I understand and respect your perspective. However, one of life's strongest drives is to protect/provide for your children. Not just a human drive, and not eve

I understand and respect your perspective. However, one of life's strongest drives is to protect/provide for your children. Not just a human drive, and not even just an animal drive-- trees preferentially support their offspring... You justify your proposal from a moral basis ("root of inequality, promotes bad behavior"). While there is much to commend a morals-based approach, it is hard for me to accept that one of life's most fundamental drives is immoral. My parents are now old. I want to encourage them to spend their money enjoying their last few years. But I also know that the thing which would bring the most joy to my father would be to gift money to my siblings and myself, especially at his passing-- if he were to spend it all, he would feel like he had been a poor steward. I have a very hard time with a legal structure which penalizes people for deciding to provide for their children rather than for themselves. This is before we look at all of the edge cases (surviving spouse, early deaths, ...) and also the observations made by others that the rich will avoid the law anyway, thus defeating the purpose of reducing inequality at the high end of the spectrum.