I was being sincere when I said I appreciate your sincere interest in my proposal. That you would be willing to 'do something with it' is even better.

If you have studied economics, I can recommend “Paradigm Shift” to you. It is a more generic but also more technical rendering of the concept.

Money must have some scarcity to have any value. Scarcity is built into this proposed paradigm by having the supply of money (as currency) limited by demographics.

With a constant flow of money into the economy, however, if some money were not returned to its originator individuals and businesses could accumulate so much money that it would become meaningless. (A case could be made that such is the unacknowledged reality today.) To reiterate, people and businesses could retain a certain amount of money, based on income. The limit on how much could be accumulated is a necessary limit on hoarding it, to keep it scarce enough.

The potential problem you identified previously comes into play: close to the time when money would be subject to being returned to its originator, there could be an explosion of purchases, almost all of which would represent income for businesses. At the actual deadline, though, there would be a 'snapshot' of all accounts. It would be known how much money was in each account: how many were over the limit and by how much. It is in that sense that giving businesses that were over their limit at the deadline some lag time before that amount of money had to be remitted would "smooth things out" for them: they would have time to adjust their finances for making the remittance.