Upon dying, a person's wealth should NOT be taken by the government.

My opponent's assumption that I presume all taxation to be bad is false. For one, I am a democrat. Two, I noted in my argument that I clearly supported paying taxes (I suggested a deceased individual should be required to pay income taxes the following 4/15 after their death). However Con was noting that my wording was illogical -- I disagree -- but I do feel the need to clarify. When I stated, "I believe that an individual has the right to do as they please with their own money" I was referring to after their death. I continued to say, "I can invest it [my money] any way that I choose while living, and thanks to the legal documentation known as wills, I can even invest that money any way that I choose after my death!" My opponent agrees that one's will should be respected. However he believes that because an inheritance is a bonus, one didn't really "earn it" and therefore it deserves to be subjected to taxation from the government. I disagree for a few reasons: 1. By this logic, if my mom bakes me cookies just because she felt like it, I should be forced to share some of those cookies because I did nothing to earn them. 2. My opponent is assuming that one did nothing to earn that inheritance. Often times a child will inherit their parent's business/money/estate after working hard with their parents prior to the death. Next my opponent establishes, "What you have to distinguish here is that the wealth isn't being taxed, but rather the transfer of wealth." Okay so suppose I am away at college and my parents wish to send me money in the mail. They send me a check for $100. Well the postage for that transfer of wealth DID cost some money (about 35 cents); however, it was not a fraction of the amount being transfered but rather a set amount of money that is to be paid by everyone who wishes to transfer wealth via mail. Finally on this subject, my opponent asks, "Lottery winners have to pay taxes, why shouldn't people gaining inheretances?" Well playing the lottery is a form of gambling, and in fact the lottery was specifically designed to raise money for the government. Gambling and winning money verses receiving an inheritance are completely different things, and should not be subjected to the same rules of taxation. Moving on, my opponent asserts that taxation of one's estate is estimated at about 50 percent... 50 percent! That means that one's inherited wealth (rightfully earned by their predecessor) is cut in half! Again Con reminds us that winning the lottery and other bonuses are subjected to the same taxation. So again I must vehemently disagree that one's inheritance be regarded/taxed as some lucky break. Think of it this way: any moron off the street could endure a strike of good luck win the lottery. In playing the lottery, this individual has accepted that half of the reward would be taxed by the government. That is not the case regarding an estate tax. Consider a father founding a company and working hard to sustain it. Upon his death, his child expects to receive the wealth that his father worked so hard for and left behind for his family. Why should the government be allowed to take half of his father's earnings? Especially since the father already pays what he owes the government via his INCOME TAXES. If he hadn't yet for that year, then like I said - one final payment on his behalf could be paid on the following April 15th after his death. To support his point, Con mentions that only estates worth over 2 million dollars are subjected to estate taxation. This only proves my point that estate taxes are unfair; they only impose a ridiculously high tax rate upon the wealthy. Con argues that because $2 million is a large sum of money, it is okay to subject citizens to unfair taxation (unfair for all of the reasons I have provided in my argument). He points out that in the year 2,000, "ONLY" 52,000 estates were subjected to the tax. In my opinion, that's 52,000 estates too many. My opponent's same New York Times source mentions that once the estate tax is fully repealed, the treasury would lose $70 BILLION DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR. That $70 billion/year is money that could be pumped back into feeding the economy (instead of funding an unjust war, but I digress :P). Anyway, just because the number of estates being taxed since 2,000 has decreased, doesn't mean that an estate tax is the right thing to do as my opponent wrongfully suggests. To conclude his argument, Con again brings up taxation in general, and how the government ultimately decides where our tax dollars are dispersed. As I've mentioned, I do not denounce all forms of taxation. However my point was not about the problems of dispersing tax dollars in general. My contention is that the government *already receives* tax money to disperse via income taxes and various other forms of taxation - sales tax, property taxes, etc. Thus upon one's death, the government is actually the one receiving a bonus (a $70 billion dollars a year bonus to be precise), and that bonus is not justified.