>>>Taxing a billion dollars at 90% leaves $100 million.
>>>If that's impoverished, mea culpa.
>
>You proposed a 95% duty on estates over $10M. IME most such estates will include property, shares and family businesses rather than all in cash per your simplified calculation that would leave a family inheriting $10M with $500K. Instead I'd expect it to involve a distress sale of 95% of assets to satisfy the taxman. Which is what took down the aristocratic UK families that needed to sell up to meet their obligations. Even if they had some left after the fire sales, they'd lost the family estates and jewels forever- sometimes to US moguls of the day. Similarly, in 2017 foreign parasites immune to the tax would swarm for the distress prices, knowing you need to sell. Basically you'd be a fool to risk assets in the US unless you vest them in a perpetual trust or company that never is exposed to the tax. Better to invent an offshore entity that owns the lot but grants use of it as part of your "employment" or offers 100-year leases for peppercorn rates. Otherwise trying to sell 95% of your deceased parent's $10M estate at distress prices might leave you with $500K - but equally, might leave you with nothing after the bargain hunters have their day.

Right.
And therefore, someone inheriting $50 billion should be treated the same as my grandsons.
Look at what you're saying, John
You're saying that someone getting a massive handout is a victim.
THEY'RE GETTING THIS MONEY WITHOUT HAVING LIFTED A FINGER