I think the biggest barrier to understanding it for people is that they are sure it is some variation on something with which they are familiar. You seem to be convinced that it is some new and different tax scheme. It is not. It is a new and different way of supplying the economy with money (as currency: the economy is supplied with money that is not currency when banks make loans).

One more time: to prevent inflation, at some point money must be returned to the Monetary Agency, but the goal is to have any money that is returned come from businesses, not individuals (no matter how rich they might be). Still, people can’t be allowed to accumulate infinite amounts of money.

If money were not returned to the Monetary Agency so much money would accumulate that interest rates would get so low that it wouldn’t be worth lending, which would be a disaster for people who needed to borrow money because they didn’t have the money on hand for something they really needed — which would be most people. Rates could even turn negative due to market forces, not rules and regulations, which would be even worse for people who weren’t rich: they would have to pay for keeping any money they did manage to set aside in a bank.

To avoid all that the money needs to be kept circulating. So (after they had accumulated as much as allowed, based on their incomes) people with ‘excess’ money would have to spend it (or invest it or give it away). If they didn’t do one of those things with it, that money would be collected.