Financing comparison: past vs. today

Because the wealth was built up. The state just wants to share in the profits wherever it can. I find that really bold. That is the only reason.

The state does not earn anything. It does not want anything either. The state’s task is to provide its entire population with a secure and sufficient life; for that, it needs resources. Furthermore, in our country, it also has to ensure that a minimum level of social justice prevails.
It succeeds so well at the first task that a few people can accumulate so much wealth that they can even inherit money to the next generation(s), enabling them to own a home at a young age without much personal effort. It may not do quite as well with the other, as more and more people have to take on multiple jobs just to get by and live in rental apartments. At the same time, representatives of the group that used to be referred to as the middle class can no longer afford the classic single-family house.
One could now say, of course, that this is no longer appropriate due to environmental reasons, etc. But then I think it should not depend on the wealth of the previous generation(s) whether you can still afford it. And let’s be honest: condominiums are not significantly more affordable either.

And the myth that wealth is always created exclusively through the performance of the wealthy, you can continue to tell at the FDP regulars’ table. Economic success is only possible because the state creates the conditions for it. Even if this factor were minimal— is it fair (reasonable / desirable) that a wealthy person uses their (self-earned, if you like) power to help a few selected others gain even more power?
If you follow this thread any further... I always get a stomach ache.

The funniest thing is that the generation involved in the reconstruction was aware of how much they owed the state and society - this was reflected in correspondingly generous foundations and donations. Ask the charitable organizations, cultural institutions, etc. who donates, or donated. It is not the heirs.

Economic success is only possible because the state creates the prerequisites for it.

That is indeed one of the state's tasks. For that, it may then levy income tax, corporate tax, value-added tax, the excise tax for the imperial fleet (oops), and much more. As an ordoliberal, I also firmly believe that performance may and must have its cost. But at the same time, the state must be careful not to overdo it and destroy the incentive for performance. Because success stories are only one side of the coin; for every entrepreneur who is successful, there are those who have gone bankrupt (more or less). For the grandfather in the Munich suburbs who built a multifamily house on his own in 1970, there is someone who built a multifamily house on their own in Hinterposemuckel where the last major employer left two decades ago, and the house now has more renovation backlog than it is worth. However, people tend to be forgotten in the discussion; we only see the winners.

Maybe I misunderstand your post, but in my opinion you are striking my chord...

So I consider a 100% inheritance tax to be massively detrimental to performance, no matter exactly where the exemption amount lies.

Oh, okay, maybe I exaggerated a bit there.
Although the performance isn’t gone, it’s back with the state, which, as you yourself say, also has to deliver something. ;)

So I would also be satisfied with 80%.

You actually need a flawless method to separate the performance. So what exactly has the wealthy person really achieved, what did the state contribute, what did the employees do, what was just luck? Then you could also introduce a luck tax (not a happiness tax!).

Putting aside the pros and cons.
I actually find it a pity that performance in our society is only (mostly) rewarded financially.
Why aren’t recognition, prestige, fame and honor or simply having created something good enough for us? I think there needs to be a cultural approach to this.