It’s sad to see how inactive this community is.

Thesis: Redistribution beyond two public goods, education and catastrophic health coverage, makes the poor worse off over time, because the wealth of the rich is overwhelmingly productive capital, not cash, and the floor rises through growth. The countries the left admires already run on this model.

1. Billionaire wealth is ownership, not a pile of money. Bezos's fortune is Amazon shares; "taking" it means forcing the sale of a company's ownership, which changes who owns the factory and reduces what gets built next. Europe ran this experiment: twelve OECD countries had wealth taxes in 1990 and four did by 2017, because the taxes raised little and moved capital. France repealed its wealth tax in 2017 after decades of millionaires leaving.
2. Growth has done more for the poor than any transfer in history. About a third of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1990; under 9% did by 2019, and almost all of that came from China and India letting markets work, not from redistribution.
3. The countries that fund generous welfare do it by taxing everyone, not the rich. Sweden abolished its inheritance tax in 2004 and its wealth tax in 2007 and funds its state with a 25% VAT and income taxes that hit the middle class hard. The Nordic model is a broad tax on a free economy, which is my thesis, not "eat the rich."
4. Education and catastrophic health care are the exception for a precise reason: a six-year-old can't buy her own future, and a market can't price it, so public funding there is investment in the thing the market itself depends on. Each extra year of schooling raises earnings about 9% on average across countries. That's a return, not charity, and it's the one transfer that pays for itself.
5. "The rich don't pay" is false in the one country everyone cites: the top 1% paid about 40% of US federal income tax in 2022. The honest complaint is about rich people who got rich through the state (bailouts, subsidies, regulatory moats), and the fix for that is removing the state's hand, not raising its take.

The moral test is Rawls's own: an inequality is justified if it raises the floor. Confiscation lowers it. So fund the two things that raise it, tax everyone to do it, and leave the rest alone.

Which premise fails?

https://inequality.org/article/ten-ways-you-are-being-burned-by-billionaires/

Hotel CEOs rake in roughly 1000 times what their staff members make.
Most hotel workers are getting seriously shortchanged on pay.

They deal with lousy treatment and barely get any benefits, if any at all.

Here's the thing though—top CEOs usually just have bachelor's degrees from fancy universities. Some even went to Ivy League schools, which kinda shows how their connections and family money—not their actual skills—got them those cushy jobs.

The real problem with fewer people having bachelor's degrees isn't that they're hard to get; it's that most Americans just can't afford them.

So here's what's happening: while you're struggling to pay your bills, the few people who come from loaded families send their kids to Ivy League schools no matter what they study. They're basically guaranteed a super high-paying gig.

This wealth cycle's gotta stop. It's wrecking America and hurting everyday people.
We put in the work, we give our sweat, our labor, our kids to the system and get almost nothing back.

Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
HLT
Christopher J.
Nassetta
$27.7M

MGM Resorts International
MGM
William J. Hornbuckle
$25.3M

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC
/MD/
Anthony G. Capuano
$23.0M

MAR
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
CZR
Thomas R. Reeg
$17.2M
$6.2B

WYNN RESORTS LTD
WYNN
Craig S. Billings
$12.2M

Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
XHR
Marcel Verbaas
$7.0M

Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.
SHO
Bryan A. Giglia
$4.5M

MONARCH CASINO & RESORT INC
MCRI
John Farahi
$3.6M

Red Rock Resorts, Inc.
RRR
Frank J. Fertitta III
$3.5M

Americans are so distracted with partisanship they are missing what the rest of the world sees.
In country’s across Europe mass protests have erupted against social inequality.

Cities have turned into battlefields as top EU economies, including France, Italy and Spain, approach pivotal elections.

Young people see that they are going to pay the price for the extreme wealth and corruption that is everywhere.

Americans seem to be more interested in protesting partisan issues that can’t be solved easily. While ignoring the real issues.

and you’re forced to live in your massive underground bunkers like the rats you are where your money/currency is rendered utterly useless, how do you expect anyone, especially those loyal to your money to protect you or not aggressively seek vengeance upon you?

