Every year, your total assets are assessed and every red cent required to bring you to below 1 billion dollars is taken.

IF you ended up getting taxed at this rate, a bench gets installed in a public park with a small placard having your name on it. You get to pick the park.

Who needs a billion though? Cut that down to like 100 mil, or even 50.

Realistically, even if enacted, would be tricky to implement, and would definitely have to be done slowly not to shock the economy.

I think this also means creating a system where companies beyond a certain size cannot be privately owned and must be governed by large "committees", since beyond a certain evaluation, concentrated controlling entities would be forced to sell off.

Long shot research and development (e.g. think employing thousands for a decade, like drug development) could probably be harder to get started, but at the same time less corruptible due to spreading out power.

I do think spreading out power can be a good thing, but I have to acknowledge that would probably make the government much more powerful (i.e. corruptible) by comparison.

Also, a lot of wealth is tied up in non-liquid assets, so these billionaires would be forced/incentivized to hold more liquid value -- who'd want to hold something that can be capped one year only to have it fall the next?

So on one hand, a ton of market value disappears from the economy due to increased supply, yet on the other a ton of hoarded value is unlocked to circulate in the economy.

Anyway, don't know where I'm going with this, I'm not an expert by any means.