MONEY might make the world go round but it’s a private topic people are uncomfortable to publicly discuss.

Unless there’s a will involved. Mention inheritance and all bets of discretion are off.

Heather Ilott, of Hertfordshire, was infuriated to discover her estranged mother had cut her out of her will, leaving £486,000 estate to three animal charities.

Her mother, Melita Jackson, was peeved at Mrs Ilott’s elopement at the age of 17. The two remained estranged and so, following her mother’s death, Mrs Ilott, who is married to the man she eloped with, engaged in a beyond the grave tit-for-tat exercise.

Originally awarded £50,000, Mrs Ilott knocked the offer back as such a lump sum would dent her benefit entitlement and leave her no better off. She wanted enough to invest in property so her benefits would be unaffected.

Much was made in court of Mrs Ilott’s straightened financial circumstances. I suppose this makes her determination to wrest cash from the coffers of the three charities that now miss out on a useful donation slightly easier to understand but no less selfish.

Much less was made of the fact Mrs Jackson is said to have disapproved of her daughter’s workless lifestyle and five children. Mrs Jackson, who had worked since being widowed while pregnant, was perhaps irked at the thought of her hard-earned cash going to a daughter who wanted to inherit money but not a work ethic.

Mrs Ilott is a left-thinker’s nightmare: she has pursued a lump sum from her mother’s estate, now awarded to her by a court of appeal ruling this week, that she can’t bank because it would affect her benefits. Rather than use her windfall to support herself, she’s using her cash to buy up her housing association home and let yet another socially rented property be lost to the market. If I was her mother I’d probably disinherit her too.

This case has huge implications for disinheritance and the strength of wills and has raised concerns that it sets a legal precedent that the wishes of the deceased can be ignored. The question, ‘Should we be forced to leave money to our children?’ has been asked.

Far better a question is, ‘Should we expect to inherit from our parents?’

It's difficult to have a sensible conversation about inheritance. It’s a subject instinctual rather than intellectual and, although inherited wealth does wider society no good, people cling to the "natural instinct" that is the need to provide for their children, grown or not.

Sentiment, however, is not a reasonable motivating factor and causes inconsistent thinking. For example, people are generally accepting of the fact that their earned income will be taxed and redistributed but expect that an unearned windfall should be protected from further deductions.

In 2011, the last year for which there are figures, fewer than 3% of estates paid inheritance tax (IHT); 15,976 estates paid IHT out of around 553,000 deaths. Now the present Conservative government has expanded the IHT threshold to £1million from £650,000 for married couples even fewer resources will be redistributed to wider society.

If more IHT was paid, more property would be sold on death to pay taxes, freeing up property that would not otherwise become available on the market. Inheritance does not allow for innovation or entrepreneurship. Taxing inheritance promotes social mobility, encourages equality, keeps a lower rate of property prices and redistributes wealth.

There is a social, moral and economic case for inheritance tax while the transfer of wealth from few hands to few hands is an injustice.

In the Ilott vs Mitson case, the court ruled that her mother had not left Mrs Ilott “reasonable provision”. Mrs Ilott is a grown woman. Adults should expect to, and want to, support themselves.

A far better inheritance to gift one's children is a work ethic and social conscience that will allow them as adults to make independent, moral decisions rather than scrabbling after unearned money and sticking two fingers up to the rest of society.