The Fair & Free Wealth Initiative · A Citizen Proposal
A proposal for a U.S. wealth cap of $999,999,999 — the win condition of American capitalism. Hit the line, take the trophy, and everything above it is reinvested in infrastructure, healthcare, education, climate action, and a national innovation fund. Bold, but built on precedent.
01 · Introduction & Rationale
The United States faces extreme wealth inequality: a few hundred individuals hold unprecedented fortunes while millions of families struggle. Billionaire wealth surged roughly 40% during the COVID-19 crisis alone — far outpacing historical norms — and that kind of concentration can undermine economic mobility, democracy, and social cohesion.
The Fair & Free Wealth Initiative proposes a bold but principled answer: cap individual net worth at $999,999,999 — a level at which anyone can still live in extraordinary comfort — and redirect everything above it to expand opportunity, strengthen public services, and fuel innovation, without dampening the incentives that drive entrepreneurship.
The core idea: beyond a certain point, additional billions contribute little to personal well-being or productive investment — but could transform society if shared. A University of Michigan analysis found that redistributing fortunes above a $1 billion threshold could lift the bottom third of U.S. households out of poverty, raising the wealth of 50+ million families by roughly $55,000 each.
The pages below walk through the whole proposal: how the cap works, where the money goes, the legal pathway, the rollout timeline, enforcement against loopholes, and the political strategy to make it law.
02 · Policy Design
Personal net worth of any U.S. citizen or permanent resident is capped at $999,999,999. Every dollar above the line is taxed at a 100% marginal rate each year — effectively reclaiming the excess for public benefit. The threshold is indexed to inflation and applies to total worldwide net worth: stocks, businesses, real estate, trusts, art, everything.
Drag to set a hypothetical net worth:
At $1.5 billion, essentially the full $500 million above the cap is owed at tax time — the proposal's own worked example.
The figure — just shy of $1 billion — is chosen for its clear message: becoming a billionaire is beyond what is "fair and free" in a just society. It's also a substantial threshold that only a few hundred people currently exceed. The cap applies to total net worth (assets minus liabilities) worldwide, valued at fair market value, and is indexed to inflation so it stays constant in real terms rather than gradually tightening.
Wealth above the cap is taxed at a 100% marginal rate (or a near-100% surtax), implemented as an annual wealth tax: each year, any net worth in excess of $999,999,999 is paid to the U.S. Treasury. If an individual's assets are valued at $1.5 billion, they owe essentially the full $500 million above the cap. This fixes maximum net worth at $999 million — any growth beyond it is redirected to society.
Capping wealth at ~$1B still allows vast personal riches and rewards for innovation — an individual at the cap would be wealthier than the GDP of some small countries. There is scant evidence that a person with $10 billion creates ten times the productive impact of one with $1 billion; at some point, extra wealth largely serves as dynastic power or sits in passive investments.
There is precedent for curbing extreme accumulation. During WWII, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all income over $25,000 (around $350,000 today); Congress didn't fully enact it, but a 94% top income tax rate was implemented. That era saw booming growth and innovation — high limits on excessive gains did not stifle prosperity. The wealth cap builds on this legacy by targeting extreme wealth directly.
Fewer than 1,000 Americans would be immediately affected. Yet their combined wealth above $1B each is enormous — roughly $5 trillion could be reclaimed from U.S. billionaires if the cap were enforced today. Even accounting for illiquid assets and phased implementation, the policy could generate trillions for public use over time.
It affects only the top 0.0002% of Americans directly; the other 99.9998% see no direct tax change — only the indirect benefits of a fairer economy. By constraining extreme concentration, the cap also supports market competition and a healthier democracy by diluting outsized political influence.
03 · Allocation of Excess Wealth
Everything collected above the cap is channeled productively and transparently along two tracks: direct public investment in national priorities, and a controlled fund that keeps capital flowing to innovators. Immediate societal benefit and long-term growth, together.