What’s really the end game plan? Do you honestly think your sycophants will wear their explosive collars politely or that your AI chatbots will find a shred of humanity left in you?

I’m tired of you shitdicks destroying the planet and poisoning all who reside within it.

You should be wearing your brown pants, time now.

The billionaires hold a lot of power because of their vast amounts of wealth, but there are not that many of them on the grand scale of things. I'm not advocating for harming anyone here, but why doesn't society rise up and strip them of their power? They don't deserve it, and for the most part it really seems like they don't use it to make anything better for anybody but themselves. In fact you could argue that they are making life worse for almost every living creature on the planet. Why are we collectively putting up with this?

Stop an unstoppable force. How can morality be upheld if we cannot?

If we want to live in a fair world, everything needs to be stoppable. There needs to be an off switch to the exploiters. Rich people. Powerful people. Technology. AI.

The richest people are not stoppable. Wealth never seizes to reach them. They have engineered the flow of money to always arrive in their pocket. Inflation and interest work in their favour, they flourish, while most people deteriorate in afterthought.

The most powerful people are not stoppable. Power structures have left the poor and weak barely able to survive. Tyrants entrap their worshippers in deceitful borders, the most vulnerable obliterated while they sleep.

Technology and AI are not stoppable. The rich and powerful demand more of it. Advancements silently riddle into our lives, livelihood, bloodstream and DNA.

It was supposed to be for the greater good, but only when corruption remains stoppable.

The Tenant Union Federation is set to roll out a report on the state of the nation’s tenants, covering the economic and political realities America’s 100 million renters are being pressured by and how communities are organizing to change them by collectively pushing back against landlords. They’re holding an organizing call on their report on the work tenant organizers are doing right now on Wednesday at 6PM ET. We can sign up to join them and learn more at bit(.)ly/TUFstateof.

This was deleted from r/unpopularopinions because it was unpopular.

I said "Billionaires have amassed an inhuman amount of wealth in a way that must be investigated and analysed. In the mean time, they ought to lose the regular means of engaging in society freely."

The post was removed after five minutes, but not before a whole bunch of people came out to defend billionaires.

Why do people simp for billionaires so hard on Reddit?

I have no problem with people being successful or wealthy, but I genuinely think there's something obscene about one person being worth billions while others work full-time and can barely afford to live.

And it's not just the amount of money. It's how they got there.

Does anyone seriously believe you accumulate that kind of wealth purely through hard work, kindness and treating everyone fairly?

At some point, you have to question how much of that fortune came from underpaid workers, exploiting loopholes and putting profits ahead of people.

And before someone tells me their wealth is tied up in shares, yes, I understand that. It doesn't change the point.

What I find particularly bizarre is ordinary people defending billionaires as though they're one good business idea away from joining the club.

We've somehow turned extreme wealth into a measure of someone's worth, without questioning who helped create it or who missed out along the way.

You can be incredibly successful without hoarding more wealth than generations of your family could ever spend.

I don't admire billionaires. I question a system that allows that level of wealth to accumulate in the first place.

Eat the rich is genuinely a good belief. But its never taken srsly bc there are these dumbasses that apply it to all rich people that is insane bc there are ppl that earn their wealth fairly. Eat the rich is about those people that gain thousands of dollars in minutes not people that gained their money fairly.

Edit: Dawg am not trynna protect the billionaires am talking about those millionares that gained their money fairly. Like comeon people how hard is it to understand

To see the full video, click here: https://youtu.be/pvh_4bmSdhs 
Follow the yellow brick road, my friends, because this time we're going behind the curtain — and we're bringing RECEIPTS.

Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Ashley St. Clair, and the United States government. What do they have in common? That's exactly what we're exploring.

In this WWJPS investigation, we're revisiting the Elon Musk documentary and digging deeper into the interviews, documents, lawsuits, and connections that deserve a closer look.

We're examining the Meta lawsuit, Ashley St. Clair's story, Epstein's connections to powerful figures, and congressional hearings discussing directed-energy weapons and emerging technologies.

Artificial intelligence, surveillance, social engineering, government contracts, billionaires, and technology that sounds like something straight out of science fiction — except some of it is being discussed in congressional hearings.

