I don't think that is accurate, but let me try to get as close as possible with something that is accurate:
* I am not envious of people with wealthy and happy families. After all, I have exactly such a family.
* I am empathetic with people that don't have such a family.
* I recognise that there are a lot of the former, who are wealthy beyond their needs due to no merit of their own, while there are a lot of the latter who live below their needs despite their merits.
* I want the state to provide for the poor up to what they need, and to fund it they can take some from the rich who got it without merit.
* Inheritance is the perfect place. After all, the estate is given for neither merit nor need. And the owner of the estate doesn't exist anymore, so has no more moral rights.
>the owner of the estate doesn't exist anymore, so has no more moral rights
This is psychopathic. By this logic, it's open season as soon as a person's heart stops. Feed the body to your dogs, rape their corpse, burn it, cut it up for fun, set their car on fire, smash your way into their house and shit on the floor... They have no rights, right? So none of this is wrong. There is no victim. No right has been violated.
Here's a little tip for you: You can donate your children's would-be inheritance voluntarily. Nobody is stopping you. If you really believe you haven't earned your wealth, you have no right to it as soon as you're gone, and random strangers deserve it more than your own children, then do that. I fully support that. But leave my family out of it. Stop cowardly nagging the state to carry out your crimes.