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

Thank you for the challenge! This will be the first serious debate that I've had in awhile that wasn't against some libertarian who didn't know what they were talking about! Even though you are arguing a view point that is more libertarian... But that doesn't matter. :) Anyways, first, I'd like to point out that the way to list your support for certain things on Debate.org is not truly sufficient. This is true of the estate tax. While I support the estate tax, I do still believe in respecting a person's will, at least to some extent. However, since this resolution that you are affirming offers an absolute engative rather than a partial negative, this distinction should not really matter in the debate. I just wanted to make the clarification. But let's go into your argument. "I believe that an individual has the right to do as they please with their own money, whether it's spending it on frivolous material goods, investing in lucrative projects, or giving it to a homeless person on the street. It is their money - they've either earned it or inherited it - and nobody should be allowed to take what is rightfully theirs and disperse it as they please." Under this logic, all taxing is bad. You make the same illogical argument that leads to all forms of taxing being bad several times thoughout the debate. I'll get more in-depth with that premise later in this round, but for now suffice it to say that if an individual should be able to do whatever they want with their money, then it doesn't matter what the tax is, it's bad. NOw, we can't have a system without any taxes, as much as people dislike them. Without taxes, our government falls apart. But I'll return to this idea later. "I can invest it 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!" Okay, I agree with you. A will should be respected. But to what extent? You see, inheretances are basically a bonus; you didn't have it before and you didn't really do anything to earn it. I don't see why bonuses shouldn't be taxed. You get something extra, but because you didn't really earn it, there's nothing wrong with the government taking some of that. What you have to distinguish here is that the wealth isn't being taxed, but rather the transfer of wealth. You still get your inheretance, you simply have to pay some taxes on it, just like you do with bonuses. Lottery winners have to pay taxes, why shouldn't people gaining inheretances? "Conrad Hilton himself left virtually all of his fortune to the charity when he died, a charity that he founded to do great things... yet my opponent's position of being In Favor of the Estate Tax would mean that all or most of one's estate be mandated to go directly to the government upon one's passing." It's not all or most. The actual rates average around 50% (because of changes in the law, it changes from year to year). Now, sure, this seems like a large amount of taxing, but bonuses are taxed generally at 50%. What you also must remember is that only estates above a certain level are taxed. In 2008, that level is $2,000,000 at a max tax rate of 45% (http://www.finance.cch.com...). So, the thing is, you're only going to be taxed if your estate is over 2 million dollars. And even if it is over 2 million, that first 2 million dollars isn't taxed. So, if your estate being passed down is $2,000,001, then only that $1 is taxed. So you have to pay $0.45. So, in reality, the estate tax only comes into play with very few people. For example, in 2000 (which had a lower level that was able to tax and a higher max rate), only about 52,000 estates (2 percent) were subject to the tax (http://www.nytimes.com...). This number has dropped over the past eight years. "First, it is more wise for an individual to invest in a trustworthy organization that they believe in than to invest in the government. Say I died and $1B of mine went to the White House. Certainly George Bush would be using that money to continue to wage war on Islamic nations - a war that I do not agree with. Therefore my money is being used to support policies that I do not." First, I'd like to point out that you cannot necessarily count on an individual to donate to a trustworthy organization any more than you can count on the government to use the money wisely. But right here, you have another logical fallacy. Your objection is to how the government might use the money. But this problem is non-unique to the estate tax. It exists with EVERY tax. You talk about supporting the income tax toward the end of your case, but the government could still use this taxed moeny in ways that the taxpayer doesn't want. By your logic, every tax is unjust. But taxing isn't unjust. First of all, it is justified through the social contract. We expect the government to do certain things: protect our rights, provide stability, etc. In order to do these things, we are expected to give the government the ability to do these things. In order for the government to have this ability, it needs money. It is not only justified, but it is a necessity. Also, keep in mind that even if the government does things that you don't agree with, it's not necessarily your money that is supporting it. Since the tax money goes into a pool of government funds, all of that money is divided. Who's to say that your dollar isn't going to support the program that you want? Since all the money is part of the same funding, we cannot distinguish whose tax is supporting what. "And since it is my money, I should be able to support whatever programs I choose - not leave it up to the government to decide how my money gets dispersed." Once again, the governemnt decides how all tax money is dispersed, so in order for you to carry this argument through the debate, you have to be willing to denounce all taxes. Seeing as how you support both a national sales tax and the flat tax, I'm assuming that you don't denounce all taxes. You have to keep in mind that it doesn't matter what tax it is, the government decides how your moeny is dispersed with every tax. This is a non-unique problem to the estate tax. Furthermore, making donations to charities gives you a what? A tax-write off. Now, of course, this write off isn't immediate and you have to go through the proper paperwork, but such inconviences are the price you have to pay in order to uphold the social contract. So, ultimately, if you make a donation, you don't pay as much in taxes. And you claim the system is unfair? "Another reason why an estate tax is wrong is because it can hurt the family of the individual whose estate is being taken away." Once again, I'd like to point out that these estates being taxed are less than 2 percent of all estates. So, even if I grant you that it's bad in this sense (which I don't), I should still win on a cost-benefit analysis, as you have only shown a harm in less than 2 percent of all estates. And as for the heirloom thing, the IRS isn't interested in taking my guitar. They're interested in its fair market value, and they tax for money. The problem arises when I don't have enough money to meet the tax, and I have to sell the heirloom in order to pay the tax. But this isn't a problem with the estate tax. Why? Because only the wealthy wind up being taxed! They'll be able to compensate for what ever taxes that may exist upon any heirloom. If I inheret an heirloom like a guitar from my grandfather and nothing else, chances are it's not worth $2 million. I don't have to pay any taxes on it. I'm running out of characters, and I believe I've made every point that I need to (though not every point that I want to). Your turn and good luck!