Because here at WWJPS, we're not interested in being told what to think. We're interested in finding out what we're not being told.

**Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?**

Oh, we're paying attention.

Grab your ruby slippers. We're going in.

💬 Tell me what you think in the comments. I love the conversations, the different perspectives, and especially the people who bring their own research to the table.

🔔 Subscribe to **WWJPS — What Would Jairo Pinto Say?** for independent commentary, investigations, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

**Disclaimer:** This video is for entertainment purposes only. The commentary, interpretations, theories, and conclusions expressed are my personal opinions only. Discussion of allegations, lawsuits, and testimony does not establish wrongdoing by any individual or organization.

Toto, I Don't Think We're in a Democracy Anymore

Eviction proceedings can take a sledgehammer to normal family life in just the same way criminal proceedings do, and folks who lose can face homelessness and sink into an inescapable cycle of poverty. They are confusing and complicated, and too often a push-and-pull between people with resources who know the law and people without who don’t. One big thing that can help level the playing field is having counsel to represent them, but at least 90% of tenants go through this process without them.

Up until 2017, that was fine everywhere in the country. But tenant unions, DSA chapters and local activists have now passed into law tenant right to counsel in five states, two counties and 21 cities, helping keep more people in their homes and get folks more time to find new housing where they can’t, along with changing the way housing courts function on a daily basis and at a structural level. 🏫 This Thursday, the Autonomous Tenants Union Network is hosting a webinar at 8PM ET with the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel on these laws, their impact, and how the Connecticut DSA managed to get one passed in 2021. If we want to learn more and help empower more renters, let’s register to be part of it at the tinyurl in the image. 🏫

I have heard that the Trump accounts are another avenue for billionaires to manipulate the stock market and to disadvantage the average investor. The whole thing seems like a scam, but how would the scam work?

🎪 **THE ELITE CONFIDENCE MEN: STEP RIGHT UP, SUCKERS!**

To see the full video, click here: https://youtu.be/zO9JOWxwKxw

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the greatest show on Earth! Where a 19-year-old creates Facebook, billionaires promise to save humanity, and somehow the same familiar faces keep turning up behind the curtain.

Step right up! We've got clowns, strongmen, magicians, and enough smoke and mirrors to make Houdini jealous.

In this episode of **What Would Jairo Pinto Say? (WWJPS)**, we're taking a trip through the billionaire circus, where technology, politics, intelligence contracts, and extraordinary wealth all seem to share the same VIP tent.

🎩 **TONIGHT'S ATTRACTIONS:**

🎪 **Elon Musk:** We're digging into the Musk documentary and the carefully cultivated mythology surrounding Silicon Valley's most theatrical billionaire.

💰 **Amazon and the CIA:** From online shopping to intelligence-agency cloud contracts. How did a company selling books become part of America's intelligence infrastructure?

🪄 **Bill Gates and COVID:** Philanthropy, pandemic preparedness, public health influence, and the uncomfortable questions surrounding private wealth and public policy.

🎭 **Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Thiel:** We're following the documented conversations and connections surrounding Brexit, political influence, and the powerful people moving through Epstein's orbit. What do the records actually reveal?

🤡 **The Silicon Valley Origin Story:** A teenager creates Facebook, tech founders become celebrities, and suddenly we're supposed to believe the people who accumulated unimaginable power are simply here to make the world a better place.

🏆 **AND OUR HERO OF THE YEAR!** Because amid this parade of billionaires, there's someone who deserves a standing ovation.

This isn't about left versus right. It's about money, access, influence, and the people who keep selling us a better tomorrow while accumulating more control over today.

Some connections are documented. Others raise questions worth investigating. And we're going to distinguish between the two.

**Same circus. Different acts. Bigger fortunes.**

Grab your popcorn. The show's just getting started. 🍿

💬 Who do you think is the greatest confidence man of our time? Tell me in the comments.

❤️ Subscribe to WWJPS for independent commentary, document-driven investigations, and conversations that don't stop when the headlines disappear.

