold to pay the estate tax, either.

And I see that you can't actually address the argument. Besides, is being "forced" to sell the farm really the only relevant consideration? It isn't enough that anyone in that situation has to come up with 7 figures in cash in order to keep the farm or business? Sure, if they're foresighted they've purchased a (costly) life insurance policy years earlier, and can come up with the cash that way; or they have other assets to sell that they can raise the cash; or they take out a mortgage against the farm to pay the taxes. But they still have to come up with the cash.

The studies you linked above were deceptive in what they left out. The second one in particular completely elides the fact that the tax thresholds are going back down in 2011. That is a HUGE lie by omission.

But if it makes you feel better, my cousins had to sell the family farm when my aunt and uncle died. So there's your example.

Including the PDF to tax rates over time was very useful in providing insight into how our tax rates have changed and we're seemingly back to the middle '90's period and, as you imply, it didn't kill us or make us poor.

However, when the tax code changed in 1993, taking the tax rate for the highest earners to 39.6%, that rate was based on income of $250,000 or more....today's proposed increase is looking to use the same number, $250,000, as its benchmark for when the new rate kicks in - it is not being adjusted for inflation!

In the government's own CPI calculator, that is available online, $250,000 in 1993 is the same as $365,299 in 2009 dollars....yet we're going to increase taxes on those who today earn more than $250,000 at that rate? The buying power of $250,000 in 2009 dollars is similar to the buying power of $171,093 in 1993.

- the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 established the over-the-counter/prescription distinction we have in pharmaceuticals today. How many people would go to a doctor for prescriptions if they could just go into a drugstore and get the same thing without one? It's a subsidy on physicians.

Perhaps it is a subsidy on physicians, but only an overreaching libertarian would ignore the immense societal cost from people taking pharmaceuticals without knowledge of what they're doing. To take just one obvious example, we'd have long ago lost the effectiveness of every antibiotic available if people could access them every time they had a cold or flu and mistakenly thought they could treat themselves with antibiotics.

I think the topic was general enough that gov't help means conditions set up by gov't - even as far as being able to walk down the street without fear of being shot - you only have to travel to some third world countries to realize how essential that aspect of gov't help is.

Most would agree that its very hard to create wealth either with no gov't (a few anarchists to the contrary), or with total gov't control (a few communists to the contrary). The hard part is finding the sweet spot in the middle where gov't helps set the conditions without stifling citizens.

I find it hard to believe that people are missing this rather obvious point that ggr makes. To me, the difference is night and day between an entrepreneur who builds wealth (including personal wealth) by leveraging the system that was set up and enabled by government (leveraging in a way that then provides benefits to the society as a whole), and a situation where an entrepreneur is given unfair advantages by government in order to build wealth. It's as clear as the distinction between consensual sex and rape in terms of how power is yielded in each situation.

The government obviously creates certain circumstances to allow fair competition to flourish (that's the whole point.) Copyrights and patents exist to protect against theft of intellectual property. Those circumstances in my opinion would generally be the conditions for fair competition which most in society would agree upon.

It's when government puts its finger on the scales that the citizens should object, because that's giving power to certain individuals to profit at the expense of others, without those individuals having done anything to earn the advantage (other than of course, making corrupt deals with the politicians.)

Now, let's discuss a specific example. I used to know a family that owned land outside of Austin, TX....Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that the family patriarch and his spouse both die in 2011...

So, you can't point to a single example where the family farm actually had to be sold to pay the estate tax, either.

Also re this:

Forcing families to deal with death tax issues while their family member is in the ICU or hospice is completely disgusting.

What I think is really disgusting is forcing families under these stresses to argue with for-profit insurance companies trying to cancel coverage when it's most needed, and to make decisions about whether to pay for Dad's pills or for junior's tuition, or the mortgage, or the grocery bill. But I'm guessing you'd file all that under "personal responsibility."

IMB was going to acquire Intel and the Carter administration said no and filed suit. Had IBM been allowed to acquire Intel then Microsoft would have had no other choice then to sell out to IBM as well given the fact that there would have been no Intel clone market. By the time Reagan came along the in '81 and dropped the suit it was too late, the clone market had been established and Microsoft was allowed to become what it is today.

Microsoft, as a sand alone company, was a creation of government in the best tradition of government trust busting (with many thanks to TR).

The death tax and your concept of it ignores the fact that it guts ranches, farms, and small businesses.

Please. As some others have generously pointed out, not only does the Estate Tax have a major exemption (up to several million dollars, which is greater than the value of most small businesses and farms), but they don't have a single example on record of a family losing a farm or small business to it.

The idle rich have extensive planning in place to makes sure they don't pay the tax. So it tends to hammer the working business owners who don't consider themselves wealthy and have not done the extensive planning the wealthy have done.

That's an argument for changing the exemptions to minimize this (or to encourage charitable donations), not an argument for getting rid of the Estate Tax.

In the case of ranches and farms the death tax may also take away the families houses and places where they have lived for years.

Find me an actual example (or better yet, a study showing that this is a major problem), and I might be inclined to believe you.

Well as I suggested, there is the largish question of what constitutes 'government help'. We can certainly argue about whether not copyrights are a valid function of government, or indeed the entire idea of intellectual property, but I rather got the idea that we were talking about direct payments to individuals from government.

I think the topic was general enough that gov't help means conditions set up by gov't - even as far as being able to walk down the street without fear of being shot - you only have to travel to some third world countries to realize how essential that aspect of gov't help is.

Most would agree that its very hard to create wealth either with no gov't (a few anarchists to the contrary), or with total gov't control (a few communists to the contrary). The hard part is finding the sweet spot in the middle where gov't helps set the conditions without stifling citizens.

That will also eliminate the possibility of any but the very few and powerful to get rich (see Somalia, Afghanistan).

You forget America's own history.
You see, government being out of the picture can work and often did... but required people of integrity, you see.

Sure he can, but he'll be naming a warlord in Afghanistan or Somalia,..

I'll have to drop Gates a note with this one.

I hate to mention this for fear of threadjacking but could someone make a good liberty argument for the abolition of inheritance taxes for me?

Of course.It certainly is enough; the right of property. The right to decide where your property goes upon your death. Inheritance taxes usurp that right.

Without the government Bill Gates would still be programming in his parents' basement. Without copyrights, a government creation,

Well as I suggested, there is the largish question of what constitutes 'government help'. We can certainly argue about whether not copyrights are a valid function of government, or indeed the entire idea of intellectual property, but I rather got the idea that we were talking about direct payments to individuals from government.

ps: EB, who wrote that?

I had been listening to old English and Celtic folk songs all day long after I got home from church. I love the simplicity of the lyrics to say so much.
Then, I decided today is my monthly Merlot Maniac euphoria day. As you know, it aids in digestion, that red wine.
On a bit of whimsy, I just put that together. It's from my heart, inspired with what I think, and fortified with some cheap Merlot.