> but if you have to exempt like 99% of your population from a law then its probably not too popular a concept
It is hard to take this seriously. Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy? Have you looked at how the threshold has changed over time, and why?
> than the power of the extremely wealthy?
How does that make sense? In theory only the extremely wealthy have to pay the tax (not that they necessarily do that). In what way would it being so high benefit them?
absolutely. If you removed the limit and applied to the 99%, it would be the most unpopular tax in the country.
I don't believe there's ever been a situation (at least in the USA) where there was no threshold at all. So the argument is over its value, not its existence.
That said, sure, you're right. But why are you right? I would suggest it is because we live (in the USA, among other places) in a culture that strongly emphasizes the right to pass along generational wealth. But this is not universally true across time and space, and our culture took a different tack (say, by quoting august Republican figures from the late 19th and early 20th centuries), the popularity or otherwise would likely be entirely different.
The argument is about the exclusion threshold because that determines who it is applied to. People generally support taking from other people but not from themselves.
A flat 50% rate still extract much more value from the rich, but apply equally to the poor.
My perception is that hereditary wealth transfer is about as universal and it's phenomenon get when it comes to humans. Not 100%, but close to it.
> Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy?
I absolutely think that significant estate tax is an unpopular concept-- significantly more so than income taxation. A big factor is perceived "double-dipping"; there is some additional justification though because it seems very unlikely to me that less wealthy people could avoid this tax with the same effectiveness as 1%ers (who in many cases probably avoid paying it completely).
I fully agree though that the extremely wealthy leverage their power very effectively to prevent legislation that would affect them negatively-- a very clear example would be basically all of Trumps past and present tax policy, which you could IMO summarize as "tax cuts for the rich" without being too disingenuous, but which is absolutely NOT portrayed like that in mass media (and not perceived accordingly by most of his voters, which get diverted with "no more tax on overtime!" instead).