Abolishing Inheritance: Spain's Tax No One Trusts

Abolishing inheritances: fair in theory, ungovernable in practice

There is an idea that resurfaces whenever wealth is compared: if inherited money outweighs your talent, meritocracy is a myth. The proposal to eliminate inheritances—or tax them into irrelevance—reintroduces an economic paradox: those who defend it as the fairest option distrust the state that would enforce it. "If politicians were serious, it would be the fairest", admits the thesis author, before acknowledging he does not trust that entity to regulate anything.

What the proposal exactly entails

The starting point is familiar. In a system marketed as meritocratic, the cradle weighs more than effort: being born at the bottom almost guarantees dying there, and being born at the top, the opposite. Exceptions exist—those who rise from zero and heirs who squander their family fortune—but they do not alter the statistical rule. From there, it jumps to a second idea: that the state managing basic resources, starting with housing, would benefit everyone.

The problem, the same reasoning admits, is that citizens do not feel part of state powers as democracy promises, but opposed to an elite that seems to err on purpose. And the most uncomfortable part comes last: those who live on inherited income are the first to call idlers to those who ask to touch the inheritance, when these ask, precisely, not to receive anything for free.

Meritocracy is not the engine of capitalism

The first objection is textbook. Capitalism is not based on merit, but on capital accumulation and the contribution of value in each transaction. From this reading, inheritance is simple respect for property rights, and suppressing it does not eliminate the incentive: it shifts to lifetime gifts, so the problem changes name but not substance.

Along the same lines, it is recalled that amassing wealth without being able to bequeath it deactivates saving in adulthood, just when there is more experience and fewer desires. And the classic reference always emerges: Adam Smith’s critique of entailments, cited as often as manipulated.

The 30% of inheritances already rejected in Catalonia

A concrete figure sneaks into the middle of the exchange: in Catalonia, 30% of inheritances are rejected, ending up with the Generalitat, and those accepted bear high rates. The figure is launched as a practical argument, though it should be taken for what it is: a one-sided assertion, without breakdown of exercises or taxable bases.

The relevant point is not the exact percentage, but what it reveals. When the cost of accepting exceeds that of renouncing, people renounce. This is the scenario that already exists without needing to abolish anything, explaining why many distrust the institutional design rather than the idea itself.

Sons of notaries, registrars, and presenters

Money is not the only thing inherited. Relationships weigh as much or more, and the analysis itself exemplifies this with notaries and registrars who are the children of notaries and registrars, or with actors, presenters, and artists who repeat surnames on television. The super-son as a labor category explains better than any tax why meritocracy falls short.

Some go further, arguing that an artistic career requires a family cushion, because initial failure is only sustainable with economic backing. In Spain, there is an additional ingredient: a second-hand market at new prices and promotions depending more on connections than on the CV. And if you take away the roof the lifelong worker will inherit from his parents, the cards are not just marked, they are face up.

Incentives, private property, and the clash with pensions

The counterattack is massive. If my work is not inherited by my children, why bother? In a country of small businesses, inheritance is the real path to capitalization, and large fortunes escape through the back door: they are organized as companies, so the measure would hit the small owner and leave the large one intact. Others warn that people would save in cash and valuables, that managing an inheritance is complicated work, and that the same state taking two years to issue an ESO qualification title does not seem the ideal candidate to administer everyone’s wealth.

The fiscal front also overlaps with another grievance: those criticizing the inheritance tax often also claim that pensions do not come from contributions but from the taxes of the employed, with a percentage of income described as confiscatory. These are two distinct complaints sharing an argument and electorate.

Where the analysis gets stuck

Inheritance is defended as a property right and attacked as a privilege, and neither position resolves the only point that truly matters: who would execute the alternative. The Catalan figure measures rejections, not justice. The question remains orphaned: which institution would deserve to manage such a transfer of wealth. No one gives an answer that convinces themselves.