Inheritance

This article is about the often-contentious practice of transferring private property, titles, debts, entitlements, privileges, rights, and obligations upon the death of an individual. For those interested in the rather less dramatic passing of genetic material, see heredity. For other, presumably less morbid, applications of the word, consult Inheritance (disambiguation).

"Heir" redirects here. For other uses, because apparently, this word isn't confusing enough on its own, see Heir (disambiguation).

From William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress: "The Young Heir Takes Possession Of The Miser's Effects." A timeless depiction, really, of human nature's consistent interest in what others leave behind.

Inheritance, at its core, is the rather predictable human custom of receiving various assets, burdens, or even perceived dignities when someone finally ceases to be. It's the moment when the accumulated detritus of one life is sorted and reallocated to others, often with a surprising amount of legal fuss. The exact mechanisms and rules governing this transfer have, predictably, varied wildly across different societies and through the annals of history—because why make anything straightforward when you can complicate it with endless statutes and cultural nuances? Legally speaking, the overarching process by which a deceased person’s rights and possessions are funnelled to their designated successors is known as succession. Meanwhile, "inheritance" itself refers specifically to the tangible (or intangible) property or assets that those fortunate—or perhaps, burdened—heirs actually receive.

This monumental transfer of worldly goods can unfold in one of two primary ways. It might proceed according to the generally applicable, and often bewildering, statutory rules that govern such matters when no explicit instructions are left behind; this is known as intestate succession. Alternatively, it can occur precisely as dictated by the provisions meticulously laid out in a valid will—a document that, if properly constructed, serves as the deceased's final, often irrefutable, word on the matter. For a testator (the person making the will) to effectively devise and bequeath their private property and/or outstanding debts through such a will, the document typically requires formal attestation, often by a notary public or through other legally recognized means, to ensure its authenticity and enforceability. Without these bureaucratic hurdles, one can only imagine the chaos.

The legal systems that govern these transitions can diverge quite dramatically. Jurisdictions operating under common law, for instance, usually necessitate a formal and often protracted probate procedure to validate the will and administer the estate. This ensures that all debts are paid and assets are distributed correctly, a process that can feel like watching paint dry, only with more paperwork. In stark contrast, civil law systems frequently permit heirs to acquire ownership of property automatically by sheer operation of law—a concept rooted in the ancient principle of saisine or seizin, prominently observed in places like Quebec. One system prefers meticulous, often slow, legal oversight; the other, a more direct, albeit potentially less scrutinized, transfer. Both, however, ultimately arrive at the same conclusion: someone gets what someone else left behind.

Terminology

In the rather precise (or perhaps, pedantic) language of the law, an "heir" (the archaic feminine form being "heiress," because gendered terms for everything were apparently crucial) refers to an individual who possesses a legal entitlement to receive a share of property from a decedent—that is, a person who has died. This entitlement is, of course, entirely contingent upon the specific rules of inheritance in the jurisdiction where the decedent held citizenship, or where their demise occurred, or, most importantly, where their property was located at the time of their death. Because even in death, jurisdiction matters.

This inheritance can either be granted explicitly under the terms of a will, reflecting the deceased's final wishes, or, in the absence of such a document, by the established intestacy laws of the relevant jurisdiction. However, it's not simply enough to write something down; the will itself must rigorously comply with the laws of the jurisdiction that were in effect at the time of its creation, or it will, with a rather unforgiving finality, be declared invalid. For example, some states are stubbornly resistant to recognizing handwritten wills as valid, or only permit them under very specific, often restrictive, circumstances. Should a will fail to meet these exacting standards, the default intestacy laws then spring into action, dictating the distribution of assets as if no will ever existed, much to the chagrin of the deceased's ghost, one presumes.

The deliberate act of excluding a person from receiving an inheritance, particularly someone who was named in a previous will or would naturally be expected to inherit under the laws of intestate succession, is formally termed "disinheritance." It's a statement, often a final act of displeasure, etched in legal stone. A person, it must be stressed, does not truly become an heir until the death of the deceased. This is not merely a morbid formality; the precise identity of those entitled to inherit can only be definitively determined at that moment, as circumstances, and indeed, people, have a habit of changing. Within the rarefied air of ruling noble or royal houses, individuals who are expected to accede to titles or estates are distinguished as heirs apparent if they are first in line and cannot be displaced by any other claim—a position of enviable, or perhaps suffocating, certainty. Conversely, those whose position is less secure, who could potentially be displaced by the birth of a more direct heir, are known as heirs presumptive. There also exists the concept of coparceny, a form of joint inheritance, typically among female heirs, pending the renunciation of all but one, which further illustrates the labyrinthine nature of these traditions.

