Is Inheritance Morally Wrong?

It's clear that your understanding of philosophy and such is a lot more sophisticated that mine. What I'm trying to get at, in a somewhat hamfisted way, is that I think of the family as something so valuable that while individuals are individuals, their lives should more or less dedicated to propagating it unless their families are REALLY toxic. For me, I want kids really badly but even if I didn't I would still do it just out of a sense of duty to my parents who I know really want grandchildren. I do think we as individuals have some obligation to our families, honor thy mother and father and all that. When I think about the money I have and the money I expect to earn in the future, a lot of what I'm thinking about is future generations

We might have a disagreement here. They should have a legal right to do so because otherwise the government is dictating how people spend their money which is obviously a terrible idea. But I would consider an heir who inherits tons of money from past generations and squanders it to be doing something immoral, especially if their own children are struggling. They have a kind of fiduciary responsibility as a steward of assets...I guess this issue is why most serious wealth is held in trusts

On the other hand I do think it's wrong when greedy heirs act entitled to their parents or their grandparents money. So morality is probably a lot more conditional than the framework I laid out in my OP

it's also NOT "monogamy"

more like "serial-polygamy" with divorce being normalized

...legal marriage is a fucking diabolical leverage game in the United States. I’m just being honest. Devoid of religious significance or the idea of love, marriage is nothing but an awful contract that you shouldn’t sign. I’m just being real. Because you start out loving each other. Then two years later, you’re just building a case against one another… for a hypothetical court date that may or may not ever happen.

I am strongly opposed to the types of inheritance taxes  you see in European countries, which often kick in at very low thresholds of around $100-$300k. I would contend that a person should ABSOLUTELY be able to inherit millions of dollars without the government getting involved at all. Something I don't think most people would agree with. 

- I heard before that Islamic Law did not "evolve" enough to adopt 'corporate personhood', which is a ridiculous claim. One, the practice actually originates from the Waqf concept in Sharia, that is non-profit perpetual trust, thus entrusted to God (generally schools, hospitals, mosques & such). Two, for-profit trusts (corporations) are against Taklif, the fundamental concept of human accountability. Duties & privileges, including wealth, can you only be entrusted to a human, as a vicegerent to God. As an actor by-proxy of God's boundaries, only a human can be accountable for the preservation of these boundaries (or lack thereof). An impersonal entity such as a corporation, therefore, does not by design possess any divine permission to act on God's domain. The whole notion is absurd; a perpetual for-profit trust is immune to humans' justice, yet acts on humans' rights. That's chaos of moral & legal boundaries, for these are the rights within & dues without. Inheritance is just an aspect of this action. If not purged, in such system, corporations will grow indefinitely in perpetuity, overcoming states, & even empires.

- As to Inheritance Tax, it's indeed weird. Being a Muslim, the only thing that makes sense to me is static wealth tax, & nothing else. Economy is essentially the centrifugal transfer of wealth, from capital to income, which is labour. New income raises consumption, & new labour raises production. Hence, economic growth. By taxing static wealth, you compel the holder to either invest his wealth so diligently as to make a profit greater than the tax, or keep his wealth while contributing to the economy through that tax. (in Sharia it's generally 2.5%). 

I agree that the entire concept is absurd from the perspective of justice. The classic scholastic definition of usury in the Western tradition is 'profit without risk or labor', and that's precisely what a limited liability for-profit corporation provides to its stockholders. I think it's absurd that it arose out of some healthy 'evolution' of Western law; the limited liability corporation was first created in Delaware as a scheme to attract corporations looking to headquarter in the most friendly legal environment possible. It worked, and other American states adopted it in order to regain equal economic footing. That's a just a race to the bottom as far as corruption is concerned, not some profound advancement.

How is that administered? The idea has been floated in America, but people always say it would be a nightmare to actually implement. For example, how do you deal with capital flight and offshoring?

We don't 'pretend' that favoritism is okay -- favoritism is okay. It's the foundational principle of love. A mother favors her children. A wife favors her husband. A child favors their family. This isn't exclusive to the rich, but to the poor as well, who also dream of having something to leave to those whom they care for, to provide for those whom they value far into the future, and would not break bread to feed the whole city block if it meant that their own children would go to bed with half-empty bellies. You do love to wrap the mantle of the poor around yourself, but poor people by and large aren't animated by the same venomous spite and resentment that you are. They have families and other human ties which adorn their otherwise dire circumstances, and make them more bearable. It's not the poor that feel such burning resentment, but those who have isolated themselves and failed to make and hold on to healthy human bonds and a supportive community.

 It's not the poor that feel such burning resentment,