Yes. That's why we pay tax to the state, not to family members.
That way people could afford a home that is theirs until they (and their spouse) die.
The move from life estates and fee tails to fee simples was not a mistake. It was a core component of western society moving out of the feudal era. It's VERY difficult to durably invest in lands and estates otherwise.
We should be railing against the return of economic instability and lack of access to durable wealth for the middle class, not accelerating our return to permanently unlanded peasantry.
I believe there are even rules that allow for children to take over tenancy
The human element is the common denominator to all failing (or failed) policy and there will always be winners and losers. mIn my opinion the only way to succeed is to give people a chance at winning instead of taxing them into poverty.
I can understand why decades of Republicans and to some extent Democrats deliberately ruining your public services would give you a scepticism towards taxes, but you have to remember that not everyone lives in the US, and even then not everyone has the same attitude
I personally don’t want the state to see any extra money—in particular because this is a Republic, not a democracy and so, I don’t even get a chance to say anything.
The government doesn't need your inheritance to provide all this. What they need is for big companies to pay taxes as well. So instead of taking my money by default when I die instead of it going to my children, they should start by making businesses and the ultra rich pay proper taxes.
So they waste half a million on a ritzy house, or spend a couple of months in Spain with their own kids. What's it to you?
Ultimately you need to get the money from somewhere. I'd rather it come from: LVT, inheritance tax, luxury goods tax, etc, than from what it currently comes from: taxes on labour.