Hell according to those rules, what is wrong with an aristocracy? Which is what inheritance creates.
And we don't have that now? We have mulitgenerational political families - you could name dozens if you tried. We also have self made billionaires, many of whose children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will barely do anything but spend money. So what. Spending the money is more useful than piling it up, investing it even more so. Encourage people to invest rather than punish them for having money and you get the best results.
Nothing stops you from setting a tax code to encourage favorable wages to workers. For example, you could give an additional percentage of tax deduction for employee wages that are in the industries top 20%. Or if you could make it that exceeding say 110% of the average wage for that position 2 years prior, results in a tax benefit. You'd see companies lining up to get those benefits.
You could do what Trump did and set up opportunity zones that give tax preferences to building businesses in economically disadvantaged areas. Literally incentivizing bringing permanent jobs to historically disadvantaged communities.
Those are targetted directly at improving the position of the people you're trying to help. Taxes are targetted at punishment, which is all they are under modern monetary theory, and at creating a justification for politically favored spending. People used to understand that actions speak louder than words, but today they are piss poor at actually understanding the impact of actions and rely on dog whistles and other words to form an opinion.
Rand wouldn't agree with you, and her moral heroes deliberately do not lift a finger to help their kids in any way. In the ultimate view of man qua man, everyone is an individual and there are no clans.
And? I'd say Rand's position is a failure as a matter of life. Genetic continuation is a (some might say the) purpose of life, only if you have so many descendants that you want to temper them to be the best would that even come close to making sense, but even then you should prefer the weakest of them over other people's descendents. I do note, you could also choose to continue your existence by being influential but that's a tougher way to go.
Not to mention that massive concentrations of wealth often involve immoral actions done to other individuals because of a position of power rather than value for value.
Do they then? Can you prove it? Really massive concentrations of wealth almost always involve producing something for other people that they value, not anything immoral.
I think this is one of those soft axiomatic lies that people tell them self without any real examination or proof. You just assume that having money is proof of guilt therefore you're only punishing the guilty. It's the same premise as racism or sexism or any other -ism, you attribute guilt based on a characteristic without any basis for it.
Now, in pure objectivism it would also be abhorrent to have the government take your wealth upon death. In that moral utopia, the last will and testament would give that money to someone according to their value. Which might be a perfect stranger or an entity or otherwise. Normally that would be a value for value proposition. Say, a child who cares for their elderly parent. But that transaction would be happening in real time, it wouldn't be contingent on death.
How about just having a basic view that people are entitled to make their own decisions about what they do with the money they earned. Jumping the shark to the view that all money belongs to the government (which is really where you're going with your tax philosophy) is fundamentally inconsistent with the best way to live our lives and completely incompatible with freedom.
But these are all things they should have done when they were creating the bills in the first place. So all the debt ceiling does is make Congress renegotiate the bills they have already passed.
Like I said, de novo the debt ceiling is a stupid idea. Nothing prevented then (or now), Congress including a debt ceiling increase specifically in the laws they pass that spend the cash. Ask yourself why they don't?
For this stuff it has to do with the way they "score" laws to pretend the costs and the benefits are balanced. You know Biden's claim that the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill "costs nothing," when in fact if you properly scored it and eliminated the accounting tricks up front it's closer to $6 trillion. When Congress passes a bill like that, and eliminates the gimmicks on the down low, they have to raise the debt ceiling to borrow money to pay for their previous lies on cost.
But with the filibuster, Republicans don't have to renegotiate anything. They just prevent any bill that they don't like from being passed, and the country defaults on its financial obligations. And they only need 41% of the Senate to to that. 
I see. You have no problem with the Dems passing huge partisan changes to the economy in a 50/50 senate using "reconciliation" rather than compromising, but it's unfair to demand they use the tricks to increase the debt ceiling. If the Senate worked on compromise half as hard as they worked on dividing us we'd never have to worry about the filibuster.
But we both know there is no world where the Dems will trade the Republicans a policy win for a policy win. We literally have a 50/50 Senate that most analysts expect the Dems to lose in 2 years and for it to get even worse for Dems in 4 years, and rather than see that as a reason to compromise and work for the good of the
whole country they see that as a panic inducing need to force through radical changes while they can.
If the country wanted those changes there would be no need to panic. Just keep telling the people what you're going to do and let them re-elect you. But that isn't the Democrat's strategy. Nope their strategy is to lie about what they're going to do, to deliberately mislead by only discussion the things that "poll well" and to deliberately down play and mislead on that which "doesn't poll well" (i.e, things that don't have majority support).
It gives too much power to a minority of politicians to veto bills that were already passed.
We'd be better off killing the reconciliation process, then bills that pass will have the support to get a debt ceiling increase. If politicians can't compromise and the public won't give a sixty vote threshhold it says clearly that the PEOPLE don't want those actions to occur.
