Why?
Let's say, for example, that you've got a million dollars, but you decide go on a shooting and arson spree around town. You kill 17 people and burn down all their houses, then kill yourself.
Do you think that the families of the people you killed and burned out are going to let your kids have any of your million dollars?
Why not? Your kids didn't do anything wrong ...
Well, I personally object to anything that is forced upon me by those who've come before me (behaviours/policy/philosophy/government - whatever) - I had nothing to do with it.
I'm not going to apologise to all the people the British Empire has wronged, I wasn't alive to offend them - I didn't choose to be born here I just was.
I don't quite think your example is a good one, given that the offender, and his kids are alive.
His kids didn't earn the fortune, and therefore have no right to it beyond inheritance - you could easily argue in favour of the victims in that situation.
If you changed it to -
I decide to kill a bunch of people and burn down some houses, causing expensive damage to property, and causing suffering for many people - then kill myself.
Many years later, decendants of my family (who've I've never spoken to and never had dealings with ever) move to the town where I commited this crime - they are forced to give their money to those I have harmed.
That would be more like the situation here.
I get why reparations were decided upon, but I still think it's unfair to burden who weren't alive to give offense or commit wrong with those who did.