What roughly $5 trillion in reclaimed wealth could buy — itemized. Each line is unpacked in the cards below.
At least 50% of all wealth collected above the cap flows directly into public priorities — managed with transparency, clear metrics, and public input.
Potentially $1–2 trillion to repair roads and bridges, modernize transit, expand broadband, strengthen the grid, and build climate-resilient infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates a $2.6 trillion 10-year investment gap — an infusion from the wealth cap could fully close it, creating millions of jobs. Modern infrastructure improves commerce for everyone, including businesses owned by the wealthy.
Expand access to quality healthcare — shoring up Medicare/Medicaid or moving toward universal coverage — and invest in education from pre-K through college. Hundreds of billions could reduce college costs, fund public schools, and drive medical research. Stronger human capital and public health make the economy stronger and society fairer.
A portion could seed a national Citizens' Trust whose returns pay an annual universal dividend to all Americans (or targeted to those in need). Even a one-time $1 trillion allocation, invested at a 5% return, yields $50 billion per year — roughly $500 annually per adult citizen as a baseline, growing over time if managed as a sovereign wealth fund.
A Green Infrastructure Fund financing renewable energy expansion, efficiency upgrades, EV infrastructure, reforestation, climate-resilient agriculture, and R&D for carbon capture. For instance, $500 billion could fund an aggressive plan to reach net-zero emissions in the power sector — building the industries of the future.
Up to 50% seeds a publicly owned investment fund that operates in the private market under public oversight — so redistribution doesn't mean less investment, just more democratic investment.
Venture capital for startups tackling big challenges (clean energy, biotech, AI), small-business expansion, and loans or equity stakes in strategic industries — similar in spirit to DARPA or ARPA-E, but with equity participation. Investments fund companies and entrepreneurs, allocated by a public agency toward national priorities and broad benefit.
Managed by financial and industry experts under guidelines set by Congress, co-investing alongside private venture capital and institutional investors for rigorous due diligence. Wealthy individuals whose excess fortunes were taxed could even advise the process — seeing a portion of their former wealth fuel innovation they care about, under public direction with the public as beneficiary.
All profits, dividends, and appreciation flow back to the public — reinvested or transferred to the Treasury. If $2 trillion is allocated and achieves a modest 5% annual return, that's $100 billion per year, continually reinvested. One-time wealth transfers don't get spent once and vanish; they keep generating value.
Mandated focus on tangible public benefit — scientific research, medical breakthroughs, clean energy, advanced manufacturing — with no purely speculative trading. Independent boards, transparency requirements, and insulation from political cronyism, drawing on models like Norway's $1T+ sovereign wealth fund: converting a finite resource (here, extreme wealth concentration) into broad, long-term prosperity.
04 · Your Side of the Ledger
For the 99.9998% of Americans under the cap, this proposal costs nothing — here's what it pays. Set your household below.
Dividend figures use the proposal's illustrative Citizens' Trust ($1T at 5% ≈ $500/yr per adult, growing with the fund). The ~$55,000 one-time boost reflects the University of Michigan analysis of redistributing wealth above $1B to the bottom third of households.
05 · Legal & Constitutional Considerations
There's no direct precedent for an absolute cap on personal wealth — but wealth taxes, progressive taxation, and wartime measures provide the guideposts. The strategy: ground the cap firmly in Congress's taxing power, draft it to survive court scrutiny, and keep a constitutional amendment as the backstop.
Congress has broad taxing power under Article I, but direct taxes face apportionment requirements unless covered by the 16th Amendment (which authorizes income taxes). A net-wealth tax could be challenged as a direct tax. One answer: frame the cap as an income tax on unrealized gains — each year, any increase in net worth above $1B is deemed taxable income, at up to a 100% rate.
Recent signals help. In Moore v. U.S. (2023), the Supreme Court upheld a tax on accumulated foreign earnings, suggesting taxes on asset gains can be treated as income. And in mid-2024, the Court declined to preemptively block wealth taxes, rejecting a lawsuit that tried to declare them unconstitutional before enactment — a green light for Congress to act and litigate afterward if needed.
