This woman could inherit millions of dollars – but she doesn’t want the money

Mrs. Engelhorn, your grandmother lived in Geneva. During a visit two years ago, you learned that you will inherit from her an amount in the tens of millions. Were you surprised?
Marlene Engelhorn: Even if you’re very wealthy, you don’t count on inheriting – especially when you’re 30. You normally only inherit after your 60th birthday. Now the money skips a generation.

Do you remember your first thought?
I wanted to be grateful, instead I was angry. So I started getting angry about it for those who would listen to it. (laughs)

Looking for advice, they came across a group of young millionaires called “Resource Generation” who regularly discuss their privileges – and how to get rid of them. A self-help group for the super rich?
It helps me to exchange ideas with like-minded people. Questions that often come up in discussions are: How can you return money to the society where it comes from and where it belongs if you don’t have to pay wealth tax? How can you support these taxes? What do you do when you are entangled in family contracts and are not allowed to express yourself publicly?

Do you have a different approach than your parents?
The self-made myth is debunked nonsense. Why don’t you ask how the rich can inherit so much at all: which people really worked for the fortune, but you know nothing about them? Who took over the household and care of self-made people? Who made the product? How did our families’ businesses survive World War II?

In your recently published book Money, you write that no one asks how BASF and Boehringer Mannheim, the companies that made your family rich, survived World War II. did you ask?
BASF played a bad role in World War II. That also has to do with the spirit in which it was founded by my ancestor Friedrich Engelhorn. But the company was no longer family owned at that point. Boehringer Mannheim, on the other hand, was owned by us until 1997. But I didn’t get clear answers in the family. It would be important that capitalist exploitation in the 20th century be addressed generally, not just privately.

They say the money comes from society and should go there. What do you mean?
We do business on a division of labor basis, wealth is created together, but distributed unequally. I don’t see why a few own a lot and concentrate their power – for generations! This contradicts democracy and makes birth the most important money factor. I did not “earn” my inheritance. Inheritances violate the idea that performance is recognized by wages.

They connect money with power. Should private influence always be dangerous or can it also be good? You could also avert climate catastrophe with a lot of fortune.
Even if the result were the end of climate change, it would not warrant private interference. The end does not justify the means. It is not sustainable to buy only results. The process must be democratic. It’s everyone’s business. The path is the goal, but not only the path that the rich like. We can see this driving us deeper and deeper into climate catastrophe.

What are you thinking of?
To the exploitative and profit-oriented economy of capitalism in the Global North. But also of the active and passive destruction of the environment through consumption and investment in the case of excess. That exacerbates the crisis. And in the end, those who cannot buy themselves out of misery with money pay. If the rich really wanted to save the world, they would have done it. The money is here.

Her family donated large amounts: to research, to museums, to an archaeological center and to classical music. Is that so bad?
That is not the question at all, because the public sector can also arrange all this. But it should not be the case that individuals determine where the money goes. Perhaps the association would have wanted something other than an archaeological center. But she was not included. Instead, it depends on the benevolence of the rich – and their personal preferences.

You want to donate 90 percent of your inheritance – not in the form of gifts, but as a tax.
I agree. But in Austria, inheritance tax was abolished in 2008. What’s it like in Switzerland?

In Switzerland, spouses and registered partners do not have to pay inheritance tax. Children are also exempt from this in most cantons. The same applies to the gift tax.
When money moves, it is taxed. Just not with legacies. This is grotesque! Thus, wealth is always accumulated in the same families and passed down dynastic by inheritance. In Austria, 9 out of 10 properties are inherited by people who already own property.

So inheritance is unfair?
Yes. And inheritance is nonsense! (laughs) By that I mean inherit wealth. If you inherit your grandma’s doll collection or something like that, I have no problem with that. The most important legacy in a society is democracy and not the maintenance of unequal power relations through unequal distribution of wealth.

