>>>>>So for a large segment of the US population what those inheritors might call "destruction" would really mean getting things straight.
>>>
>>>Your issue is that unless a sneaky out is provided for the rich, the inheritors can and will transport wealth away from high taxation, as NY and CA mayors and governors are currently experiencing/complaining. You can be sure the person who paid huge bucks for the Central Park condo will not be declaring NY residence or booking income to attract higher NY taxes, but will have something domiciled in Florida or Red state with low state taxes. NY will need to change the rules to imply residence and force the tax back onto rich residents who will come up with some other chicanery and then will donate a few mill to politicians who will do their bidding. Meanwhile Trump is delighted to see coastal states hoist on their own "high tax" petard and will continue to push MAGA and jobs for anybody who wants one, which is far easier to understand.
>>>
>>Nothing so complicated.
>>Let's have a 90% federal inheritance taxes on estates over, say, $20,000,000.
>>Sure, they will be evaders, but we'll get a lot of it, as we used to before Reagan came along.
>
>Do you mean like we did with the DuPont, Kennedy, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Ford, Getty, Hunt and many more fortunes- all before Reagan?
>>
>>
Don't forget Carnegie, Frick, JP Morgan and Mellon.
Reagan started the trend downward for estate tax rates, instead for raising them.

It's really pretty simple. Take 90% of everything over a generous exemption.
The Walmarts would still all be billionaires.
Some of them might actually enjoy working for a living.