The tax code (Title 26) gets a new "Ultra-Wealth Tax" chapter: valuation rules, payment schedules, anti-avoidance provisions, and allocation of funds to the public and innovation tracks. Securities and banking laws are amended so financial institutions report asset values to the IRS. For hard-to-value assets, the IRS gains appraisal powers and the option of payment in kind.
Crucially, the law looks through trusts and foundations — attributing assets to their true beneficial owners — following the "strong rules on trusts" in the previously proposed Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act.
Opponents may argue a 100% marginal wealth tax is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment or violates equal protection. But as a tax applied via general legislation, it falls under Congress's taxing authority rather than a specific seizure. Courts have historically deferred to Congress on rates: 90%+ income tax rates were never struck down, and 70%+ estate taxes were upheld.
Wealth is not a suspect class, and progressive taxation is long accepted. The legislation would include findings that extreme wealth concentration harms the economy and democracy — a clear rational basis and compelling public interest.
If legal challenges threaten the cap, a constitutional amendment provides ultimate clarity: "Congress may by law limit the amount of personal wealth an individual may own and levy taxes or otherwise sequester wealth above that limit for public use." A heavy lift — two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of states — but framed as a "Fair Wealth Amendment" in the spirit of the 16th Amendment and the voting-rights amendments, it becomes a rallying point for a mass movement.
06 · Implementation Timeline
Rather than taxing all wealth above $1B in one stroke, the cap ratchets down over four years — preventing fire-sales, letting markets adapt, and giving the government time to build the machinery. Tap through each phase.
The wealth cap law passes Congress and is signed (or adopted via amendment). The groundwork phase:
A 100% tax applies to net worth above $5 billion. Only the top few dozen richest individuals are affected, reclaiming a substantial portion from fortunes of $50B, $100B and beyond. They pay in cash or transfer equivalent-value assets to the government — which can route them to the Innovation Fund or auction them carefully to avoid market shocks.
The cap lowers to $2 billion, bringing more billionaires in. By now, revenues from Year 2 are already flowing into infrastructure projects and the innovation fund — a stimulative effect that counters any contraction from the wealthy paying taxes.
The $999,999,999 cap takes full effect. Essentially all U.S. billionaires are brought to the line. For founders whose wealth sits in company stock, the government accepts share transfers and sells gradually — or holds them via the NIF — to avoid crashing markets. Companies or employees may get the chance to buy shares back on reasonable terms.
Alternative dial: instead of stepping the threshold down, the rate can ramp up — e.g., 80% on wealth above $1B in Year 2, reaching 100% by Year 4. Either path reaches the cap within a few years on a clear, credible schedule.
Each year, anyone whose fortune grows back above $1B pays the excess. The public and innovation funds run at full deployment. The government monitors inequality, poverty reduction, and growth, and fine-tunes: a sunset review at Year 10 lets Congress assess outcomes and renew or adjust — though the presumption is the cap becomes a permanent structural feature, like income or estate taxes.
One expected side effect: knowing the cap is coming, wealthy individuals may preemptively increase charitable giving and high-impact investment — itself socially beneficial.
07 · Enforcement & Anti-Avoidance
A wealth cap only works if it's enforced. The ultra-wealthy have sophisticated lawyers and accountants — so the initiative pairs an ambitious cap with the strongest enforcement package ever attached to a tax law. Seven mechanisms, each expandable below.
At least $100 billion invested in IRS modernization — specialized auditors, forensic accountants, valuation experts, and lawyers, possibly in a dedicated Ultra-Wealth Enforcement Unit. The law mandates a minimum 30% annual audit rate for those subject to the cap; given only hundreds to low thousands of people qualify, the IRS can realistically audit all of them regularly. Audits verify asset values, uncover hidden holdings, and catch under-reporting.
