This latest 'win-win' policy proposal was featured The Critic Magazine and appears to have garnered a lot of attention: https://thecritic.co.uk/why-we-need-a-rashford-tax/
The idea is that when a high profile celebrity or company campaigns for more government resources or a policy that would cost public money, the government should firstly and very publicly demand a sizable commitment from them (e.g. 25% of assets or lifetime income), set up a crowdfunding site for their supporters to contribute, and in return make a matching payment (either through government or lottery resources).
There are many advantages to such a scheme and it fits well with Government priorities:
Raises money for the public sector and good causes, without burdening taxpayers.
Contributes to The Big Society and Levelling Up. This is the rich and powerful contributing more.
Makes celebs and companies think more carefully about virtue-signalling campaigns: Is this actually a good way to spend resources, including my resources? And it gives them skin-in-the-game to make sure their own money is spent well and actually achieves its purpose.
Crowdfunding is in vogue. This is the government keeping up with technology and the times.
Improves the sense of social fairness. Celebs and big corporations enjoy far more influence than the average voter, and make vast amounts of money from maintaining a high profile.
It would improve public perceptions of wealthy individuals and companies. As the recent survey by Dr Frank Luntz at the CPS shows, currently those perceptions are very low (Britain Speaks by Dr Frank Luntz.pptx - Google Drive ), and it is widely felt that these groups are not pulling their weight.