Use large inheritances for redistribution and thus promote meritocracy.

Problem

• When large fortunes are passed down across generations almost unchanged, de facto economic dynasties arise.
• Wealth through inheritance undermines the principles of a meritocratic order, in which success should primarily be based on skills, work, and responsibility.
• Around CHF 100 billion is inherited annually in Switzerland – more than the entire federal budget. But inheritances are extremely unequal: two-thirds of the sum go to only 10% of heirs. This massively cements the social divide.
• In Switzerland, up to 80% of the super-rich have acquired their wealth through inheritance – far more than in countries like the USA (about 30%). Modern dynasties emerge that control capital without having earned it themselves.
• Inheriting is now mostly a matter for retirees. Only about one-fifth of heirs are under 50 years old. Capital remains with the oldest generation instead of flowing into education, start-ups, or innovations of the younger generation that urgently need it.

Solution

• Very large inheritances are taxed, everything below remains tax-free. This protects normal family wealth while extremely concentrated fortunes contribute to the common good.
• The revenues are used to reduce taxes for low incomes, so that more people have the chance to build wealth, which improves society's resilience.
• For the national inheritance tax to reach its full potential and not lead to capital flight, Switzerland must actively promote an international minimum inheritance tax for multimillionaires (modeled after the OECD minimum tax).
• At least half of the revenues are used to reduce income taxes so that work is rewarded and more people can build wealth.
• Inheritance tax will be introduced at moderate rates, e.g., 2‑4%. This way everyone benefits and such a tax rate would also be borne by the wealthy.

Benefit

• Strengthening meritocracy, performance remains the central driver of social success. Large fortunes that are transferred purely by chance lose structural influence.

Public support

Total votes: 119

Breakdown: FullyOnBoard: 59, SoundsGood: 23, NoChance: 21, NeedForDiscussion: 7, Concerns: 5, NothingAgainstIt: 4

