But the man who elects not to leave the bulk of his estate to the government has convincingly to be told that the sacrifice is necessary in order to preserve the country. But of course we all know that tax returns from estates are exiguous, just over 1 percent of annual revenues collected. We are bumping into the question of the moral right to target taxation based on wealth, and here is where the contest should be debated. The argument that there can't be persuasive reason to rewrite a law that affects so few people ought not to be accepted without scrutiny. It is true that only one of a hundred Americans dies having to pay 55 percent of his estate over to the government, and probably true that only one out of a hundred Americans exercises the right to free speech, which doesn't make free speech less august a right.
Liberalism is about protecting the minority, whether from racial or economic discrimination.
On the empirical point, we have to use common sense. And the entire Senate and House voted repeal of the invidious measure. A good question, to which there is no persuasive answer.