He said he wasn't promoting violence. Let's infer that "kill" should be considered metaphorical, and asset forfeiture is more to OP's point. Civil or criminal forfeiture means - hippity hoppity, it's all now state property.

The government could operate them as arms length state agencies, or break the monopolies and sell fragmented assets back into public hands. The latter is more likely. The 1% can either be jailed or returned to commoner life without their assets.

The assets themselves would lose some of their nominal value because they are currently configured for maximum wealth. Anti-trust breakups would devalue the assets moderately because the configuration would be suboptimal for profit, and presumably re-optimized for public good.

As to debt and taxes, the asset seizure and sale would only put a small dent in it. The profound change would be the lack of lobbyists and campaign funding to bend and torture tax codes to serve the 1%. A fair system would be amazing and enduring here.

Well... some would go directly to next of kin, some would be claimed by banks to repay the loans they live on, and most would end up in the private "charitable" foundations they use to evade taxes (which are themselves usually operated by some blend of next of kin and their ideological proteges). There's a complex web of ways they avoid that money falling into public hands, but the general answer "None" is correct.

I think in this scenario we’re gutting these corporations and changing our laws to make sure this level of corruption and monopolization never happens again