Inheriting is becoming nearly as important as working

More wealth means more money for baby-boomers to pass on. That is dangerous for capitalism and society

Feb 27th 2025

Work hard, children are told, and you will succeed. In recent decades this advice served the talented and the diligent well. Many have made their own fortunes and live comfortably, regardless of how much money they inherited. Now, however, the importance of hereditary wealth is rising around the rich world, and that is a problem.

People in advanced economies stand to inherit around $6trn this year—about 10% of GDP, up from around 5% on average in a selection of rich countries during the middle of the 20th century. As a share of output, annual inheritance flows have doubled in France since the 1960s, and nearly trebled in Germany since the 1970s. Whether a young person can afford to buy a house and live in relative comfort is determined by inherited wealth nearly as much as it is by their own success at work. This shift has alarming economic and social consequences, because it imperils not just the meritocratic ideal, but capitalism itself.

In part, the inheritance boom is a reflection of a wealthier and ageing society. As economies have become richer, they have accumulated capital per worker—capital that someone has to own. But because the pace of economic growth has slackened and housing markets have boomed, the scale of this wealth relative to incomes has ballooned. Nowhere is this combination of towering wealth and enduring sclerosis more evident than in Europe, where productivity growth has been dismal.

More wealth means more inheritance for baby-boomers to pass on. And because wealth is far more unequally distributed than income, a new inheritocracy is being born.

You can see this in the shifting fortunes of the super-rich. For much of the 20th century vast estates were often broken up by bad investing, or by war and inflation. By one calculation, if America’s rich families in 1900 had invested passively in the stockmarket, spent 2% of their wealth each year and had the usual number of children, there would be about 16,000 old-money billionaires in America today. In fact, there are fewer than 1,000 billionaires and the vast majority of them are self-made.

These trends are being overturned, however, perhaps because billionaires are both amassing wealth and are better at preserving their riches. In 2023, 53 people became billionaires thanks to inheritance, not far short of the 84 who made their own fortunes, according to UBS, a bank. That may be because it is now easy to park wealth in an index fund, and the principles of wealth management are better understood. Moreover, many governments have obligingly cut inheritance taxes.

The most striking thing about the inheritocracy, though, is that it is not just about the uber-rich. The typical heir is someone inheriting a normal house, or the proceeds from its sale, not a superyacht or a country pile. And housing wealth has rocketed in recent decades, especially in apex cities like London, New York and Paris. Those who were fortunate enough to buy property before the long boom have made lots of money, passing on a windfall to their heirs. As a consequence, bankers and corporate lawyers now fight bidding wars over houses from the estates of deceased taxi drivers. As housing has become ever more unaffordable in places like New York and London, so a 90th-percentile income has become too small to pay for a 90th-percentile life. You must have significant capital, too—if not from your parents’ estate, then from the Bank of Mum and Dad.

If you consider this as a whole, the growing importance of inheritance starts to become clear. In Britain one in six of those born in the 1960s is projected to receive an inheritance that exceeds ten years of average annual earnings for that generation. For those born in the 1980s, the ratio rises to one in three. The inequality of what people inherit, meanwhile, is startling. A fifth of 35- to 45-year-olds are expected to inherit less than £10,000 ($13,000), whereas a quarter are expected to inherit more than £280,000.

For supporters of free markets, the rise of the new inheritocracy should be deeply disturbing. For a start, it creates a rentier class that faces a series of bad incentives. A loophole-ridden tax system means that the wealthy spend a lot of time gaming the rules; it would be better used to direct their capital to more productive uses instead. To protect their assets, homeowners become nimbys, blocking building and making housing unaffordable for those without inherited wealth. Knowing they can rely on their inheritance, moreover, the new rentiers may face little incentive to work or innovate.

More worrying still is how a underclass of non-beneficiaries is becoming increasingly left behind—and increasingly disaffected. If property becomes ever harder to buy, and a comfortable life harder to achieve, the incentive of young, aspirational workers to strive will be blunted. And when they believe that the system is stacked against them, their support for mainstream political parties withers.

Family fortunes

That is why fixing the problem is urgent. It would be mad to wish that inflation and war destroy fortunes, as they did in the 20th century. This newspaper has long argued that inheritance taxes are the fairest tool to deal with inheritocracy. Yet the taxes are so unpopular that, instead of enforcing them, governments have introduced loophole after loophole, raised the threshold at which they apply, or dismantled them altogether.

Fortunately, there are other remedies. Building enough houses in the right place is the single biggest action governments can take to restore the link between work and wealth. Levying sufficient annual property taxes, especially those that target underlying land values, would also help, because the tax would be capitalised as a fall in house prices, bringing down house-price-to-income ratios. And anything that boosts economic growth, so desperately needed in Europe, would bring down wealth-to-GDP ratios. The heyday of meritocracy brought with it social mobility, growth and prosperity. With a little hard work, those days can return. ■