In contemporary legal frameworks, the terms ‘'inheritance'’ and '‘heir’' are, perhaps counterintuitively, often reserved exclusively for property that is passed down through intestate succession—that is, from a person who has died without the foresight or inclination to draft a will. Property that is, in fact, distributed according to the explicit instructions of a will passes instead to designated "beneficiaries." These beneficiaries may be referred to, with rather specific legal elegance, as [a] "devisees" when they receive real property (land and buildings), "legatees" when the inheritance takes the form of money, and simply "recipients of bequests" for other forms of personal property. The distinctions, while subtle, are crucial for those who navigate the often-choppy waters of estate law.

It is worth noting that, with the exception of a few peculiar jurisdictions where disinheritance is severely restricted (such as the US state of Louisiana, which, influenced by its Napoleonic Code heritage, allows disinheritance only under a very specific and narrowly enumerated set of circumstances [1]), an individual who would otherwise be a natural heir [b] can be entirely disinherited under the explicit terms of a valid will. A rather stark example of this was the will of comedian Jerry Lewis, who, with a final, public gesture, specifically excluded his six children from his first marriage, and all their descendants, from receiving any portion of his estate, leaving his entire fortune instead to his second wife [2]. It seems even in death, some scores are settled. The entire concept of inheritance, particularly the passing of advantages through familial lines, has, perhaps unsurprisingly, often been likened to nepotism [3], a system where connections often trump merit.

History

One might think that the practice of passing on property would be a simple, universal affair, but detailed anthropological and sociological studies have painstakingly documented the sheer variety of customs surrounding patrimonial inheritance. For generations, in countless cultures, the default assumption was that only male children could inherit—a system designed, one presumes, to maintain power and land within a specific patriarchal lineage. Yet, not all societies adhered to such straightforward (and often, to modern sensibilities, inequitable) models. Some cultures, demonstrating a different kind of ingenuity, have employed matrilineal succession, where property and status could only pass along the female line. This often meant the inheritance flowed, somewhat circuitously, to the sister's sons of the decedent, or, in a few societies, directly from the mother to her daughters. It’s almost as if humans enjoy making things complicated.

As societies evolved, so too did these systems. Some ancient civilizations, and indeed the vast majority of modern states, have gradually moved towards a more egalitarian approach to inheritance, at least in principle. This modern ideal aims to distribute assets without discrimination based on gender or, thankfully, birth order, attempting to level the playing field, even if the ball is still often weighted. The journey from rigid, gender-specific inheritance laws to more inclusive, albeit still imperfect, systems, reflects a broader societal shift in how we conceive of individual rights and familial obligations.

Religious laws about inheritance

Religious doctrines, with their pervasive influence on societal norms, have historically played a significant, if often rigid, role in shaping inheritance practices. These divine or divinely inspired mandates frequently codified who received what, and under what conditions, often reflecting and reinforcing the social hierarchies and gender roles prevalent at the time of their inception.

Jewish laws

Within the framework of Jewish law, inheritance is distinctly patrimonial, meaning it primarily follows the male line. The father—as the traditional owner of the land, particularly in ancient times—was expected to bequeath his possessions exclusively to his male descendants. This ensured, quite explicitly, that the sacred Promised Land would pass from one Jewish father to his sons, maintaining tribal and familial continuity. According to the Law of Moses, a rather specific provision granted the firstborn son a double portion of his father's inheritance compared to his other sons (Deuteronomy 21:15–17). This wasn't merely a symbolic gesture; it was a tangible economic advantage, a recognition of his unique status and responsibilities within the family structure.

However, even these seemingly rigid rules contained provisions for adaptation. If a man died without any living sons, nor any descendants from previously living sons, the inheritance would then pass to his daughters. A notable instance of this flexibility is recorded in Numbers 27, where the five daughters of Zelophehad approached Moses, asserting their claim to their father's inheritance precisely because they had no brothers. [4] This case established a clear order of inheritance: a man's sons would inherit first, then his daughters if there were no sons, then his brothers if he had no children at all, and so on, creating a defined hierarchy of succession. [5]

Later, in Numbers 36, a further, rather practical, concern arose. Some heads of families from the tribe of Manasseh pointed out to Moses that if a daughter inherited land and subsequently married a man from outside her paternal tribe, her ancestral land would effectively transfer from her birth-tribe's patrimony to her marriage-tribe's. To prevent this perceived dilution of tribal holdings, an additional rule was instituted: if a daughter inherited land, she was obligated to marry someone from within her father's tribe. [6] (It's worth noting, with a hint of cynical amusement, that the daughters of Zelophehad, in their wisdom, chose to marry the sons of their father's brothers, with no indication that this was not their preferred arrangement.)

