What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Tax: How Wealth Taxes Could Technically Work
What if tax evasion were structurally self-defeating, and the entire federal tax code fit on a cocktail napkin?The current federal tax system is broken beyond repair. Workers pay 20 to 30 percent on every dollar they earn. The wealthiest pay effective rates near zero on the appreciation of what they already hold. Seventy thousand pages of tax code, designed to be gamed by those with the resources to game it.
The Last Tax describes a complete replacement. One proportional wealth tax to replace every federal levy now collected. A public ledger that records all wealth, who controls it, and what they owe. A formula simple enough to fit on a
Your share of the nation's wealth, multiplied by what the federal government spends.
The Four PillarsOne Tax. A single proportional wealth tax replaces income, payroll, corporate, estate, and capital gains taxes. The Internal Revenue Code and the seventy-thousand-page tax-research library built around it become obsolete.One Ledger. A public, tamper-evident record of all wealth, who controls it, and what they owe. County land records have tracked property for centuries. The same principle now extends to every asset class.One Principle. Whoever controls wealth bears the duty. Not the legal title-holder. Not the shell company. The human who can ultimately direct the asset. This pierces every trust, every offshore structure, every layer of legal abstraction.One Consequence. The incentive to hide inverts. Today, concealing wealth keeps it off the tax rolls. Under this system, hiding wealth leaves the claim open to anyone willing to register it and pay the duty.InsideThe formula and the math. Worked examples at every wealth level, from a fourth-grade teacher to a billionaire. Approximately nine out of ten American households pay less.Valuation methods that work. If a bank can value an asset to lend against it, the system can value it to tax it. Real estate, equities, private businesses, art, intellectual property, cryptocurrency.A proposed constitutional amendment. Full text, section-by-section analysis, and the historical precedent for moving fast when the political moment arrives.Honest answers to the hard objections. "It is unconstitutional." "You cannot value everything." "The rich will leave." "What about privacy?" Each stated in its strongest form, then answered with evidence.A phased six-year transition. Off-ramps at every stage. No taxpayer pays more than they do today until the system proves itself.Enforcement that follows existing law. Liens, tax certificates, and public auctions. Established procedure, not novel coercion.Why this one is differentA federal wealth tax has been politically discussed for a century. It has rarely been treated as a systems-design problem. This is that treatment.
The Last Tax describes a complete replacement. One proportional wealth tax to replace every federal levy now collected. A public ledger that records all wealth, who controls it, and what they owe. A formula simple enough to fit on a
Your share of the nation's wealth, multiplied by what the federal government spends.
The Four PillarsOne Tax. A single proportional wealth tax replaces income, payroll, corporate, estate, and capital gains taxes. The Internal Revenue Code and the seventy-thousand-page tax-research library built around it become obsolete.One Ledger. A public, tamper-evident record of all wealth, who controls it, and what they owe. County land records have tracked property for centuries. The same principle now extends to every asset class.One Principle. Whoever controls wealth bears the duty. Not the legal title-holder. Not the shell company. The human who can ultimately direct the asset. This pierces every trust, every offshore structure, every layer of legal abstraction.One Consequence. The incentive to hide inverts. Today, concealing wealth keeps it off the tax rolls. Under this system, hiding wealth leaves the claim open to anyone willing to register it and pay the duty.InsideThe formula and the math. Worked examples at every wealth level, from a fourth-grade teacher to a billionaire. Approximately nine out of ten American households pay less.Valuation methods that work. If a bank can value an asset to lend against it, the system can value it to tax it. Real estate, equities, private businesses, art, intellectual property, cryptocurrency.A proposed constitutional amendment. Full text, section-by-section analysis, and the historical precedent for moving fast when the political moment arrives.Honest answers to the hard objections. "It is unconstitutional." "You cannot value everything." "The rich will leave." "What about privacy?" Each stated in its strongest form, then answered with evidence.A phased six-year transition. Off-ramps at every stage. No taxpayer pays more than they do today until the system proves itself.Enforcement that follows existing law. Liens, tax certificates, and public auctions. Established procedure, not novel coercion.Why this one is differentA federal wealth tax has been politically discussed for a century. It has rarely been treated as a systems-design problem. This is that treatment.
325 pages, Hardcover
Published July 1, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
September 25, 2026
This is an excellent book.
If you've ever wondered the process by which a wealth tax could go into effect in the US, this book has you covered.
This reminds me of The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin - a very intelligent person has thought through a topic extensively and is able to anticipate your objections to their argument before you realize you even had them.
I had two quibbles, one of them minor and the other more substantive.
The minor quibble - it was unclear to me if I am able to "whistleblow" without claiming property as mine. For example, let's say I'm petty (no stretch there) and I dislike my neighbor. I know that he has not "registered" his classic car on the "ledger". For argument, let's say that the car is worth 75K. Can I claim the car without having ownership or is this a case of whisteblowing? This was not clear to me having read the book. This is, admittedly, a minor point.
