A balanced result: 45 % for capping inheritance, 45 % against, 9 % with no opinion. Neither camp wins on one of the most divisive subjects in the archive.
Men split exactly in two. Women lean towards refusal while supplying a share of the hesitation. The deadlock is general rather than carried by one group.
Age, by contrast, has almost no shades: the over-65s and the 45-54s are unanimously in favour of a cap, the 55-64s unanimously against, and the 18-24s lean towards refusal. The global total thus masks individually very firm positions.
This is the most dialogic thread of the period, with several exchanges answering one another. The supportive camp never targets ordinary estates: it explicitly aims at the very largest fortunes, noting that even capped at a high level, sums would remain that no heir could spend in a lifetime.
The redistribution argument recurs throughout, but always with a condition: that the money then be used intelligently, for public services, student housing, the environment. Two voices add the same practical reservation: the very wealthy have the means to work around taxation, and corruption would have to be dealt with too for the measure to mean anything.
The refusal camp rests on one principle, stated in English in the thread: everyone should be able to leave what they want to whom they want. The best-received reply counters with equality of opportunity, since if everyone passes on freely, the same people always stay at the top. An undecided voice sums up the impasse by holding both ends at once: reduce inequality on one side, respect the estate someone built on the other.