The intricacies of Jewish inheritance laws have been extensively deliberated and codified in various authoritative texts. These include discussions within the Talmud [7], particularly in tractate Baba Bathra, as well as in the comprehensive legal code known as the Mishneh Torah [8], and by prominent scholars such as Saadiah ben Joseph [9], among other significant sources. All these venerable texts consistently affirm the principle that the firstborn son is entitled to a double portion of his father's estate. [10] This means, for instance, that if a father left five sons, the firstborn would receive a third of the entire estate, while each of the other four sons would receive a sixth. If he left nine sons, the firstborn would claim a fifth, and the remaining eight would each receive a tenth [8] [11]. It is crucial, however, that this privilege of the double portion applies strictly to the firstborn son; if the eldest surviving son was not the firstborn, he would not be entitled to this enhanced share.

Ancient commentators such as Philo of Alexandria [12] and Josephus [13] also provided their insights on the Jewish laws of inheritance, often praising them for their perceived fairness and wisdom in comparison to other legal codes of their contemporary world. They, too, unequivocally agreed that the firstborn son was to receive a double portion of his father's estate, reinforcing the enduring nature of this specific legal tradition.

Christian laws

Initially, Christianity, emerging from its Jewish roots, did not possess a distinct body of inheritance traditions separate from those of Judaism. However, with the pivotal accession of Emperor Constantine in 306 CE, a profound shift began. Christians not only started to consciously distance themselves from Jewish practices but also gained significant influence over the legal and operational structures of secular institutions, a development that immediately impacted inheritance laws. The Roman practice of adoption, for instance, became a specific target for reform, as it was perceived to conflict with the emerging Judeo-Christian doctrine of primogeniture—the principle that the firstborn son inherits all.

As meticulously documented by Stephanie Coontz in her insightful work Marriage, a History (Penguin, 2006), it wasn't merely succession that underwent transformation. The entire constellation of rights and practices encompassing marriage, adoption, legitimacy, consanguinity (blood relations), and inheritance in Western Europe transitioned from a Greco-Roman model to a distinct Judeo-Christian pattern. This new framework was explicitly based on Biblical and traditional Judeo-Christian principles, emphasizing bloodlines and legitimate progeny in a way the Romans had not. This profound legal and social metamorphosis was largely complete by the Middle Ages, although further significant developments occurred in English-speaking countries under the influence of Protestantism, particularly during the reign of Henry VIII and the subsequent Reformation. Even as Europe underwent secularization and the overt influence of Christianity receded into the background, the fundamental legal infrastructure laid down by Christendom largely endured. It is only in the modern era of sophisticated jurisprudence that truly significant, systemic changes to these deeply ingrained inheritance principles have begun to manifest.

Islamic laws

The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, introduced a comprehensive and remarkably detailed set of rights and restrictions concerning inheritance. These provisions represented a significant departure from, and often an improvement upon, the pre-Islamic societal norms prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula at the time, particularly in their general amelioration of the treatment of women and the structuring of family life [14]. Crucially, the Quran expanded the circle of eligible heirs, granting inheritance rights to individuals who were previously excluded in pre-Islamic customs. It specifically mentions nine relatives, six of whom were female and three male, thereby broadening the scope of familial entitlement. However, it is important to acknowledge that the inheritance rights of women remained distinct from those of men. In Islamic jurisprudence, a man consistently bears the financial responsibility for supporting a woman's expenses, a factor reflected in the distribution of assets. For example, Quran 4:11 stipulates that a son is entitled to twice the inheritance portion of a daughter [15] [16].

The Quran's efforts to codify and fix the laws of inheritance were extensive, effectively establishing a complete legal system for such matters. This represented a stark contrast to the highly variable and often arbitrary rules of inheritance that characterized pre-Islamic societies [14]. Beyond merely stipulating distributions, the Quran also imposed specific restrictions on the testamentary powers of a Muslim in disposing of their property, ensuring that certain familial rights could not be entirely circumvented by a will.

