Basically, from an article I remembered, when you get over a certain amount of individual income, it stops really contributing to your quality of life, and instead just get 'horded' in banks(Excluding people like Richard Branson, and Bill Gates, they are cool).
These money if left in the bank, are
not being re-invested back into the economy, and thus market efficiency is reduced.
Lets have a 'mandatory start an innovation tax' which kicks in when you reach over the 'meet higher minimum quality of life' threshold. They are then given a choice to sponsor a public government 'project' (e.g. new school), or to spend it towards a 'innovative project' with a group of other like minded people, or if they don't like the choices given, start their own approved 'innovation project'.
I hope they given no choice but to throw their money away to society, will at least throw it towards something culturally, or economically productive. E.g. Even a massive art piece, will create jobs for the duration of constructing it.
An innovation project, can be anything, from building schools, kick starting a weird business idea with a 'business scholarship', to conducting whimsical engineering or artistic challenges like a spaceship. The two common feature of each example is that they will not expect, and will not get anything back from it. Also that collectively, it must employ a diverse amount of people (basically a crosssection of society), who now have the money they are more likely to spend towards 'foods, or gadget'... and best of all, they worked for it. [Thus helps preserve work ethics, and reduces unemployment]
If you are say Richard Branson, Bill Gates, or similar, who already does those things, you won't get charged as much, as you can claim that you already are cycling the personal money you have back to the economy. But if you are say a bank director who have just gotten a 'golden parachute', and wants to live their life off the money, they are free to do that, but will find their bank account become significantly smaller.
In the end of the day, the reason that this sounds right to me, is the idea of the economy existing in a cycle. The so called 'bosses' depends on money spent by the 'workers', and the so called 'workers' depends on work created by the 'bosses'. So to keep the system working well, and avoid money pooling in the personal banks of people who already met 'the quality of life via money', we give them the choice to throw their money towards something they probably won't get money back on, but will give the bulk of the population more spending power to keep the system strong. (via 'make work')
Also, the act of 'making work' is better than 'the dole', as a project would need to buy 'materials' from other smaller business (thus making it healthier), and also gives the workers (who might end up still looking for jobs) more cash to buy from a different business. So it ends up being a trickle up effect, that saturates multiple industry, thus helps everybody, and in the long run... benefits the people getting 'innovation taxed'
Lastly, to soften the fact they are throwing 'their fruit of their labor' towards lubing up the economy, there should be an agreement that if they actively participate in directing their 'mandatory spending' (and not let the government decide for them), that if they hit hard times, they be given more than the standard dole. (basically, whatever dole they would usually get, they get double)
IDEA IS IN PROGRESS. Logic needs working on so far I think. Aside from that, I'm sure there is some merit in this, after ironing out some bugs.