In Switzerland, most of the inheritances of more than 1 million Swiss francs go to the richest 10 percent. The rest goes to the other 90 percent. Yet seven years ago, Swiss voters rejected a national estate tax by 71 percent. How does that go together?
The time before the vote is more important than the day of the vote. It is characterized by wealth: whoever has the most money gets the best campaign. This is not to be underestimated. Ideally, everyone would open the voting topic themselves, without manipulative opinion-forming, but many don’t have time: the washing machine is broken, the child is sick, grandma has to go to a home, the marriage is in trouble. Those who struggle with all kinds of daily and work stress do not have the energy to look behind these manipulations.

You co-founded «taxmenow», an initiative of the wealthy campaigning for tax justice in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. But don’t make suggestions. Why not?
We already have clear demands and as wealthy people we have privileged access to the leading media. Everyone wants to talk to us because we have money – even if we don’t know the way. The tax specialists can usually be found elsewhere, but they are not invited nearly as often as we are.

You don’t want to abuse your influence.
I agree. There are many good models that explore how wealth should be taxed, how it should be done progressively, and how social justice can be achieved. But if we, as wealthy people, value one model more than another, it’s unfair. It must be decided democratically. But for that to happen, public discourse must first distance itself from the question in the event that Wealth should be taxed at all: how it must be taxed.

The French economist Thomas Piketty proposes to introduce a wealth tax of 90 percent from two billion. With the money won, the state should give everyone 120,000 euros at the age of 25 – as a kind of starting capital for life. Is this a good idea?
It is interesting. But it takes more. Structural inequality can only be eliminated if the structures are also changed. It also states who has access to which settings. There is a second path in our society right now, a fast track that you can only get on if you have money and connections.

Do you really only surround yourself with rich people?
Most of my friends are privileged. The wealthy are not supposed to have relationships with people outside their own class. This exclusivity is structurally structured: private kindergarten, private school, elite university. You stay among your own kind. This class separation is problematic because you don’t get to know each other – unless there is an employment relationship, in which case there is an imbalance of power.

In a public school you get to know each other as a class. But I take it you haven’t visited them?
no I went exactly like this: private kindergarten, private school, but then I went to public university. Until the last step “normal” – for one percent of society. So not normal. I didn’t realize that until I got to know the normality of the other 99 percent in college. One swims so much in one’s own soup – that applies to all people! The problem is that when there’s no exchange between classes and you’re “on top of it”, it affects how you use that power. I now exchange thoughts with people from all classes and I am very grateful for that.

When did you realize that what is normal for you is not normal?
I stick with Daniel Kahneman: There is no logical sequence of events. It is said in hindsight, but actually it is a lot of diffuse moments. I have had many conversations with people who grew up differently from me. The relationship work that flowed there was incredibly important.

In the book you write that you had to bring yourself to tell someone that you will inherit an amount in the tens of millions. Are you ashamed of it?
The saying goes in my family, “You don’t talk about money, you have money.” Firstly, because it is supposedly wrong. Second, because it comes down to money for you. But that doesn’t work: whoever thinks like that reduces himself to money.

Why is money so embarrassing?
Shame and guilt are social feelings that help regulate interactions. Their abundance indicates that a boundary has been crossed. The wealthy know they have too much – and others have too little at their expense. Why else would they engage in philanthropy, selfishly donating fractions to ease their consciences instead of paying taxes?

You write that you were born rich, but were not forced to die rich. How do you want to live among them?
Like 99 percent of society, work and pay taxes.

Is that possible? You cannot lose your privileges. They know your name, your face, your story, your family – and now your book.
One must distinguish between wealth and privilege. I want to return my wealth so that one day I will no longer be among the richest 1 percent of society. But yes, I am privileged and I can only afford the PR work I do now because I have a fortune to provide for my life. Because of my privileges I am, as it were, “inaccessible”. But I can keep those privileges in mind and try not to abuse them.

Marlene Engelhorn speaks at Kaufleuten in Zurich on January 9, 2023.