Three specific verses of the Quran—4:11, 4:12, and 4:176—provide precise details regarding inheritance shares and eligible beneficiaries, supplemented by a few other verses that touch upon testamentary issues [17]. However, this Quranic guidance served as a foundational starting point for Muslim jurists. These scholars, employing rigorous methods of juristic reasoning such as Qiyas (analogical reasoning) and drawing upon the extensive body of Hadith (the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad), further expounded and refined the laws of inheritance into the complex system known today. Consequently, inheritance is considered an integral and mandatory component of Sharia law for Muslims. Despite this, it is observed that many communities, even those identifying as Muslim, continue to practice alternative inheritance customs, reflecting the enduring influence of local traditions and historical inheritance systems [see Historical inheritance systems].

Inequality

The distribution of inherited wealth, a topic that seems to endlessly fascinate and frustrate humanity, has historically exhibited vast disparities across different cultures and legal traditions. It’s almost as if the concept of fairness is a recent invention. In nations that adhere to civil law systems, for instance, the right of children to inherit wealth from their parents, often in predefined ratios, is not merely a custom but a principle enshrined in law. This practice dates back millennia, as evidenced by its inclusion in ancient codes such as the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1750 BC) [19], proving that humans have been trying to legislate family dynamics for a very long time. In the US State of Louisiana, the sole US state whose legal system is largely derived from the Napoleonic Code, this system is known as "forced heirship." It starkly prohibits the complete disinheritance of adult children, except for a few, very narrowly defined reasons that a parent is legally obligated to prove [20]. One can only imagine the family drama that ensues in those courtrooms.

Contrast this with other legal traditions, particularly those found in nations operating under common law systems. Here, individuals are generally granted far greater testamentary freedom, allowing them to divide their inheritances largely as they wish, or even to disinherit any child for virtually any reason—or, indeed, for no stated reason at all. This difference often leads to vastly divergent outcomes in wealth distribution, creating distinct societal patterns of economic stratification.

In cases where inheritance is distributed unequally, the vast majority of heirs might receive a mere pittance, while a privileged minority inherits truly substantial sums. This imbalance is particularly glaring when, for example, a son is bequeathed a thriving multimillion-dollar business as an "initial gift" or early transfer, while a daughter is left to divide the "balance" of the actual inheritance, which often amounts to significantly less than the value of the business already transferred to the son. This phenomenon, while particularly prevalent in "old world" cultures with entrenched patriarchal norms, regretfully persists in numerous families even today [21], demonstrating that some traditions die harder than others.

Arguments against the concept of forced heirship often invoke fundamental principles such as the right to private property and the inherent merit of individual allocation of capital, contrasting these with what some critics might label as government-mandated wealth confiscation and redistribution. However, these arguments, while valid in their own context, do not inherently resolve what some who? describe as the persistent and problematic issue of unequal inheritance. When considering inheritance inequality, many economists and sociologists tend to focus on the intergenerational transmission of income or wealth, which they argue directly impacts an individual's social mobility (or, more commonly, immobility) and their ultimate class position within society. Nations, perhaps unsurprisingly, differ significantly in their political structures and the policy options they choose to employ—or ignore—to govern the transfer of wealth [22].

According to statistics compiled by Mark Zandi for the American federal government in 1985, the average inheritance received in the US was approximately $39,000. In the years that followed, the total annual amount of inherited wealth more than doubled, soaring to nearly$ 200 billion. Projections suggest that by 2050, an astonishing estimated $25 trillion will be transmitted across generations [23], a sum so vast it almost loses meaning.

Some researchers attribute this dramatic rise in inherited wealth to the baby boomers generation. Historically, the baby boomers represented the largest influx of children conceived in the immediate aftermath of World War II. For this reason, Thomas Shapiro posits that this generation "is in the midst of benefiting from the greatest inheritance of wealth in history" [24]. This inherited wealth may, rather obviously, help to explain why many Americans who have achieved significant riches may have, in fact, enjoyed a "substantial head start" [25] [26] rather than a purely "self-made" journey. Indeed, a September 2012 report by the Institute for Policy Studies revealed that "over 60 percent" of those listed on the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege" and, more often than not (though not universally), received substantial inheritances [27]. It seems the playing field was never quite as level as some might claim.

