To people who agree with this post, I have a genuine question: Is it a general principle of yours that the parents' efforts and accomplishments should not carry on to the child or there should be a limit to the benefit? Aren't you ignoring that, excluding historic inequities, rich people's parents didn't grow money on a tree? If Rob Rich's and Pete Pauper's grandparents had the same opportunities, but Rich's used their resources more wisely, made better decisions and fewer mistakes, shouldn't Rich benefit from that? Or is it that you think most old money is tainted? If so, do you have a # of generations in mind beyond which the money should become common good instead of go to heirs?
We should invest resources empowering people that have a higher chance of advancing our society.
Just like people believe that a guaranteed minimum income --or other forms of arbitrary wealth distribution-- is not a good idea because it encourages people to work less, this would be the same thing but across generations.
