Money is a social construct, and it seems you are starting from the base assumption that wealth can be transferred infinitely and unrestricted between generations. Not everyone holds that view of money.

> Money is a social construct

Money and wealth, though often used interchangeably, are very different things. Money is one form of wealth. So whilst you are correct, it’s not the point you’re trying to make.

Wealth is absolutely not a social construct and never has been.

Isn't that the idea behind a nation or any other governance structure? The wealth built within the entity can be transferred infinitely and unrestricted between generations?

What's the difference if the structure is a government, religion, guild, corporation, cartel, mafia, family or Mars colony?

0 taxation on assets or income and it's available to people living outside of the state.

So rich people can avoid paying taxes.

It’s for avoiding federal taxes. The federal government can fix the situation anytime it wants, and it won’t matter where in the US people live.

> [A functioning federal government could] fix the situation anytime it wants

Specifically for avoiding tranfer/inheritance taxes.

Any money actually paid out of the trust to a beneficiary is subject to that individuals federal income taxes.

I’m not sure you actually read up about South Dakota Dynasty trusts nor the general context from these comments/post.

Instead, you appear to be asking a “simplistic” question feigning ignorance, rather than a serious attempt at understanding the problem.