It's not a perfect map 1:1 for the world but it's useful. Inheritance tax is necessary for a fair society.
Inheritance tax may not work as quickly as you'd like, but the avoidance that you refer to only goes so far. People multiply. They have kids. Those kids have kids. Not everyone has the intelligence and drive to produce 1%-style outcomes. The wealth dilutes. And then there is none.
In fact, even with no inheritance tax whatsoever, the old dictum "wealth never survives three generations" ("Fu bu guo san dai") absolutely asserts itself.
Of course there are edge cases. Let's not waste our time indexing all of the rothschilds and windsors and duponts.
The point is: all of the squares are not taken and the squares that are taken come up for grabs all the time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/period-property/...
My time is wasted, not enumerating them but slaving for them.
And Windsor is a made up name, it's Saxe-Coburg-Goth.
You've made this analogy a few times in the past few days and I think it is flawed.
It's only like a game of monopoly, joined two hours in, if in monopoly the players are periodically removed from the game (death) and have their assets divided up among new players (wealth taxes OR the dilutive effects of transfer to heirs whose number is greater than the original player).
Also: imagine 50,000 more property squares that nobody wants. Detroit Place. Haiti Way. Rural Spain Parkway.
Really, the analogy is flawed.