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." Once again, respected to an extent. Furthermore, I am not strawmaning your case. You said, word-for-word: "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. " Does this not imply that a person who is dead has more of a right to do as they please than a living person does? After all, you were only referring to people after their death. And either way you look at it, you're still becoming more committed to the dead than to the living. Why are we giving more respect to a dead person that no longer has any use for that money than we do to the living people that it can help? You are effectively putting the dead above the living. "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." You missed the point of my argument. You were trying to get across that you don't pay taxes on your mother's gift of a cookie. My point was that these taxes only apply on large sums, because we want to keep the transfer of wealth to a minimum. We want to make sure that people actually deserve their wealth rather then just inhereting all of it (this is an idea that my opponent has largely ignored. Your mother's cookie in this scenario is the family heirloom that is still protected. "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." First of all, I have proven why they deserve to be taxed. It is, once again, the idea that you ignored of keeping the transfer of wealth to a minimum. No, the point of the 2% thing is a cost-benefit analuysis. We're taxing in 2% of all cases, agnd gaining $70 billion because of it. This gives us a larger benefit than the cost, so the CON clearly wins on a cost-benefit analysis, even if you accept that the estate tax is bad. "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." Once again, that doesn't matter, because we're only worried about large sums, because we don't want the LARGE TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO HAPPEN. We want to keep this to a minimum,a nd want to make sure that people aren't simply inhereting a fortune. "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." And the estate tax balances both. It takes half of the money to keep the transfer of wealth minimal, and it leaves half to be spent as the owner pleases. "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?" Once again, it is fair because we are not taxing the money, we are taxing the transfer of the money. Since your parents are transferrign more money, they are taxed more. "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." But... The governemnt takes the money with EVERY TAX "just because. You don't ahve a say in it, either. You accept that wen you're transferrign wealth that you have to pay this tax, anyway. You haven't proven a clear difference that means taxes should be different. "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." The problem is an the reason why you're contradicting yourself is that you have given no reason as to why the government is entitled to this moeny, and not the other money. Lacking any valid reason for this, you have to vote CON. "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." 1.) There is no reason why the dead should have rights. Even if they do, we should uphold the rights of the living first. 2.) The government gains $70 billion to help the living that are part of their society. How is this hurting the living are left behind? "By this logic, it's okay for me to steal from designer stores like Gucci and Armani because they make a lot of money." You misinterpreted the CBA. The benefits of robbing this store do not outweigh the costs, as you are risking going to jail for stealing a coat. It truly benefits neither party. What you have to look at here is that the cost of taxing 2% of all cases to KEEP THE TRANSFER OF WEALTH MINIMAL is outweighed by the $70 billion the government gains in order to better uphold the social contract. My opponent tries to work around the CBA, but that's not really fair. Why? Because he's attempting to make the CON absolutely prove something. THis is never to be expected in a debate. My opponent is the one who is utting abusive burdens on me. Now look at these voting issues: -My opponent loses a CBA. -The dead are not more important than the living. -There is no reason why the government is entitled to other taxes but not the estate tax, as my opponent claims. Even if there is a reason, my opponent has not offered one. -The estate tax balances an individual's right to disperse their money with keeping the transfer of wealth to a minimal (hence why we're only taxing larger amounts). Cleary, the CON has won this debate.