Despite the potential for a "head start," other research has shown that many inheritances, regardless of their size, are, with a rather alarming frequency, rapidly squandered [28]. Similarly, analyses indicate that over two-thirds of high-wealth families manage to lose their accumulated wealth within just two generations, and nearly 80% of high-wealth parents express a profound concern that the next generation is "not financially responsible [and/or competent] enough to handle inheritance" [29] [30]. It appears that money, much like wisdom, is not always inherited.

Social stratification

It has been argued, with considerable evidence, that inheritance exerts a profoundly significant effect on social stratification—the hierarchical arrangement of individuals into distinct social classes. Far from being a mere financial transaction, inheritance is an integral, foundational component of familial, economic, and legal institutions, serving as a basic and enduring mechanism of class stratification. It also, rather obviously, directly influences the broader distribution of wealth at the societal level, shaping who has what, and why. The total cumulative effect of inheritance on these stratification outcomes, according to scholars who have meticulously examined the subject, manifests in three primary forms.

The first, and perhaps most subtle, form of inheritance is the transmission of cultural capital. This encompasses a range of non-financial social assets that promote social mobility beyond economic means, such as specific linguistic styles, access to higher-status social circles (the right dinner parties, the right schools), and a cultivated set of aesthetic preferences that signal belonging to a particular class [31]. It's not just money; it's the knowledge of how to navigate the world that money built. The second form of inheritance involves familial interventions, often in the form of inter vivos transfers—that is, gifts exchanged between living individuals. These are typically disbursed at crucial junctures in a child's life course, serving as strategic injections of capital. Examples include financial support for higher education, contributions towards a wedding, assistance in securing a first job, or, most commonly, help with the substantial down payment on a home [31]. These are not mere acts of generosity; they are investments in maintaining or improving the next generation's social standing. The third, and most overtly recognized, form of inheritance is the transfer of substantial bulk estates at the time of the testators' deaths, directly resulting in significant economic advantages accruing to their children [32]. The average age at which individuals typically receive such an inheritance has been estimated to be around 60 years [33], which, while potentially helpful, often comes long after the primary opportunities for social and economic advancement have passed. The fundamental stability of inequalities, therefore, is rooted not only in material possessions but also in cultural practices—specifically, in varying child-rearing approaches that are meticulously geared towards the socialization of children according to their predetermined social class and economic position. Child-rearing practices among those who stand to inherit substantial wealth may, therefore, implicitly or explicitly, center around favoring certain groups at the expense of others positioned at the bottom of the social hierarchy [34], perpetuating a cycle that is as old as civilization itself.

Sociological and economic effects of inheritance inequality

It is further argued, with considerable sociological weight, that the degree to which economic status and inheritance are successfully transmitted across generations fundamentally dictates an individual's "life chances" within society. While many have historically linked one's social origins and educational attainment to opportunities and prospects, education, it turns out, cannot unilaterally serve as the most influential predictor of economic mobility. In a rather inconvenient truth, children born to well-off parents generally not only receive superior schooling but also benefit from a potent cocktail of material, cultural, and even genetic inheritances [35]. It seems some people are simply dealt a better hand before they even understand the rules of the game.

Correspondingly, the attainment of higher educational credentials often exhibits a persistent, almost stubborn, continuity across generations. Families endowed with larger amounts of inheritance are demonstrably better positioned to acquire and subsequently transmit higher amounts of human capital—the skills, knowledge, and experience possessed by an individual. Conversely, lower amounts of human capital combined with a lack of substantial inheritance can tragically perpetuate inequality, particularly in critical areas like the housing market and access to higher education. Research consistently reveals that receiving an inheritance plays a profoundly important, if often unacknowledged, role in the accumulation of housing wealth. Those who receive an inheritance are statistically far more likely to own a home than those who do not, irrespective of the actual size of the inheritance [36]. It's not just the money; it's the boost.

Furthermore, it is an uncomfortable truth that often, racial or religious minorities and individuals hailing from socially disadvantaged backgrounds receive considerably less inheritance and accumulate less wealth [37]. As a direct, and rather predictable, consequence, individuals of mixed racial heritage, for example, might find themselves excluded from inheritance privileges and are statistically more likely to rent homes, or to reside in poorer neighborhoods, and to achieve lower educational attainment when compared with their white counterparts in America [37]. The echoes of past inequalities reverberate through generations, amplified by the silent mechanism of inheritance.

