Thats how I read GP.
1% of 1 million people is 10,000 people, who will be roughly half kids and young adults — the heirs.
So you’re talking 0.00008% of the wealth being passed down, roughly. That’s still pretty unequal in a society with a lot of people, but I’m also not sure smashing any granule of accumulated wealth leads to a vibrant society — the inter generational transfer of structures is essential for culture.
Capitalism is fundamentally just highly mobile aristocracy, though — and that may be the best we can do.
The ownership is probably a power law. If you did a simple "averaging" division, that makes no sense.
It used to be a principle in ancient times that one is not entitled to more land than one can deffend.
Land ownership seems like a much more mundane part of the economy actually but it is being equated with the entire economy. So what does land ownership have to do with monopolies, corruption, and the rich paying proper taxes? What are proper taxes for the rich to pay?
To me the land ownership issue is being used as a wedge to reinforce a different idea that a tiny percentage of people have economically disenfranchised everyone else. I really don't think land ownership should be equated with that however. At this point, the argument is very different. It's gone from why we should confiscate people's land to what tax rates should be, or who the "rich" are, or why real estate prices are what they are. To me the land confiscation case seems like scapegoating of landowners for things like real estate prices or economic inequality.