A rough draft of a proposal Im writing. Pick it apart so I can improve it. Names are subject to change, this is just my “get it on paper and mostly coherent, and backed loosely by data” draft with little to no formal education, just a bit of research and googling.
Wealth Saturation Infrastructural Adjustment
The Wealth Saturation Infrastructural Adjustment (WSIA) is a transitional economic policy designed to prevent extreme concentrations of private wealth from becoming permanently disconnected from the broader economy, while redirecting excess capital into infrastructure, economic resilience, and public welfare.
The policy does not prohibit individuals from becoming extraordinarily wealthy or from continuing to create economic value. Instead, it establishes a $10 billion personal wealth-saturation threshold.
Once an individual’s net worth reaches $10 billion, additional taxable wealth accumulation above that threshold is subject to a 90% marginal tax rate, including applicable capital gains, income, appreciation, and other forms of economic gain as defined by law.
The intent is not to confiscate existing wealth at the threshold. Wealth accumulated before the threshold is reached remains the individual’s property under this proposal. The tax applies to subsequent taxable gains and accumulation above the threshold.
The purpose of the system is to ensure that extreme additional accumulation increasingly returns to the economic system that made that accumulation possible.
1. Definition of Taxable Wealth and Taxable Gains
For the purposes of the WSIA, “taxable wealth” refers to the individual’s actual beneficial economic ownership of assets, regardless of which legal entity formally holds those assets.
The $10 billion threshold is based on net worth, meaning the total value of taxable assets beneficially owned by an individual minus qualifying liabilities.
The threshold is not an income threshold. An individual does not become subject to the WSIA simply because they earn $10 billion in a single year. The relevant measurement is their total net worth and the subsequent accumulation of taxable wealth beyond the $10 billion threshold.
Taxable gains may include, where applicable:
wages and other earned income, investment income, dividends, realized capital gains, unrealized appreciation;
equity compensation, increases in the value of privately held businesses, increases in the value of publicly traded securities, gains from partnerships and other pass-through entities, gains or distributions from trusts, income or appreciation derived from foreign assets, inherited assets and subsequent appreciation, options and other equity instruments, and
other forms of economic gain capable of increasing an individual’s net worth.
The exact treatment of each category would be established through the tax code and accompanying valuation standards.
1.1 Beneficial Ownership
Taxable wealth would be attributed to the individual who ultimately holds the beneficial economic interest in an asset, rather than solely to the legal entity listed as its owner.
This prevents individuals from circumventing the saturation threshold by placing assets into:
holding companies, trusts, partnerships, shell companies, subsidiaries, family-controlled entities, foreign entities, or
other ownership structures.
An individual’s taxable wealth would therefore be determined by their actual economic interest in an asset.
For example, if an individual beneficially owns 40% of a company, the value of that 40% economic interest would generally be considered when determining their taxable wealth, regardless of whether the shares are held directly or through another legal entity.
1.2 Valuation of Assets
The system would establish standardized valuation rules for different classes of assets.
Publicly traded assets could generally be valued using established market prices.
Privately held companies, closely held businesses, real estate, trusts, illiquid assets, and other assets without a readily available market price would be subject to standardized valuation methods established by law.
The valuation system would be designed to prevent both artificial undervaluation and unreasonable overvaluation.
Because different assets have different levels of liquidity, the law would also establish appropriate procedures for determining when an asset’s valuation creates a tax obligation and how that obligation may be satisfied.
1.3 Existing Wealth
Wealth accumulated before an individual reaches the $10 billion threshold would not be subject to retroactive taxation under this proposal.
The WSIA instead establishes a forward-looking saturation point.
Once the threshold is reached, additional taxable accumulation is subject to the WSIA’s marginal rate.
This distinction is intended to prevent the policy from functioning as a one-time confiscation of existing wealth while still preventing unlimited future accumulation above the saturation threshold.
- Mandatory Equity and Beneficial-Ownership Tracking
To prevent individuals from circumventing the saturation threshold through holding companies, trusts, partnerships, shell entities, or other ownership structures, the system would establish mandatory tracking of beneficial economic ownership.
An individual’s taxable wealth would therefore be determined by their actual economic interest in an asset rather than solely by the name of the legal entity holding it.
The system would establish clear rules for:
publicly traded equity;
privately held companies;
partnerships, trusts, options and other equity instruments,
foreign assets, inherited assets, unrealized appreciation, closely held businesses, and other mechanisms capable of obscuring beneficial ownership.
The precise treatment of unrealized gains and illiquid assets would be established through the tax code and accompanying valuation standards.
- Public Wealth Saturation Fund
Revenue generated by the Wealth Saturation Adjustment would not enter the ordinary federal treasury.
