Madrid played host to a public debate on Wednesday, , featuring writer and columnist Ana Iris Simón and author Alfonso J. Ussía. The event, titled “Ser herederos: ¿herencia o maldición?” (Being an Heir: Inheritance or Curse?), took place at the Casa de Vacas in Madrid’s Retiro Park.
The discussion was organized by the Retiro Municipal Council, presided over by Andrea Levy, as part of a program called “La velada de pensar” (The Evening of Thought). Organizers plan to host similar debates at cultural centers throughout Madrid in the coming months. The event was moderated by writer and polemicist Juan Soto Ivars.
Each participant presented their views for 15 minutes without direct interaction. Following these individual presentations, questions submitted by the audience via WhatsApp were selected by Soto Ivars, leading to a more direct exchange between Simón and Ussía.
The Stories: Ussía’s “Honor” and Simón’s “Pity for the Rich”
Ussía’s initial presentation was described as the more engaging of the two. He addressed the perception of inheriting advantages due to his lineage – his father, Alfonso Ussía, was a noted journalist, and his maternal grandfather was playwright Pedro Muñoz Seca. Ussía stated he felt no need to “kill the father” and viewed his family history as an “honor,” despite inevitable comparisons. He recounted an instance where an event he was appearing at was overrun with attendees who mistakenly believed his father would be present.
Ussía claimed to have inherited two primary things: “The name and a library.” He asserted he never felt a need to distance himself from his father’s legacy, recalling a friendly exchange of poetic barbs with singer-songwriter Joaquín Sabina, who had penned a poem titled “Don Mendo no se hereda” (Don Mendo is not inherited), referencing Muñoz Seca’s most famous work. Ussía said his father responded by suggesting Sabina learn the basics of syllabic structure, criticizing the poem’s form. “Towards the end of my father’s life, they reached a certain spiritual or intellectual understanding. It was nice to inherit that relationship of swords with a tender outcome.”
Simón’s solo contribution began with a reference to the recent death of of Antonio Tejero, linking it to the concept of inheritance and societal judgment. She described inheritance as a “shackle,” drawing parallels to figures from Greek tragedy and the Panero family, as portrayed by Jaime Chávarri. However, her presentation then took a more unconventional turn, stating that in the modern world, concepts like family, nation, biological sex, and even species are increasingly seen as things to be overcome.
She spoke of a growing “pity for the rich,” suggesting that those who haven’t experienced a modest upbringing may lack a certain grounding. She then recited a psalm, arguing that “class pride coexists with class hatred.” She later observed that “there are rich people who are good people and poor people who are sons of bitches.”
There are rich people who are good people and poor people who are sons of bitches
Ana Iris Simón
Simón also mentioned that her success in publishing had allowed her to achieve a financial stability she hadn’t previously experienced.
The Debate: Two Profiles (Not So) Opposed
The event aimed to contrast opposing viewpoints, but ideological common ground emerged despite the differing life paths of the participants. The discussion touched on the role of the state in relation to inherited wealth.
Both speakers agreed on the need to review inheritance tax on primary residences, but Simón advocated for higher rates for those receiving substantial inheritances (“ten or twenty”), while Ussía argued against penalizing success achieved through innovation. Simón countered that the issue was whether such wealth should be used to purchase property, arguing that housing shouldn’t be treated as a commodity. Ussía ultimately conceded this point, even agreeing with Gabriel Rufián’s suggestion that the wealthy should invest in gold rather than real estate.
A contradiction in Ussía’s position was noted: while opposing inheritance tax on earned wealth, he also believed that heirs shouldn’t be held responsible for their parents’ debts. The implication was that fortune should be inherited without state interference, but misfortune shouldn’t be alleviated by state support.
The conversation broadened to a comparison of the American and Chinese models, after Ussía criticized communism and systems that he believed promoted mediocrity. Simón responded by pointing to the housing crisis in the United States and healthcare disparities, quoting Estefanía Molina: “You can’t eat freedom.” Ussía defended democratic freedoms, but Simón countered that people die in the streets regardless of whether Trump or Kamala Harris is in power.
Simón then shifted the discussion to her critique of individual liberties, arguing that recent generations have prioritized them over collective concerns, particularly on the left. She cautioned against the false dichotomy between these struggles, noting that the right is often preoccupied with identity politics. She concluded by suggesting that life without children is destined for nihilism: “Without children, we don’t work the same way, not just at a salary level, but in other aspects of life. I’ve realized that without children, I wasn’t really interested in the state of things.”
I’ve realized that without children, I wasn’t really interested in the state of things
Ana Iris Simón
The debate concluded with a discussion of the recent phenomenon of “therians” – individuals who identify as animals – and the question of inheriting wealth to pets, prompting Ussía to joke about encountering lions fighting and Soto Ivars to quip about an increase in zoophilia. Simón lamented the fact that, in such cases, inherited property remains unoccupied until the animal’s death, arguing that it should instead be allocated to the public good.
Future Debates and the Backing of the City Council
Soto Ivars described the initiative as a departure from television and social media debates, aiming for a more civil exchange of opposing views without interruption or personal attacks. He announced future participants, including Pedro Herrero, Estefanía Molina, Arcadi Espada, and Marta Peirano.
The City Council’s involvement and funding for the “La velada de pensar” program were queried. Sources within the council stated that the winning company contracted to organize district events is responsible for programming, and that similar events featuring figures like philosopher Jorge Freire and writer Carmen Posadas were held last year.
Brief Profiles of the Participants
Ana Iris Simón gained prominence with the publication of her 2020 autobiographical work, Feria, which explores her rural roots and the frustrations of her generation. She has since become a regular commentator on Spanish media, including Espejo Público, and publishes a weekly column in El País.
Alfonso J. Ussía is the son of journalist Alfonso Ussía and the grandson of playwright Pedro Muñoz Seca. He has contributed to various publications, including The Objective, El Confidencial, and ABC, and served as a speechwriter for the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso. He recently published the essays Borroka. Años de plomo y sangre and Bajo cielo.
Juan Soto Ivars is known for his critique of what he terms “post-censorship” and has authored books such as Arden las redes, La casa del ahorcado, and La trinchera de las letras. He has collaborated with RTVE, laSexta, El Mundo, TV3, and Iker Jiménez’s programs on Cuatro. He recently released the controversial essay Esto no existe.