Your article is rather ridiculous and fails on every level to be considered science.
You start with (unsupported) personal opinions (e.g. estate tax is .. utterly appropriate as a means of funding..).
You apply no critical thought to the subject- ignoring the possibility that there could even be legitimate reasons to question the estate tax or its size (e.g., that the estate owner already paid 50+% taxes on his accumulated earnings at the highest rate). Another 45% on what’s left means they’ve then paid 75% of their earnings to taxes.
Your preference to take more taxes from estates and give it to “the budget” is lazy. You don’t consider at all that “the budget” consists of other interest groups (e.g., the military establishment, corporate welfare) and not just “the poor” as your naïve Robin Hood fixation would have it.
You ascribe sinister, negative motives to those who don’t act as you think they should (demonizing Congress- a too easy target for those who don’t seem to like reading or research).
This rugged individualism nonsense you keep going back to exists only in your own head and in old westerns. Move forward 150 years and any Econ 101 student will explain to you that budget processes help some and hurt others- not necessarily the most deserving in either case. Taxation is a transfer of wealth from certain cohorts to other cohorts. And taxation encourages certain behaviors and discourages others.
Your comments don’t explain why some citizens should pay 75%- that that is somehow just regressive enough.
Your comments about increasing estate taxes as an experiment are silly. The experiment has already been done many times over (consult with the Econ 101 student again). Childless couples do indeed spend more and save less and wealthy people do indeed leave countries that highly tax estates- either bodily or by sheltering estates for tax purposes.

This is well below the usual standard for PT blogs.
In the future, stick to things you know (i.e., not economics).

I would expect that without an estate tax, the gap between classes would widen to the point where it would be impossible to catch up in one lifetime.

You'd have your blue-bloods with their inherited billions who wouldn't have to work a day in their life and your lower-class, toiling to earn their first million.

Should Bill Gates's great great grandchildren really be entitled to a free ride?

Also, I could argue that I'm more entitled to my father's wealth than the government is. I'd probably spend it more wisely too. So I can see both sides.