But how do you assess or evaluate these two situations:

A small family business. A fruit stand, an auto mechanic shop, etc. Of you do not allow a parent to pass that to a child who wants to continue the business then you cannot really benefit "the community" by taking it away. In fact, in many cases the community is worse off for the loss of the business.

In the second situation you have two people who earn the same in their lifetimes. One spends everything as quickly as they earn it. The other lives more modestly, saving some for old age. But when the second one dies you take what they saved. In that case you are strongly reinforcing people to spend and not save. I do not think that helps a society.

The final problem I see with your no-inheritence approach is the parent who dies prematurely, leaving minor children behind. It is not a benefit to anyone to leave the children with nothing pecause the parent died.

Let's see:

If people are allowed to bequeath some of their savings/goods to their children, then inheriting more is better than inheriting less.

Families who have inherited more, tend to live in more expensive areas.

People who grew up with less often value being closer to family more than people who grew up with more material goods.

But in essence the study sounds side the authors think these things are inherently bad.

They really should come out and say what the apparently believe: when you die you should be able to pass nothing on to your children.

That may be "fairer" in some people's perspective, but it certainly comes with some other less desirable results.