I haven't really looked into beneficiary planning. Can we make comparisons for discussion? What options would beneficiaries have they have if the money wasn't in a Roth?
Inherited traditional IRAs have two possibilities if it's a non-spouse heir; they can set it up as an inherited IRA and take the required minimum distributions based off their age (and this will count as income, so taxes are a consideration), or they could be forced to basically liquidate the entire IRA within a 5 year period if it is not set up correctly (which would suck since the tax hit could be significant). In any case, since traditional IRAs are pre-tax money, the government wants their cut, and you have to take distributions out at some point, even if you don't need the money.
Roths do not currently require any distributions and there are no taxes owed on the money withdrawn. So your heirs could conceivably keep the Roth forever and pass it down to their heirs.
While I do keep reading all this stuff about how proposed changes could effect the way Roths are allowed to operate, I can't really believe that these changes would ever come about because the Roth is such an important part of the retirement savings puzzle and screwing around with it like this isn't going to encourage people to save. And the article is saying things like converting a traditional with 3 million in it to a Roth in one fell swoop, which is just crazy talk... who does that? That's just asking for them to take more money in taxes due to you popping up into a higher tax bracket due to the conversion.