A more substantive point - I think the author understands which groups will have the most objections to his argument, except for one exception. I did not read all of the appendixes, but, in one, he does mention that some retirees may object to the wealth tax as he has laid it out. Earlier in the book, he does illustrate, through consumer profiles, how various types of people would fair. One omission is what I would call, "obliviously rich retiree". I believe this group would actually be the hardest for the author to overcome politically. I'll lay out my profile of what this could look like below:
Kyle and Kitty Jefferson are both 65 years old. They have 3 adult children - Abigail, Andrew, and Anthony. Kitty was a homemaker for the entirety of her career. Kyle was lucky enough to work for a private security firm and, through savings, despite averaging a 75K a year salary, was able to put 2M into his 401K. The couple out two of the three kids through college and have relatively little savings due to health issues Kitty has had in later years. The couple draws around 3K a month from social security. Other than that, they have 2 cars - worth about 60K, a watch that Kyle got as a retirement gift (10K), and a paid off 400K house in Florida. They've been told by their financial advisor that they can essentially draw down 3% from the 401K forever and be okay - along with their 36K from social security, they're right at around 100K income each year. Let's assume for S & Gs that they pay 20% on this income for a net income of 80K. This will be sufficient for the lifestyle that the couple has gotten accustomed to. Their main desire is to live comfortably but also have about a million dollars to hand to each one of their kids. They plan to live another 25-35 years. They would describe themselves as comfortable, not rich.
Under the wealth tax, as I understand it, their bill would look something like this - Total wealth (2.57M); 4% of this would be $102,800. if their house continues to appreciate, their tax bill would increase.
They are better off under the current system because they are able to give away their assets, at death, to their children.
Under the wealth tax, they have some options - all bad. They could give the house early to one of the children, though he would continue to allow his or her parents to live there, creating a dual relationship that they might now want. This would lower their tax bill to $82,800. They would still need to either dip into savings or draw down a larger percentage each year from their 401K - increasing the likelihood they will outlive their money. They could also keep the house and draw down even more from the 401K assuming they want to maintain their lifestyle.
To be clear, I would be in favor of the author's proposal but I think it's important to name the groups where opposition is likely to be strongest - there are millions of Kyles and Kittys, they vote, and are going to be much more sympathetic than the people who inherited wealth or got rich from a start-up. I also realize that one could argue that this is the point of the wealth tax - however, the idea that one would be able to pass wealth on to their children, especially in the case of the Jeffersons (a couple that did things "the right way"), is nearly a bedrock principal in this country.
My hope that if the book is successful enough for a second edition that the author includes a similar couple as test case.
If you've ever wondered the process by which a wealth tax could go into effect in the US, this book has you covered.
This reminds me of The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin - a very intelligent person has thought through a topic extensively and is able to anticipate your objections to their argument before you realize you even had them.
I had two quibbles, one of them minor and the other more substantive.
The minor quibble - it was unclear to me if I am able to "whistleblow" without claiming property as mine. For example, let's say I'm petty (no stretch there) and I dislike my neighbor. I know that he has not "registered" his classic car on the "ledger". For argument, let's say that the car is worth 75K. Can I claim the car without having ownership or is this a case of whisteblowing? This was not clear to me having read the book. This is, admittedly, a minor point.
A more substantive point - I think the author understands which groups will have the most objections to his argument, except for one exception. I did not read all of the appendixes, but, in one, he does mention that some retirees may object to the wealth tax as he has laid it out. Earlier in the book, he does illustrate, through consumer profiles, how various types of people would fair. One omission is what I would call, "obliviously rich retiree". I believe this group would actually be the hardest for the author to overcome politically. I'll lay out my profile of what this could look like below:
Kyle and Kitty Jefferson are both 65 years old. They have 3 adult children - Abigail, Andrew, and Anthony. Kitty was a homemaker for the entirety of her career. Kyle was lucky enough to work for a private security firm and, through savings, despite averaging a 75K a year salary, was able to put 2M into his 401K. The couple out two of the three kids through college and have relatively little savings due to health issues Kitty has had in later years. The couple draws around 3K a month from social security. Other than that, they have 2 cars - worth about 60K, a watch that Kyle got as a retirement gift (10K), and a paid off 400K house in Florida. They've been told by their financial advisor that they can essentially draw down 3% from the 401K forever and be okay - along with their 36K from social security, they're right at around 100K income each year. Let's assume for S & Gs that they pay 20% on this income for a net income of 80K. This will be sufficient for the lifestyle that the couple has gotten accustomed to. Their main desire is to live comfortably but also have about a million dollars to hand to each one of their kids. They plan to live another 25-35 years. They would describe themselves as comfortable, not rich.
Under the wealth tax, as I understand it, their bill would look something like this - Total wealth (2.57M); 4% of this would be $102,800. if their house continues to appreciate, their tax bill would increase.
They are better off under the current system because they are able to give away their assets, at death, to their children.
Under the wealth tax, they have some options - all bad. They could give the house early to one of the children, though he would continue to allow his or her parents to live there, creating a dual relationship that they might now want. This would lower their tax bill to $82,800. They would still need to either dip into savings or draw down a larger percentage each year from their 401K - increasing the likelihood they will outlive their money. They could also keep the house and draw down even more from the 401K assuming they want to maintain their lifestyle.
To be clear, I would be in favor of the author's proposal but I think it's important to name the groups where opposition is likely to be strongest - there are millions of Kyles and Kittys, they vote, and are going to be much more sympathetic than the people who inherited wealth or got rich from a start-up. I also realize that one could argue that this is the point of the wealth tax - however, the idea that one would be able to pass wealth on to their children, especially in the case of the Jeffersons (a couple that did things "the right way"), is nearly a bedrock principal in this country.
My hope that if the book is successful enough for a second edition that the author includes a similar couple as test case.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review