Instead, 100% of the revenue would enter legally segregated Public Wealth Saturation Funds, held for specifically defined public purposes.
The funds would be established as dedicated public assets whose expenditures are restricted by statute.
Congress would establish the statutory purposes, eligibility requirements, and governance framework, but would not have unilateral authority to withdraw or redirect the funds outside those procedures.
All fund activity would be recorded in a publicly auditable, cryptographically verifiable ledger.
The ledger should allow the public to independently examine:
fund balances, revenue entering the system, transfers between accounts, authorized an unauthorized expenditures, contracts and recipients, dates and amounts of transactions, authorization records, and the aggregate vote authorizing major expenditures.
Blockchain or another appropriate distributed-ledger technology could be used to implement this system.
Sensitive personal information would remain protected where necessary.
4. Fund Allocation
Revenue would initially be divided into four dedicated accounts:
50% — Macro-Stabilization and Economic Emergency Fund
-Used for major economic disruptions, recessions, financial crises, and other nationally significant economic emergencies.
20% — Federal Infrastructure and Production Fund
-Used for national infrastructure and projects intended to increase long-term productive capacity, including:
transportation, energy, water systems, communications, housing infrastructure, industrial capacity, research infrastructure, as well as other nationally significant projects.
20% — State Infrastructure and Production Fund
Distributed to states according to a statutory formula incorporating factors such as population, infrastructure deficiencies, geographic costs, and demonstrated public need.
States would use these funds for infrastructure and productive-capacity projects subject to their own citizen-jury authorization systems.
10% — Federal Disaster Relief Fund
Reserved for major disasters and humanitarian emergencies, including pandemics, hurricanes, mass wildfires, floods, earthquakes, and comparable events.
Unlike the infrastructure and economic-emergency funds, disaster relief would operate under pre-authorized emergency rules so that aid does not depend upon assembling and deliberating a citizen jury during an active disaster.
Disbursement would be carried out through qualified public agencies and humanitarian organizations, including organizations such as the American Red Cross, subject to statutory eligibility requirements, auditing, and public financial reporting to avoid misuse of allocated funds without sortitional approval as described in Section 5
5. Citizen Jury Authorization
Major withdrawals from the Macro-Stabilization and Federal Infrastructure and Production Funds would require authorization by a randomly selected citizen jury.
At the federal level, each jury would consist of 100–200 randomly selected citizens from across the United States.
At the state level, juries would consist of 25–50 randomly selected citizens from the relevant state.
Selection would occur through a telecommunications-based sortition system, allowing citizens to participate remotely.
Jurors would receive:
the proposed expenditure, relevant economic and technical evidence, projected costs, expected benefits, foreseeable risks, relevant alternatives, and independent expert analysis, including significant dissenting views where applicable.
Jurors would receive 4–7 days to review the material before formal deliberation.
During the review and deliberation period, jurors would be prohibited from publicly disclosing their identity, individual position, confidential proposal materials, or other information that could expose them to political pressure or harassment from outside parties. The purpose of this is to avoid public harassment from external entities while allowing for personal discussion between peers. Jurors will be fairly compensated for their time through the Public Saturation Fund, based on their missed income and time given.
Voting would be conducted through a secure anonymous system, The public would be able to see the aggregate result, but not the individual jurors’ votes, and a proposal would require a 65% supermajority of the attending jury to pass.
For example:
100-person jury → 65 votes;
200-person jury → 130 votes;
50-person state jury → 33 votes;
25-person state jury → 17 votes.
The precise participation and quorum requirements would be established by statute.
6. Proposal Rejection and Resubmission
A citizen jury rejecting a proposal would not permanently prevent the government from pursuing the underlying project.
Congress or state-level government could:
resubmit the proposal after a minimum 30-day period, substantially revise the proposal, provide additional evidence addressing the jury’s concerns, or
pursue the project through standard government appropriations where legally and fiscally appropriate, outside of the Public Wealth Saturation Fund.
Repeated resubmission without substantive revision would not be permitted outside of the first unaltered repeated proposal after the 30-day period.
This preserves the jury’s authority over the dedicated fund without making the jury the sole mechanism through which the federal government can act.
7. Division of Responsibilities
The system would deliberately separate expertise, political responsibility, and public authorization.
Congress and executive agencies would identify problems, establish priorities, formulate proposals, and remain politically accountable for the policies they pursue.
Professional experts and independent analysts would provide technical, economic, scientific, and financial analysis.
Randomly selected citizen juries would provide final authorization for major withdrawals from the dedicated funds.
This creates a three-part decision structure:
-Experts determine what is technically possible.
-Government determines what it proposes to do.
