Absolutely; to the extent that there a person has natural property interests, they don't extend beyond the end of their life; the ability to direct the disposition of property beyond that point makes sense as a legal privilege only to the extent that model on which that privilege is granted has social utility. It's clear that some rights here are probably desirable, but not unlimited, and beyond a point the inequality that results has considerable externalized disutility.
> I think % is a flawed metric. Your measuring your position compared to the rest of society as a gauge
Whatever you think people should value, it's empirically quite clear that relative deprivation -- compare to contemporaries as well as compared to one's own former state -- is a source of significant disutility consistently, across cultures.
It's also clear that, ceteris paribus, increasing concentration of wealth decreases the amount of progress people on the lower end of the scale can make against their own past state as well as against those on the upper end.
So, should you be able to increase the ability for your "dynasty" to do better? Yes. Of course, increasing society at large accomplishes this more effectively than just giving them more money. Good stewards of a society typically have it better in the long run than greedy stewards.
I think % is a flawed metric. Your measuring your position compared to the rest of society as a gauge for "getting ahead in life" when you should measure yourself to yourself at different points in time.