Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Oh come on... This "you will then be richer than a child in Sudan" is initially an inadmissible trump card argument for me.
Yes, I also found the thread the other day strange. But rather because the OP was so emotionally charged.

I absolutely agree with you. In a previous post, I also wrote that the contribution assessment ceiling should be dropped for the statutory health insurance funds.
My point is that the wealth to be inherited has already been extensively taxed. To tax it again, again, and again, I find inappropriate. At some point, enough is enough.

LOL. The tax saving schemes and tax avoidance tricks of the wealthy are extremely creative, and an entire industry thrives supporting that area. If anyone pays taxes, it is at most the middle class because you can look into their pockets like into a glass of water. Bavaria even advertises this as a location factor.

Because others then have more starting capital in life than I do? Because it is totally unfair that some generations have worked hard in another family and through risk, business sense, and economic action have built up a fortune? Sorry, I can't understand that.

That is just tendentiously presented. First of all, the generations didn't do it alone, but in a safe and infrastructurally developed environment that was created through state services. In a society where it is reasonably ensured that everyone has more or less the same opportunities. Inheriting wealth without any redistribution would consequently lead to a few becoming richer and thus more powerful, and thus the starting advantage would become greater from generation to generation. And then it actually becomes unfair. For example, the richest eventually pay no taxes net at all through tax avoidance models but on the contrary even collect subsidies. Only possible because they can afford the appropriate tax advisors and lawyers.

Who says the generations of dockworkers didn't work hard? Why should the child of a dockworker have to work everything out anew while the shipping heir simply gets his father's house without giving anything up and has had better nutrition, education, and medical care all his life anyway?

And I say this as someone who could probably inherit quite well if it weren't for the care costs. I mean, inheriting wealth is a privilege. I don't really need it. I also don't want to leave particularly much to my children. They should receive the best possible care and the tools to stand on their own two feet, and when they are mature I will certainly never abandon them, but why should I put something aside so that after my death they argue about who stays in the house or at what price it is sold? No, I will spend it all.

Allowance amounts must be adjusted. Real estate prices have exploded - 400k is now too little. Let's set it at 1 million and then 50% taxes flat.

I myself have not inherited anything yet and we have had to pay for everything ourselves up to now, stupid but okay.

But why should it be unfair if parents have made some plans during their lives and left something to their children? Right away Franz-Ferdinand-Justus is brought up as an example, come on... In the end, this only leads to the "middle class" (a deliberately broad term) being further thinned out and becoming financially weaker, while those "at the very top" already have enough ideas to secure their money in case of doubt.

From my point of view, also dynamically adjusted from the outset.
so 1000 average monthly incomes exempt and after that 95%.

In the end, this only leads to the "middle class" (a deliberately broad term) being further thinned out and becoming financially weaker, the "very top" already have enough ideas to secure the money if necessary.

All this can be regulated through intelligent legislation.
So an exemption amount that allows everything still counted as middle class to remain middle class.
Beyond that, no avoidance options. precisely so that the upper class does not become richer and richer without creating added value.

already somewhat naive. Then it catches one in a thousand who was too stupid to organize their money properly beforehand. The money simply moves abroad, where it is partly already located, or the assets are transferred beforehand.

The taxes must be paid properly beforehand, and in the country where the revenues were generated, not in more tax-attractive countries, e.g. Ireland.