The full proposal
How the 0.8% idea would work.
The status, in one paragraph
Art Can Save the World is an independent concept. It proposes that the very wealthy commit the equivalent of 0.8% of net wealth each year, connected to bringing eligible stored art into public view and to separately identified humanitarian contributions. The long-term ambition is a compulsory, internationally coordinated framework introduced through democratic legislation. No such obligation exists today. The immediate starting point is public support, independent expert review and a voluntary pilot.
The mechanism
- Who: people above a very high net-wealth threshold, still to be determined.
- How much: 0.8% of net wealth per year — the founder's current proposal, which takes precedence over older illustrative rates.
- Through what: an eligible art purchase or a public stewardship term, plus a separately identified humanitarian contribution.
- To where: an independently governed fund supporting food security, poverty reduction, clean water, education and resilient communities.
- With what proof: published 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.
Two art routes
Route A — Purchase
Eligible works could be purchased where the owner consents and the sale is legally and ethically permitted. Money paid to a seller is the price of the work. It does not automatically become humanitarian funding. The humanitarian payment must be separately identified and reported.
Route B — Public stewardship (preferred for museum collections)
A patron funds the public display of a stored work for a defined term. The museum keeps ownership, curatorial control and the right to recall the work. Museum care costs are a cultural budget; the humanitarian contribution is separate. When a term ends, curators may approve a new term — renewal is never guaranteed.
Many public collections cannot legally be sold, and professional codes restrict how any sale proceeds may be used. This proposal does not imply that museum art is for sale.
About the ambition
Early campaign materials describe a full-scale ambition of $400 billion a year. That figure is a proposed target requiring independent modelling. It is not a forecast, not a guarantee and not money raised. Likewise, figures for the value of stored art in early posters were fundraising ambitions, not verified valuations.
Proposed governance
- Independent governance with recipient-community representation.
- Published accounts and independent audits.
- Separate humanitarian and cultural budgets.
- Transparent patron eligibility and source-of-funds checks.
- No donor control over grants or museum interpretation.
- Protection of provenance, restitution and conservation requirements.
- Public reporting of setbacks as well as successes.
These are design requirements. None of these bodies has been set up.
Unresolved design questions
- Where to set the wealth threshold, and how to treat families, trusts and residency.
- How to value illiquid assets — private companies, property, art itself.
- Payment arrangements: cash, instalments, shares, deferral.
- Frequency and interaction with existing taxes and charitable giving.
- Legal basis in each country, and how to coordinate internationally to limit avoidance.
- Which works are eligible, and how provenance, restitution and conservation are protected.
- How the fund selects, evaluates and reports on programmes.
Each of these must be tested by independent economists, lawyers, museum professionals and humanitarian practitioners before any pilot.