That's a false problem really, in a system designed to manage wealth better you would not need to transfer wealth to your children, at least not millions, because in such a system accumulation of wealth should be rendered useless by design. It's the core issue with our current way of living, that we see excessive accumulation of wealth as an acceptable thing.

It is very telling that whenever we talk about how well a country is doing we mostly consider its GDP (for conversation), a metric that says nothing about the individuals of that country as humans, but everything about their economic worth. Are they happy with their lives for example, which is something we never seem to consider but as a side note, yet it truly is the only thing that should matter.

The main counter argument is that "you can't live on happiness", and the answer is quite simply, yes you very much can. Not in our current system that's for sure, or it'll be at a cost. But living happy doesn't mean doing nothing all the time, but between automation and the suppression of a wide range of useless fake jobs brought on by wealth accumulation, you could easily have everybody contribute 1 day a week to maintain the automation and remaining manual labor, much in the same vein as the basic income idea.

To many this sounds like a utopia, but its a necessity. We need to collectively realize that our current way of living is toxic for us, both figuratively and literally, as we are seeing the consequence of our way of living on the environment.

We're headed for a wall at 100mph and we're still wondering if maybe we should slow down, and that we'd really like to keep the car because it's so convenient, instead of stopping and saying, "May be that's not a good idea".