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

I hate throwing around trite phrases like straw man in a debate; however, my opponent is clearly twisting my words around in an attempt to make himself look better. For example, he first exclaims that I am indicating a dead person has more rights (regarding dispersement of their funds) than a living individual. That is clearly not the case. What I said -- I'll repeat it for about the 4th or 5th time now -- was that after a person dies, they should be required to pay their income taxes on the following 4/15 after their death. That way the government still gets the money it "rightfully deserves" and the individual (who is DEAD) has absolutely no say in where the government decides to spend his or her tax money. HOWEVER, the dead person DOES have the right to decide where the REST of their money goes after their death via a will... a will that my opponent agrees should be respected. This policy is essentially the same as how a living person must pay a certain amount of their money to the government (and has no say over tax dispersement); however, they can spend the rest of their money as they please. So obviously what I am advocating for is justice on behalf of the deceased individual -- I am in no way claiming that a dead person has more rights than a living person. So again, I hate trite phrases like "my opponent is being abusive" in a debate (it sounds so whiney), but in all honesty, Con has clearly purposefully distorted my argument here and throughout the rest of the round. A second example of this "abusiveness" comes about when he challenges me to prove that my mother's cookies are worth $2 million. What does that have to do with my point? My argument concluded that according to his logic -- that inheritances should be taxed because they are an unwarranted bonus -- if my mom bakes me cookies, I should be expected to share them because he ASSUMES that I haven't earned them, and they are therefore not rightfully mine but rather a bonus. Well like I said later on in the round, it doesn't matter if only estates over $2 million are taxed. If it is an unfair policy, it shouldn't be implemented whether only estates over $20 million were taxed, or estates over 20 cents were taxed. The bottom line is that it's unfair either way. My opponent hasn't proved why estates over $2 million deserve to be taxed whereas others do not (who not tax cheaper estates too?), or even why estates over $2 million deserve to be taxed in general. Throughout the rest of his round, my opponent repeatedly claims that because only 2% of estates are taxed, this somehow makes it okay. He is completely missing the point, but I hope the readers are not. What's funny (or "abusive" lol) is how Con attempts to turn this all around and claim that *I'm* the one not understanding HIM. For instance, he first makes the claim that the estate tax exists to tax the TRANSFER of wealth. I argued this by presenting the example of my parents sending me a $100 check via mail. The cost to send me the check would have been 35 cents either way (for postage), whether the check was for $100 or 1 penny. That's in terms of the actual "transfer" here. However my opponent pointed out that by transfer he meant the transfer of wealth between generations. But what Con is not realizing is that the example of my parents sending me a check applies to this argument too. He writes, "We want the younger generation to work just as hard as the older, rather than simply inhereting wealth and contributing nothing to society." By this logic, a parent should no longer assist their children (I'm assuming once they're 18?) by giving them money when the children should be working for it themselves. Well, a good work ethic is a great ideology, I'll admit. But one's right to spend their money how they see fit - money that isn't going to the government via taxes - is also a great ideology. Now of course my opponent will say, "Well your parents should only have to pay a tax if they send you a check for $2 million or more." But again he is missing the point. If my parents are worth 20 million dollars and decide to give me 1/5 of their money - 4 million dollars - they are taxed HALF that amount, and in turn I would receive only $2 million. But if John Doe's parents are worth 5 million dollars and decide to give him 1/5 of their money - 1 million dollars - they aren't taxed, and he gets to keep the entire million. How does this seem fair? Clearly I understand the logic behind it (rich people have more money so they won't miss it as much); however, that does not make it a fair or just policy at all. What the government is saying is that rich people deserve to be taxed simply because they are wealthy. Next I'd like to present a CLEARLY "abusive" paragraph in which my opponent literally ignores all of my arguments and blatantly distorts the course of the debate. It came about after I pointed out that paying taxes on lottery wins and paying taxes on estate inheritances are two totally different things. Con writes, "Why are they completely different? You've given no reason why they are different in any way. In both scenarios we're talking about rather large bonuses." LOL okay... First, I already explained that the two are different because one instance is a form of gambling, and one is not. While gambling (in playing the lottery, for example), one accepts the fact that the government will take almost 1/2 of their winnings and they decide to gamble anyway. Regarding inheritances, an individual has no say on the outcome - the goverment will take almost 1/2 of their money just because. So yes, although both scenarios are discussing large bonuses, they ARE different and I HAVE explained how/why. So finally, as to your point, "And even if you want to accept that they're different, you have given no valid reason why an estate shouldn't be taxed." That again is a blatant lie. Repeatedly, I have insisted that an estate should not be taxed because an individual has the right to distribute their money as they please outside of regular government taxes (not including the estate tax). One pays taxes based on their income, property, etc, and that is money that the goverment is "entitled to" and can disperse as it pleases. I acknowledge that upon one's death, they shall pay one final tax payment to the government during that tax year for which the goverment can use to their liking. But just as an individual could spend the rest of their non-tax-money however they please while alive, they should also be allowed to disperse those funds via a will after their death. To disagree is (1) to assume that the deceased have no rights (but let's not get into the morality of this debate in Round 3), and (2) to punish the living that are left behind. Next I'd like to move on to my opponent's so-called "cost benefit analysis." Several times he claims that my points are invalid because he wins based on this CBA. For instance, I provided an example in which half of a hard working father's money is unfairly taken away from his son upon his death. Con says that this is irrelevant because only wealthy families are taxed (again - it is unfair to penalize someone based on their wealth). Then he has the audacity to make this statement, "the vote should [still] belong to the CON based on a cost-benefit analysis, because this would only happen to a fraction of that 2% [of estates]." By this logic, it's okay for me to steal from designer stores like Gucci and Armani because they make a lot of money. It doesn't matter that I steal from them so long as I don't steal from lower-end small businesses that aren't as successful. This logic is WRONG. Stealing should be wrong in either instance regardless of the store's value. In fact, stealing is still wrong even if I intend to donate those designer clothes to charity... i.e. this high taxation of the wealthy is still unfair, even if it benefits government spending. I urge a PRO vote.