Individuals and households above ~$50M file an annual net worth statement covering all assets and liabilities. Banks and brokerages report holdings to the IRS (like 1099s, but for wealth); foreign institutions are engaged via strengthened FATCA-style agreements and global tax-information networks. Non-disclosed offshore wealth — a shell company in the Caymans, say — is treated as tax evasion with strong penalties.
If a trust is revocable or the grantor retains benefits, its assets count toward personal wealth. Even irrevocable trusts can be taxed via the beneficiary or as a separate capped entity — you can't escape by moving money into a trust for heirs. Private foundations used as shelters get scrutiny; genuine, irrevocable charitable gifts to independent nonprofits are exempt, since they no longer count as personal wealth.
Building on Warren and Sanders proposals: renouncing citizenship triggers an immediate tax — 40% on wealth above $50M, rising to 60% above $1B — and this initiative could go further, capturing a supermajority of a departing billionaire's wealth. Moving assets offshore to willfully evade the cap becomes a taxable event or a criminal offense; courts can freeze non-compliant assets, and treaties extend enforcement abroad. The U.S. already taxes citizens on worldwide income — this extends the principle to worldwide wealth.
Standardized valuation guidelines and independent appraisers handle illiquid assets — real estate, private equity, art. For hard-to-value holdings, taxpayers can pay in kind, transferring part-ownership to the government to be sold or managed via the public fund. If a billionaire claims an asset isn't worth what the IRS says, they can hand over a percentage and let the government realize the value. Undervaluation brings stiff penalties.
Willfully hiding assets, falsifying reports, or using fraud to circumvent the cap becomes a felony with multi-year prison sentences — on par with securities fraud. A Justice Department task force works with the IRS to pursue high-profile offenders. High audit probability plus high penalties makes even attempting evasion a bad bet.
Treasury is empowered to close new loopholes by regulation under a general anti-avoidance rule, with the substance-over-form doctrine aggressively applied: any arrangement primarily aimed at dodging the cap is disregarded for tax purposes. As advisors invent new tricks, the law adapts. Other nations' wealth taxes stumbled on enforcement — this plan learns from them.
08 · Politics, Public Support & the Economy
Enacting a wealth cap is a major political endeavor: building public support, overcoming opposition from wealthy interests, and steering the economy through the transition. Three fronts, three tabs.
The cap would move through Congress — likely championed first by the progressive wing, then folded into a larger tax reform or social justice package: the centerpiece of a "Second New Deal." It would pass through House Ways and Means and Senate Finance, with expert hearings on benefits and feasibility.
64% of Americans — including 53% of Republicans — agree the very rich should contribute an extra share of their wealth each year to support public programs. (Reuters/Ipsos, 2020)
The frame is restoration of fairness, not radical confiscation — hence "Fair & Free":
Allies among the wealthy — groups like Patriotic Millionaires, and figures like Warren Buffett who note their tax rates fall below their secretaries' — provide cover against "anti-success" attacks. And transparency in spending (annual reports on bridges built, families lifted from poverty, fund performance) keeps public trust and enthusiasm growing.
Critics will predict lost investment, lost jobs, and capital flight. The proposal's answer: redirecting wealth through public channels can boost growth and stability.
The historical analogy: breaking up Standard Oil was supposed to harm the economy — instead it fostered competition and growth. This proposal breaks up monopolies of wealth.
09 · Hard Questions
The objections everyone raises, answered head-on — plus new rules the proposal adds to close the gaps skeptics find first.
Renouncing citizenship triggers an immediate exit tax — 40% on wealth above $50M, 60% above $1B — so fleeing means surrendering a supermajority anyway. The U.S. already taxes citizens on worldwide income wherever they live; this extends that principle to worldwide wealth. And most billionaire fortunes are tied up in U.S. businesses and real estate that can't relocate. Even today, with far lower exit costs, very few billionaires actually give up citizenship.