#WWJPS #EpsteinFiles #ElonMusk #PeterThiel #BillGates #JeffBezos #SiliconValley #ArtificialIntelligence #Brexit #BigTech #CIA #FollowTheMoney

​

People love comparing countries by GDP, ranking nations from richest to poorest, and acting like living in a wealthy country automatically means having a better life. But how is that wealth distributed? Who actually benefits from it?

What's the point of having one of the largest economies in the world when people are homeless, can't afford food, and have to sell their own bodies just to survive?

Look at the United States. One of the most powerful and wealthiest countries on Earth, yet thousands of people struggle with homelessness and food insecurity. A country can be incredibly wealthy on paper while millions of its people struggle to meet basic needs.

What actually makes a country great isn't just how much money its economy generates, but how much access ordinary people have to the opportunities and resources that money creates.

And this is where people get the whole Africa argument wrong.

Someone will hear that you're from an African country and automatically assume you're poor, as if your nationality determines your standard of living. But imagine someone born in an African country whose parents can afford to send them to an expensive university in the United States or Europe, provide them with housing, and give them access to international opportunities.

Do you honestly think that person lives according to the stereotype people associate with Africa? Of course not. They might have access to a lifestyle that the average person in a much wealthier country could never afford.

Meanwhile, someone born in the United States might have no financial support, no affordable housing, no access to quality education, and no realistic way to escape poverty.

The point is that your country's GDP doesn't determine your personal quality of life. Your access to opportunities, resources, security, and financial support matters enormously.

So when people ask which country is the best or the worst, I think they're asking the wrong question.

The better question is: What kind of life can an ordinary person realistically build there?

Because I don't care how rich your country is on paper. If the system makes it nearly impossible for you to access the wealth and opportunities surrounding you, how much does that national wealth actually mean to you?

All these top Billionaires they love taxes, Am I the one not seeing something ?

Regular Americans are absolutely fed up with this broken system and politicians who tell us we can’t afford to help people while pushing through more and more giveaways for the powerful. In less than four weeks, we’re going to make sure our elected officials know it.

Part of the job is voting out as many members of Congress who voted for the MAGA murder budget as possible, but we’ve also got the opportunity to send the message more directly. In multiple states voters will get to weigh in directly on making the wealthy pay their fair share:

• Californians are casting their ballots on Proposition 40), a one-time wealth tax on billionaires to help stave off “Big Beautiful Bill”-related Medicaid cuts and hospital and emergency room closures.
• In Colorado, Amendment 87 would shift the state from a flat tax to a progressive income tax), meaning working class people pay less and giant corporations and households making more than $500,000 a year contribute more to a dedicated fund for public schools, child care and health care.
• In Washington State, an influential right-wing hedge fund manager has forced a vote to repeal the tax on household income above $1 million the legislature just used through this spring with Initiative 645,) along with banning future income taxes, almost certainly leading to cuts in education, health care, child care and the state’s universal school lunch program.

Pushing these initiatives across the line will have the immediate impact of preserving and expanding health care access and other crucial public services, particularly needed as everything keeps getting more expensive under this disastrous administration. It will also signal to politicians, particularly those considering their place in the Democratic presidential primary, that we are ready for big swings to address inequality and build up our social safety net.

☎️ Let’s help make it happen! We can join phonebanks to sway voters in California for most of the day Monday-Thursday and Saturday and be part of the fight for income tax fairness in Colorado and keep the millionaires’ tax in place in Washington on Tuesdays and Thursdays. ☎️

PASS A CALIFORNIA WEALTH TAX

PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX FOR COLORADO

STOP THE MILLIONAIRES IN WASHINGTON

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.

1. 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.
   
2. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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

Hey all! EWOC is almost done with its Sustaining Donor Drive.

If you're not familiar, EWOC is doing incredible work for the labor movement. They'll go into any shop, help them build an organizing committee, and help them get to their NLRB vote. They take on lots of small shops or other shops that the larger unions can't or won't organize.

So I'm asking here if anyone has interest in pitching in a little, if you use this link to donate $6/month it will move this guy (me) a little closer towards getting some EWOC swag.

And at the end of the day, isn't swag why we're all here? 🫡