Inheritance tax in practice is implemented above a certain threshold.

There is nothing wrong with striving to give a heads up in life to your kids, on the contrary, it's a core, visceral instinct of parents to do so, and removing that would be alienating.

There is a certain level of wealth though, where the "heads up" transforms to an unstoppable compounding lever.

France for instance has a progressive inheritance tax (starting at 5%, up to 45%), triggered for children inheriting at 100k€ per parent. In practice, 50% of the population inherits <70k€.

Also, the proposed Zucman tax in France for instance is triggered starting at 100M€ wealth. At these levels, a mere 2% risk free investment yields 2M€ annual income, this is enough to both compound and enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle. This level of wealth is unstoppably compounding, and that is why it is proposed to tax it.

If you don't, well you end up with a US situation, where disproportionate wealth (and thus power, influence) end up in the hands of random citizens with their own agendas, possibly (likely) orthogonal to the interests of the majority.

Unless i've misunderstood the text, the Zucman tax proposed a minimum 2% tax rate for the >100M€ rich bastards who don't already pay 2% of their income in taxes, not an additional 2% on top of existing taxes.