Yes — the cap applies per adult, so a couple can jointly hold up to roughly $2B. They're two people, each entitled to a full cap.
What the rules prevent is multiplying the cap: wealth held in a minor child's name is attributed to the parents until adulthood; large transfers to adult relatives run through a strengthened gift-and-estate framework; and any arrangement whose primary purpose is spreading one fortune across nominal owners is collapsed under the same substance-over-form doctrine that closes the trust loophole. One fortune, one cap.
Absolutely. The cap limits ownership, not leadership — a founder can keep their title, their salary, and their seat at the head of the table. Shares transferred to satisfy the tax are held by the National Innovation Fund as a passive investor with independent governance, so the government isn't running companies.
The guardrail: super-voting share structures designed to retain the benefits of ownership while staying under the cap on paper get priced accordingly — appraisals include control premiums, and abusive structures fall under the anti-avoidance rule. The cap follows the economic power, not just the paper.
This is exactly why the rollout is phased over four years and why payment in kind exists. Instead of forcing fire-sales, the government accepts shares directly and either holds them via the NIF or sells gradually on a coordinated schedule — with companies and employees getting a chance to buy back on reasonable terms. Markets price in what they can anticipate; a clear, credible schedule is the whole point of the transition plan.
Some did — and their failures are the design brief for this plan. The European taxes that collapsed shared the same flaws: low thresholds that hit the merely affluent, exemption-riddled rules, weak reporting, and no exit taxes in a union built on free movement. The scorecards below tell the story — and the ones that endured show it can work.
Trust is built into the structure, not assumed: mandatory annual public reports on every dollar — bridges built, families lifted from poverty, fund performance — with clear metrics and public input. The Innovation Fund runs under independent boards and expert managers, insulated from political cronyism the way the Federal Reserve and public pension funds are, with speculation banned and every return recycled back to the public. Norway's sovereign fund has managed $1T+ this way for decades.
Think of it as capitalism's win condition: reach the line and you've officially won — the trophy is $999,999,999, and the game stays open for everyone else. The number is the message: in a fair and free society, billionaire status is the line. It still permits near-limitless reward — an individual at the cap holds more wealth than the GDP of some countries, beyond the dreams of 99.999% of entrepreneurs — while stopping runaway dynastic fortunes. It's indexed to inflation so it never quietly tightens, and only a few hundred people currently exceed it.
Directly: an annual Citizens' Dividend (~$500 per adult under the illustrative trust), and if your household is in the bottom third by wealth, a one-time boost of roughly $55,000. Indirectly: fixed infrastructure, stronger healthcare, cheaper college, and a cleaner grid — at $0.00 in new taxes. Run your own household through the numbers ↑
Four countries, four verdicts — and what each one taught this proposal.
The ISF wealth tax hit at a low threshold, carried a maze of exemptions, and had no exit tax — so wealthy households drained across open EU borders for decades until it was reduced to a property-only tax.
Lesson: leaks sink the ship. Tax only the very top, and close the exits.
Spain's wealth tax survives, but regions set their own relief — Madrid zeroed it out, so fortunes simply changed provinces instead of paying.
Lesson: the cap must be federal and uniform. No internal havens.
A ~1% annual wealth tax helps fund a strong safety net — but recent rate hikes pushed some wealthy Norwegians to Switzerland, exposing weak exit rules.
Lesson: pair the tax with a real exit tax. Ours: 40–60%.
Cantonal wealth taxes have run for over a century with a broad base, simple rules, and high compliance — durable, boring, and effective.
Lesson: with competent administration, taxing wealth is normal.
Country summaries reflect widely reported outcomes of each national wealth tax regime.
"In the land of the free, we will ensure that freedom is not bought by the highest bidder, but enjoyed by all citizens."
— The Fair & Free Wealth Initiative, Conclusion
10 · The Complete Proposal
The entire proposal, section by section, in one navigable tree. Expand what you want to read; jump to the interactive version of any section above.
Selected Sources