Determining someone's future on parental wealth means determining someone's future on a lack of parental wealth - and a vast majority of parents don't have meaningful wealth.
So we're (society is at present) consigning a majority of children to a life of missed opportunity and missed potential. I don't see how that can be a good thing.
My point is that if you were a parent, you'd probably realize that for many parents, a large part of the reason they strive to earn is to be able to leave their children in the best possible position in life. It's not something we should be trying to "correct" by removing that ability from parents, and it's uncomfortable to have the government trying to get in between that relationship, beyond the normal inheritance taxes.
Also, parental wealth doesn't "determine their future" any more than the quality of the parents does. It's certainly a leg up, all else being equal, but it's very possible to live an enjoyable and fulfilling life without much wealth if you're willing to get outside of the focus on consumption, and personally, I'd generally take poor, loving parents over rich, uncaring/selfish/narcissistic parents.
Who you're born to will always be a lottery that leaves winners and losers, even if everyone is equally wealthy. You'll get variable quality genetics, if nothing else, at least until we completely master human genetic engineering.
I'm not a parent (also not the person you're directly responding to), but I think one day I might be. Right now we're encouraging the productive people to pass on their assets, but not the ability to create wealth - which would be better for society, and (totally my own subjective opinion) will lead to a better life for the child as well.
There's still the option of living a comfortable life being totally unproductive - but why let that option waste an unnecessary amount of our society's assets?
This would be an extremely strong move by the government, you're right, but I think most people would be behind it, especially since it would affect less than a percent of the population. We're not headed down that path currently, but I thought it was an idea worth sharing.
>Right now we're encouraging the productive people to pass on their assets, but not the ability to create wealth - which would be better for society, and (totally my own subjective opinion) will lead to a better life for the child as well.
Most productive parents are already highly incentivized to not see their children become totally unproductive wastrels, because the culture that made them productive taught them to value productivity, and good parents typically want to see their children instilled with what they see as good values. I don't think the government needs to do much more there.
> There's still the option of living a comfortable life being totally unproductive - but why let that option waste an unnecessary amount of our society's assets?
There are a couple things to unpack here. First off, wealthy peoples' wealth doesn't just sit in a cave, it's almost always ~100% invested in productive ventures. Even sitting in the bank, the bank is using it to write loans to people and businesses to do things with.
The other thing is that it's part of our very basic social compact that peoples' property is theirs and their family's, not the society's, and only in very limited circumstances can the government/society seize that property for the use of the group.
I rather think that most parents would prefer to spend time with their children over their current desperate need to amass enough wealth to carve out a meagre existence.
