You know, it's interesting. 100,000 eur really isn't a lot of money. I wager decent houses probably go double or triple that. Still, an entire life savings would most likely go into paying for that. Decades of labor in a country with small salaries and large taxes. 100k is nothing. Comparatively, to the rich that dominate the socio-economic and political landscape, it's probably a fun weekend vacation somewhere. I think that's what you dread: The rich that can afford to live lavishly. But you're harking over the barely haves, the not rich.

It's interesting.

A country with dwindling birthrates far below replacement levels perplexed by the fact that its people are refusing to father the next generation when they can't even provide a home for them. (It wouldn't even be tax free, by the way. Because the original proprietors bought and paid taxes on the house. What you're suggesting is double taxation :))

But it's okay. France has solved that problem: Make it illegal to take statistics on ethnic origins, let the poors of the world come flood your land, let them work for lower wages, and then act surprised when their culture is fundamentally incompatible with yours. Your streets are now unfamiliar. Unsafe. Dirty. They don't share your values of cleanliness and respect. Your freedom of expression. Don't worry. Their children won't be able to inherit their homes either. That's fine with them though: because they'll send their money back to their homelands where they can build villas with it, (or comfortably live in a ghetto squalor in Paris because it's still better than the conditions back home.)

> Why should children who are lucky to be born into a stable middle class family have a large financial advantage over other children

The reason why we have inheritances is people in power convinced each other that regular people will work harder throughout all their lives if they know they can give their children a better life. Meaning the economy is way better with some inheritance present than without inheritance.

Love is a powerful thing and while most people would agree with you that in theory they'd like all children to have the same opportunities, once their babies are born they will fight forever to give them the best conditions they can.

I agree with inheritance taxes, probably not 100%, but wanted to explain the perspective of people that want full untaxed inheritances.

> That seems OK to me. Why should children who are lucky to be born into a stable middle class family have a large financial advantage over other children?

Are you for real? Because it is not my or my children's fault other children don't have anything to inherit. This is how life works. You do whatever you can to get ahead of other through any means necessary to have a better future. You should not exepect the same outcome for people from different walks of life.

And just because not everyone can afford a house it is not my problem either.

> In my eyes, this is the path to Old World aristocracy. The purpose of inheritance taxes is to reduce this advantage.

So the world would be better if everyone was poor, right? The purpose of inheritance taxes is for the government to steal from your hard earned assets. Just because you're jealous of someone who inherits a big house or whatever will not make the world a better place.