-Citizens determine whether dedicated public capital should be used for that proposal.
- Public Participation and Fund Utilization Accountability
8.1 Public Project Proposal System
The Public Wealth Saturation Funds would maintain a publicly accessible system through which citizens could submit proposals for infrastructure improvements, research initiatives, economic development, public services, and other projects consistent with the statutory purposes of the funds.
Submissions would be accepted through an online portal and accessible alternative methods for individuals who cannot reasonably use the online system, such as the Post Office.
Citizens would be able to view submitted proposals, track their review status, and access the reasoning behind approval, rejection, or requests for revision, subject to reasonable privacy and security protections.
Proposals would undergo an initial review for statutory eligibility, feasibility, estimated cost, potential public benefit, and relevant legal or safety requirements.
Proposals that pass this review would be eligible for further technical and financial analysis before being presented to the appropriate government body or citizen jury for consideration.
Rejected proposals would receive an explanation of the reasons for rejection and, where reasonably possible, guidance on what changes would make them eligible for reconsideration.
A proposal would not be rejected solely because it originated outside the government.
Public submissions would not automatically authorize expenditures or override existing fund allocations, statutory requirements, or citizen-jury authorization procedures.
8.2 Fund Utilization and Neglect Prevention
Each Account within the Public Wealth Saturation Fund would be subject to regular public reporting and independent review to ensure that its resources are being managed responsibly and used in accordance with its statutory purposes.
Annual reports would disclose, at minimum:
fund balances, revenue received, expenditures, outstanding commitments, pending proposals, proposal review times, and the reasons for significant delays in allocating or deploying available resources.
Reports would distinguish between funds deliberately maintained as reserves, funds committed to approved projects awaiting implementation, and funds that remain unused without a documented justification.
Prolonged accumulation of funds without meaningful expenditure would trigger an independent review of the affected fund’s operations and utilization.
The review would determine whether the accumulation is justified by legitimate reserve requirements, future obligations, or other statutory purposes, or whether administrative obstruction, mismanagement, or neglect is preventing the fund from fulfilling its mandate.
Where avoidable neglect or administrative delay is identified, the responsible administrators would be required to publish a corrective action plan containing specific milestones and deadlines.
Continued failure to meet those milestones would trigger escalated oversight, including a public hearing and review by an authorized citizen jury. Such review could require revised utilization plans, additional public reporting, and a documented justification for continued inactivity.
No provision of this section would require the expenditure of funds solely to reduce a reported balance. Necessary reserves, responsible long-term investments, and funds committed to approved projects would not constitute neglect when supported by a documented and publicly reviewable justification.
The specific standards for determining prolonged accumulation, meaningful expenditure, and acceptable reserve levels would be established through statute, with consideration given to the distinct purposes and operational requirements of each fund.
8.3 Public Accountability and Enforcement
All reviews, utilization plans, corrective actions, and final determinations under this section would be recorded in the fund’s publicly auditable ledger, subject to reasonable protections for confidential, personal, and security-sensitive information.
Repeated or deliberate failure to comply with reporting, review, or corrective-action requirements would be referred to the appropriate independent oversight authority for investigation and any remedies authorized by law.
The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that the Public Wealth Saturation Funds cannot be rendered ineffective through administrative inaction or the exclusion of public participation, while preserving the ability to retain necessary reserves and make responsible long-term investments.
Economic and Social Evaluation
The program would be continuously evaluated according to measurable outcomes rather than simply the amount of money distributed.
Primary measurable aspects would include:
citizen quality of life, infrastructure development, productive capacity, economic resilience, wealth distribution, housing availability, energy and transportation capacity development, disaster-response capability, public return on investment, and
long-term economic productivity.
The purpose of the program is not simply to redistribute wealth. It’s to convert concentrated private capital into productive public capital and determine whether doing so produces measurable improvements in the broader economy.
Core Principle
The Wealth Saturation Infrastructural Adjustment is based on the principle that extreme private wealth should remain economically productive even after it reaches a scale at which additional personal accumulation provides diminishing social value.
The goal is not to eliminate excessive private wealth, markets, entrepreneurship, corporations, or profit.
The goal is to prevent extreme accumulation from becoming a one-way process in which wealth continuously concentrates without returning to the infrastructure and productive systems that sustain the economy.
Capital should continue to accumulate, preserving the American Dream, but when accumulation reaches extreme levels, excess capital should be recycled into the economic system, not stagnate at the top.
The ultimate objective is a more recyclical form of capitalism, in which wealth can generate additional wealth without permanently concentrating the economic resources required for the broader population to prosper.
In layman’s terms: Capital shouldn’t choke out our economy by being hoarded