Also, in this case, it isn't double-taxed. The heirs never paid tax on it. It's very likely that estates of that size have tax-deferred parts or insurance.

Finally, there are many incorrect statements in the description of the estate tax above that would probably lead you to believe that you have to pay 40% of 5.3m, which is not true

1. You get deductions (like outstanding mortgages and medical bills)

2. You pay the tax on the net OVER 5.3m.

So, in the case described above, the estate tax would be $0.

I'm fine with not using the "double tax" phrase, as long as all taxes are included in tax arguments. I have heard here on HN that Denmark and Sweden don't have taxes that are that high..while not including all of the small taxes that you pay on a daily basis..deflating the actual tax rate to make it seem better.

Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government.

> Also, Companies actually contribute more in taxes than people like to admit. They pay workers' wages..and those wages include tax money that goes to the government.

That's still a tax on the workers' wages, not a tax on the company. If we shifted all income tax into a payroll tax, then by your definition workers aren't taxed at all? Anything that increases the cost of employing a worker will reduce the marginal net benefit of employing that worker, which will result in either lower salaries, fewer employees or both.

The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air.

My point is that they are providing the income that is taxed and used by the government.

By that definition companies are very nearly the sole source of all taxes:

Capital Gains? The company increased its value.

Dividends? Comes out of earned revenue.

Sales Tax? Comes out of sales by the company.

> The company is paying the worker from earned revenue, it isn't coming out of thin air.

Tell that to Twitter employees