Let me introduce you to the concept of "property rights." What right do you have to tell someone who they can pass their property on to at their death? Your definition of "fair" is utterly irrelevant.
Property rights are meaningless without a social order that protects them. Aka a government and a civilized society with high trust.
The value of that property increases when others in the society prosper. Government programs funded by “taking people’s money” (aka taxes) very often make “private” property more valuable.
People with the “f*ck you, got mine” mindset either don’t get this or selfishly don’t care (sometimes for understandable reasons, e.g. they come from a low trust area).
Of course, there are lots of nuances and complex implementation details. Like how much exactly does a specific program affect different groups and on what time scales. But the fundamental principle is straightforward and essential to a healthy society.
Saying "you don't have a right to pass on your property to your family" is the opposite of high trust. I'll grant that the moral answer beyond a certain point is to limit your children's inheritance to what will give them a comfortable life, and then engage in philanthropy a la people like Andrew Carnegie.
But claiming the government has to force people into this is low-trust to the extreme. It's saying "we're going to take these things we already taxed you on, because you can't be trusted to use them responsibly and we can."
You can't regulate your way into everything. Good government can only exist alongside the unwritten rules that made people like Carnegie decide that the right answer was to give their wealth away to the public.
I was responding to your suggestion that property rights are supreme over all other moral and societal considerations.
>Property rights are meaningless without a social order that protects them.
Where do you delineate this worldview from a simple extortion shakedown? e.g. your house is more valuable when it isnt on fire and your family isn't dead.
It still leaves the question of what is an appropriate tax to pay for social order? is it 100%?
The worldview I outlined just suggests there is some amount of obligation that we all owe to society for enabling our basic rights and prosperity (with varying degrees of effectiveness, unfortunately).
And it also argues that some sort of governance structure is always present — official and explicit or implicit and unintentional - so we might as well try to make it a good one.
The details can and should be debated and discussed. The project is never over.