Independent concept • Proposed framework • Seeking collaborators
A proposal to turn hidden art and a small share of extraordinary wealth into lasting public good.
The 0.8% idea
What if the world's wealthiest committed 0.8% of their net wealth each year—helping bring stored art into public view and funding the fight against poverty and hunger?
01 / Why this idea exists
1
Museums hold far more than they can show at once. Storage protects fragile works, supports research and allows collections to rotate — that care matters. But some suitable works could be seen by many more people if the costs of displaying them were met.
2
A small number of people now hold fortunes larger than many national budgets. Most of that wealth sits in businesses, property and investments, not cash. Asking for a small, predictable share is a question of fairness, not blame.
3
Hunger, poverty, unsafe water and lost schooling are still daily realities for many families. Progress is possible when funding is steady and programmes are run well, with local leadership.
Museums are potential collaborators, not obstacles. Curators — and only curators — decide which works can safely be displayed. And this is not about blaming anyone for being wealthy. It is about asking what a small, shared commitment could make possible.
A Louvre snapshot from the supplied material — one collection, not an estimate for all museums worldwide.
02 / How it would work
A proposed annual contribution of 0.8% from people above a very high wealth threshold, still to be determined.
Use eligible purchases or museum-approved public stewardship arrangements.
Direct separately identified humanitarian contributions to an independently governed fund supporting effective programmes.
Report receipts, costs, grants, outcomes and failures.
Where each dollar goes — counted once
Payment to art owner
Only under the purchase route. Goes to the seller for the work itself. Never counted as humanitarian funding.
Museum & gallery costs
Display, conservation, insurance, transport and public programmes. A separate cultural budget.
Humanitarian contribution
Separately identified. Goes to the independently governed fund and on to effective programmes.
Route A
Eligible works could be purchased where owners consent and sales are legally and ethically permitted. The payment to the seller is for the art — it does not automatically become humanitarian funding. The humanitarian payment must be separately identified.
Route B · preferred for museums
Patrons fund public display for a defined term. Museums retain ownership and curatorial control. Museum care costs and humanitarian contributions stay separate.
Not all museum art can be sold. Many public collections are legally protected, which is why the blueprint favours stewardship for museum collections.
03 / What does 0.8% mean?
Try an example
Hypothetical annual contribution at 0.8%
$8 million
$1 billion × 0.008. 99.2% remains — $992 million — before any other changes in wealth.
Red: 0.8% · Blue: 99.2%
This is arithmetic, not a forecast of anyone's finances. Nothing you type leaves your browser.
Hypothetical
$56 billion
illustrative gross receipts per year, before any costs
The eligible global wealth base has not been verified. Both sliders are your assumptions, not data. Real receipts would depend on thresholds, valuation, avoidance and enforcement.
All results are hypothetical. 0.8% is the founder's current proposal; thresholds, valuation, payment arrangements and frequency require independent assessment.
04 / What the funding could support
Support farmers with seeds, storage and fair market access; strengthen school meal programmes; help communities prepare for lean seasons and food price shocks.
Back decent work, small enterprises, cash support where evidence shows it works, and access to basic services and social protection.
Build and maintain wells, pipes and toilets with local operators, and fund hygiene programmes in schools and clinics.
Fund teachers, learning materials and safe classrooms, from early childhood through to skills for work.
Help communities adapt: flood defences, drought-resistant farming, early warning systems and stronger health services.
We do not convert amounts into meals, lives saved or poverty eliminated. Any such figure would need a documented, independent methodology.
An illustrative allocation of the proposed $2 trillion five-year ambition ($400 billion per year). This target needs independent modelling; it is not a forecast, verified programme cost or money raised.
05 / Art for everyone
More suitable works on view
Curators select stored works that can safely travel or be shown.
Funded conservation and care
Display costs, framing, conservation and insurance are covered separately.
Public access and school visits
Funded display terms can include free entry days and learning programmes.
Recognition for patrons
Participating patrons can be credited publicly, under transparent rules.
Museum ownership retained
Under stewardship, the museum keeps title to every work.
Curatorial independence
Museums decide interpretation and keep the right to recall works at any time for care or research.
06 / A proposed pathway
No dates, agreements or global body exist yet. This is the route we propose to test, step by step.
1
Open the idea to critique from economists, lawyers, museum professionals and humanitarian practitioners.
2
Test the model with willing museums, owners and patrons — on a small, measurable scale.
3
Assess actual funding, real costs, public access and programme outcomes. Publish what did not work.
4
Where the evidence supports it, democratic legislatures could consider a binding framework.
5
Coordinate across countries so the obligation is fair, hard to avoid and consistently applied.
07 / Trust and accountability
08 / Questions people will ask
The long-term ambition is compulsory: an internationally coordinated, legally binding framework introduced through democratic legislation. That obligation does not exist today. The starting point is public support, independent expert review and a voluntary pilot to test whether the mechanism works.
0.8% is the founder's current proposal — small enough to leave 99.2% of net wealth in place before other changes, and large enough to matter at very high wealth levels. It replaces older illustrative rates in early materials. The right rate must be tested by independent economists.
Not yet decided. The threshold would be set very high, so that only a small share of the population is affected. Where to set it, and how to treat families, trusts and residency, requires independent assessment.
It depends on the route. Under public stewardship, no — the museum keeps ownership and curatorial control, and the patron funds a public display term. Under the purchase route, a buyer could own an eligible work where the owner consents and the sale is legally and ethically permitted.
Often not, or only under strict conditions. Many public collections are protected by law, and professional codes restrict how sale proceeds may be used. That is why stewardship is the preferred route for museum collections. Any sale would need the owner's consent and the relevant approvals.
Art gives the idea a visible, positive form. A contribution that also brings hidden works into public view creates shared cultural value and a public moment of recognition. But the humanitarian payment is always separately identified — the art is not the funding source on its own.
Nobody knows yet. It depends on the threshold, the verified wealth base, valuation, avoidance and collection rates. Early materials mention a full-scale ambition of $400 billion a year; that is a proposed target requiring independent modelling, not a forecast and not money raised. The calculator on this site shows arithmetic only.
This is a real design question. Options could include payment over time, payment in shares, or deferral rules, so that contributors are not forced into damaging sales. Independent tax and legal experts need to test these options.
The proposal is an independently governed fund that includes people from recipient communities. Contributors would not control grants. Funding decisions would follow published criteria and evidence of effectiveness.
It could, without safeguards. That is why the proposal includes source-of-funds checks, transparent eligibility rules, no donor influence over grants or museum interpretation, and public reporting. Recognition must follow verified contribution, not replace accountability.
Ending poverty and hunger is the mission. Money alone cannot do it: it must work alongside effective institutions, good policy and local leadership. We will not translate amounts into meals or lives saved without a documented methodology.
Join the conversation below, share the idea, and — if you are an expert, a museum, a collector or a humanitarian organisation — tell us how you could help test it.
09 / Join the conversation
Public supporter
Add your voice and help start the public conversation.
Museum or cultural organisation
Help design stewardship terms that protect collections.
Art owner or collector
Explore whether eligible works could be shown or sold ethically.
Potential patron
Discuss taking part in a future voluntary pilot.
Economist or legal expert
Test thresholds, valuation, tax interaction and legal design.
Humanitarian organisation
Shape how an independent fund could select and evaluate programmes.
Artist or designer
Help the idea travel through images, words and exhibitions.
Share the idea
Want the detail first? Read the full proposal.