I'd say a fairer system would be to tax the recipient not the estate.

But essentially for the beneficiary they have done literally nothing to earn it other than be a member of the lucky sperm club.

So you want funding switched from A&E maybe to caring for the elderly? Or would you prefer a rise in income tax that can disappear down the black hole of NHS waste?
This is not a perfect world. People with assets should pay for themselves and it's tough luck on their kids.
I'd also like to inherit my share but that is now at risk for many.

It is theirs because as you say, it has been given to them. Comparing it to income tax is a facile argument. What next, taxing birthday presents or wedding gifts?

How is it theirs. It belongs to whoever gave it to them. That's like saying companies should pay no tax as their income comes from consumers who have already paid income tax.

My point is the recipient and beneficiary has paid no tax. And not earned it!

Would you not say that's the sign of someone perhaps with mental health issues? And if not how would you prove that? Pretty sure if you told a psychiatrist that, they'd deem you to at least suffer from some form of depression. So what then under your scheme?

Anjem Choudary, convicted of supporting terrorism, was in receipt of around £25,000 a year in tax-payer funded benefits. Did he pay any tax or earn it? Is it ok for such people to receive such money from people who otherwise would leave it to their children?