The argument against the idea is contained within the very piece recommending it.
In the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That’s money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property. Were that money redistributed by the state, it would cover the cost of adult social care several times over. It could plug gaps in NHS, education and police funding. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry about their family after they passed away – because there would always be a safety net.
OK, 100% inheritance tax. Why not?
The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded. It appeals to the fundamental biological urge to protect your offspring and propagate your genes.
Because human beings don’t work that way.
Which is a pretty shit hot reason why not. To the extent that we’re doing any designing at all we’re trying to aid humans in being human, not anything else.