arations
$$\text{\textbf{This is a serious discussion. No lame political trolls please.}}$$
There is a very politicized discussion going on among Twitter economists, economists with particular political agendas, and other ideologue economists. From what I can tell, this discussion relies heavily on a very naive assumption of intergenerational wealth transfer.
Example naive calculation:
$100 of wealth in 1850 (denominated in 2019 dollars) compounds at a real rate of 3% per year to $14773. So, $14773 is owed to descendants (as a whole) for every $100 of wealth expropriated in 1850.
But this assumes that family wealth compounded continually through the generations and was never used up by descendants. Historically, this is not how intergenerational wealth transfer has ever worked in any culture. Later generations don't reinvest the wealth to keep passing it on. They usually either eat it or, alternatively, lose the fortune. Many cultures worldwide have old adages like "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" that capture this dynamic.
Also, much wealth was destroyed by financial panics in 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929, 2001, 2008, etc.
Also, most wealth in 1850 was held as farmland. Most of those small farmers went bust by the 1930s or with technological change and as economies of scale became important. That gives you a good estimate of the real value of this type of asset over time.