Because I left the other points for later, I feel obliged to address them now. In response to my contention:
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
B) ... [O]ne of the aspirations of the nation is to make opportunity as equally available as possible. Rather than adopting policies that exacerbate inherent inequality (e.g., cutting taxes for the richest), I favor policies that enhance equity, (e.g., the Unified Gift and Estate Tax). I believe in progressive tax systems, and social safety net programs for that reason.
You replied:
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions, and the first $50,000 of income is not taxed. The rich already pat most of the income taxes collected. Increasing the taxes on them will not help anyone. ....
The rich pay MORE than their fair share!
The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed! It was taxed when the people who have it earned it! Why should our government get up to 55% of someone's estate just because they die? Double taxation is wrong! If you really want to improve people's lives get our government out of their lives! Wealth can be created even under the worst possible circumstances. The original Avon lady Our country was founded on the principle of the opportunity to create wealth. It was not created on the principle of government helping people!
I need to address this in detail, starting with the last - with which I completely disagree. There are two specific provisions that contradict your contention: The Preamble, and Art. I, Section 8 - the "General Welfare" clauses. Now, I know you are going to once again quote Madison to say that "general welfare" doesn't mean anything, but that view a) was expressed after-the-fact, and b) not the majority view of the founders or commentators (See, e.g., Federalist 30 and 34; Justice Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States), nor the one that has prevailed in the Supreme Court (See U.S. v. Butler (1936); Helvering v. Davis (1937) (upholding the Social Security Act); and South Dakota v. Dole (1984) (upholding the National Minimum Drinking Age Act).

Having laid that out in detail, let me get to the other points. I'm going to take them in reverse order: You claim, "The money that is taxed by Unified Gift and Estate Tax has already been taxed!" Almost entirely untrue. I have addressed this issue at length in numerous posts, but the short answer is, that taxes are only imposed upon a "taxable event". (This was my area of practice for most of my career.) In most Estate and Gift Tax scenarios, that "taxable event" has never happened. As an example: Parents buy a house for $30,000.00. 30 years later, they die. The $350,000 house passes to their son. That $320,000 "gain" has never been taxed. The same would be true for a 401(k), an IRA, and most capital assets, such as stocks or bonds. In short, it's just not true. That is why I favor treating Estate and Gift transfers just like any other income - as it is always income to the recipient.

RE: "The rich pay MORE than their fair share!" Also, not "true." The argument is usually supported by misleading statistics. (See, e.g., Tax Foundation) "The rich already pay most of the income taxes collected." While true, in general, it depends heavily on what one means by "rich" and by "most". In gross dollar figures, it can be true, but in tax rate, it is not:
Quote
The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.
The average federal income tax rate of the richest 400 Americans was just 20 percent in 2009.
FACT SHEET: TAXING WEALTHY AMERICANS (Americans for Tax Fairness). Those figures are old, but the situation has actually gotten worse. The reality is that the "rich" earn more than the average taxpayer, but pay less tax on their income, largely because more of their income is in tax-benefited forms (like capital gains, dividends, and pass-throughs).

Where you and I might agree is with the proposition that all income should be taxed the same way regardless of form.

Finally, you stated "Rather than a progressive income tax, which is a disincentive to create wealth, a better tax policy would be a flat tax of say 5%, with no exemptions." First, there is no empirical evidence that income taxes are a disincentive to create wealth. Indeed, the opposite is demonstrably true. Second, a 5% tax would not begin to cover even the majority of government expenses. Finally, you realize that when you create an "exemption" for the first $50,000.00, that is progressive, right?