Nations characterized by the highest levels of income and wealth inequalities frequently also exhibit the highest rates of societal ills, including elevated rates of homicide and a greater prevalence of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. This grim correlation ultimately contributes to higher mortality rates [38]. A New York Times article, with a characteristic blend of alarm and resignation, highlighted that the U.S., despite being "the world's wealthiest nation," paradoxically "ranks twenty-ninth in life expectancy, right behind Jordan and Bosnia," and bears the unfortunate distinction of having "the second highest mortality rate of the comparable OECD countries" [39]. This stark reality has been widely regarded as significantly attributable to the profound gap of inheritance inequality within the country [40], though, of course, there are clearly other compounding factors at play, such as the often-prohibitive affordability of healthcare.

When these deeply entrenched social and economic inequalities, so often centered around the transmission of inheritance, are continuously perpetuated by major social institutions—such as the family unit, the educational system, religious organizations, and the legal framework—these disparate life opportunities are, with a disheartening inevitability, transmitted from one generation to the next. The consequence is that this pervasive inequality becomes not merely an unfortunate circumstance but an intrinsic, structural component of the overall social fabric [41]. It's not a bug; it's a feature of the system.

Women's unequal inheritance rights, a particularly egregious manifestation of this systemic imbalance, refer to the pervasive disparities and discriminatory practices that women consistently encounter in inheriting property and assets compared to men. These profound inequalities stem from a complex interplay of legal statutes, ingrained cultural norms, and often religiously sanctioned practices that consistently prioritize male heirs over female ones. The result is a cascade of significant socio-economic consequences for women, limiting their autonomy, economic security, and overall life chances.

Dynastic wealth

Dynastic wealth is a rather elegant term for monetary inheritance that is passed down through multiple generations to individuals who, by any objective measure, did not actively earn it. It represents the accumulation of capital that transcends individual effort, becoming an enduring fixture across familial lines. This concept is intimately and inextricably linked to the term Plutocracy—a society governed by or dominated by the wealthy. A considerable body of literature has been dedicated to dissecting the rise and profound influence of dynastic wealth, most notably the bestselling and highly influential book Capital in the Twenty-First Century by the acclaimed French economist Thomas Piketty [43]. Piketty's work, among others, meticulously details how such inherited fortunes play a critical role in perpetuating and exacerbating economic inequality over centuries.

Even prominent figures like Bill Gates, a man whose own wealth is hardly insignificant, have acknowledged the issue. Gates himself used the term "dynastic wealth" in his article "Why Inequality Matters" [44], lending a certain gravitas to the discussion from within the very circles often associated with such accumulations. It seems even those at the top can occasionally spare a moment to ponder the structural foundations of their ascent.

Soviet response to inheritance

In a rather stark ideological counterpoint to the historical acceptance of inheritance, the system of Communism, fundamentally rooted in the Marxist Labor Theory of Value, posits that any money accumulated over a lifetime is only truly justified if it was derived from the fruits of a person's own labor, rather than through the exploitation of others. This foundational principle naturally led to a radical re-evaluation of inheritance. Consequently, the first communist government established after the Russian Revolution took the rather bold, if not entirely practical, step of resolving to abolish the right of inheritance entirely [45]. This was a sweeping decree, intended to dismantle a core mechanism of capitalist wealth perpetuation, irrespective of whether the inherited assets were the result of genuine personal work or, as they saw it, exploitation. While there were, predictably, some exceptions to this absolute abolition, it represented a profound ideological break with millennia of established legal and social practice, a testament to the revolutionary zeal of the era.

Taxation

Many states, in a rather unsurprising attempt to reclaim a portion of these intergenerational transfers, have implemented various forms of inheritance taxes or estate taxes. Under these fiscal regimes, a designated portion of any inheritance or the total value of a deceased person's estate is diverted to become government revenue. It's a mechanism designed, ostensibly, to address wealth inequality and fund public services, though it often generates considerable debate and intricate strategies for avoidance.

Inheritance and pensions

In the United Arab Emirates, a notable provision exists wherein government pensions can, under specific, carefully defined conditions, be transferred to the heirs of a deceased pensioner. This particular practice reflects a broader, more supportive approach found in some countries, aimed at providing continued financial assistance to the families of retirees who have passed away [46]. It’s a pragmatic acknowledgement that financial needs often outlive the original earner.

Notes

^ precise terminology depends on jurisdiction
^ as would be the case if were there no will and distribution if the estate according to the relevant intestacy laws would apply