Discussion

• S. H. (2026-09-16): How are tied assets (companies, real estate) taxed? A business owner leaves his children a company with, for example, a taxable value of 50 million. How should the heirs pay the tax? Cash is not inherited in this way. - Sell the company (takes time) - Destroy jobs - Weaken the location
• ↳ R. M. (2026-09-16): For me, one of the most important points, which is often completely forgotten or at least misunderstood. Wealth is not the same as liquidity. I myself am not affected by this; I will neither inherit a company nor be bequeathed one. Nevertheless, I find the approach entirely wrong. For me, the underlying causes are the real problem behind it.
• L. S. (2026-07-09): I think the initial approach doesn’t even have to be large. The most important step is that we have a structure to define every kind of value. As long as wealthy banks can take on debt for their benefit and the entire money can be stuffed into securities, any taxation doesn’t matter. In short: Initially the new comprehensive tax base can be set rather low. The valuable thing is the infrastructure/categorization of wealth. The rich deduction is just a scare tactic. Rich people are here because of 1. quality of life 2. educational access 3. surroundings/environment 4. centrality. Especially with a ""Swiss patriot"", one has to scratch one’s head hard if he says he must flee the country if he remains rich.
• S. J. (2026-07-06): An inheritance tax would have long been accepted, if it were moderate. For me it is not clear why one would not, for example, define graduated rates from 0 to 5 %. With these rates one would also minimize emigration abroad.
• ↳ A. P. (2026-07-06): And what does this money bring? Do you feel that a redistribution would really make a difference? In my opinion, the state already has enough money. I see more potential for improvement in priorities and budgeting. I bet with you that higher tax revenues would not lead to stronger redistribution, but rather to more positions in the state, without creating a significant societal added value.
• ↳ S. J. (2026-07-06): @Albus: What do you mean by the statement that our state already has enough money? Switzerland has debts amounting to 140 billion. Now we need additional money for the 13th AHV and possibly soon for the army. So we need money. And why not take a little (very important!) from those who just receive money? I also inherited a large sum 10 years ago. I would have found a 3 % levy acceptable.
• ↳ A. P. (2026-07-06): State debt cannot be compared to private debt. From a fiscal policy perspective, the 140 billion Swiss francs of the federal government are legitimate. But the decisive question is: Why must the VAT be increased for the 13th AHV pension when the state itself has massive savings potential? The problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of political efficiency. Instead of debating new tax sources, effective reforms are needed: We must limit career politics and favor individuals with genuine private‑sector experience. Furthermore, Switzerland already has a wealth tax that is almost unique worldwide. Even if an increase of a few percentage points sounds moderate, there is no guarantee that these additional revenues will ultimately be earmarked for, for example, the AHV. This is precisely where the structural problem lies.
• A. P. (2026-06-25): The problems are real, but the proposed solution is debatable. In the private sector there is no direct link between societal benefit and income. That is not ideal, but it is reality. Take Roger Federer as an example: through extraordinary performances he has built a multi‑billion‑dollar fortune with his team. That wealth has already been taxed or is partially held in companies. Anyone who generates such wealth should, in principle, also be allowed to decide how it is used or inherited. The negative consequences of large inheritances should be tackled where they arise. If wealth influences politics, more transparency is needed. If capital for education and innovation is lacking, investment incentives should be created. If tax flight is a threat, attractive regulatory conditions are required. What matters is not the source of the wealth, but how it is deployed.
• ↳ O. H. (2026-06-26): Broader distribution creates more societal benefit with 100 % probability. The marginal utility of 100 million francs for a single heir is effectively zero. The same sum, when distributed among many people via income‑tax cuts, educational investment, or innovation promotion, generates measurably higher total benefit. This is not an ideology, but standard economics (diminishing marginal utility). The probability that redistribution generates more welfare than dynastic concentration is not “high” – it is structurally 100 %.
• ↳ A. P. (2026-07-04): I basically agree with your arguments. I also support the meritocracy approach. Where I am personally divided is in the question of how likely it is that this approach can actually be implemented. For me, this is comparable to corruption. We can agree that corruption is bad and should be fought with all force. Nevertheless, it is not only a phenomenon of opportunity, but deeply rooted in human nature. Similarly, I see the relationship between money and societal benefit. In my experience, such paradoxes between will and being are best addressed by acknowledging them and intervening strategically around the events to curb their negative consequences. The attempt to eliminate them completely can have indirect consequences that ultimately create new problems. I am looking forward to further approaches. However, the currently discussed ideas seem to me only limitedly realizable.
• ↳ A. P. (2026-07-05): People with low income already pay little income tax. Their wealth accumulation is more hindered by AHV, VAT, health insurance premiums, as well as mindset and work ethic. With large inheritances, wealth is often tied up in family businesses. A high inheritance tax can force the sale of shares, harm the company, and endanger jobs. In general: the larger an organization becomes, whether a company or the state, the slower decisions become and the less effectively capital is often deployed. This is exactly where your thesis contradicts itself: families would have to transfer wealth to people who have not borne performance, risk, or responsibility for its creation, yet then be allowed to decide over it. Therefore, capital is usually better placed with performers, families, and citizens than in large central structures. Your arguments are interesting, but for me they miss the actual leverage effect.
• D. M. (2026-02-15): I would be in favor of first deducting the share of state debts from the inheritance - earmarked for debt repayment. For social compatibility and to achieve some progression, an exemption amount (no deduction for lower inheritance amount) and a multiple amount can be defined (double, 3, 4, 5, x-fold depending on the level of the inheritance amount). The levy must always be used for debt repayment - no self-service fund for parliament, parties, and lobbyists! Over time, the inheritance tax could be abolished if Switzerland becomes and remains debt-free. If an inheritance levy is established, it can be continued in another form (additionally).
• W. B. (2026-01-08): The idea is good, but it would have to be introduced on a global level, as capital is mobile. It would have to be limited to the real estate capital gains tax, because real estate values are not mobile.
• ↳ R. R. (2026-01-08): That would then be a drastic unequal treatment between different assets if it were limited only to the real estate capital gains tax. Then I would logically put the real estate into a company and simply be the owner of the company. Then it would not be the property but the company that is inherited, and the tax would already be circumvented again.
• R. R. (2025-12-21): The problem is that this can be easily circumvented. Previous gifts, etc. It would be another cat-and-mouse game between authorities and tax optimizers, which in turn leads to bureaucracy. I would find a general progressive wealth tax more sensible.
• ↳ O. H. (2025-12-22): I consider both instruments to be sensible: A progressive wealth tax would act like a handicap in golf to offset massive starting advantages and enable fair competition. In addition, an inheritance tax prevents the emergence of a new money aristocracy. That such models work is proven, among other things, by the US tax system, where the estate tax applies despite high exemptions of 14 million USD with up to 40% and has established itself as an effective tool. This generates about 20 billion USD annually: [taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-many...](https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-many-people-pay-estate-tax)