NOTES FROM THE FIELD — DISPATCH #7
April 2026
If you read the last dispatch, you now understand the mechanism. The buy-borrow-die sequence. Stepped-up basis. The payroll cap. The estate tax that collects $30 billion against $50 trillion.
You probably also came away with a reasonable question: how is this still the system? If it’s this documented, this understood, this lopsided — why hasn’t it been fixed?
The answer is that it has been fixed. Once. In 1986. And then it was carefully, methodically, profitably unfixed.
Understanding why tells you something important — not just about taxes, but about how the machine actually runs.
Every provision is a negotiation.
The tax code is not a document. It is an ongoing transaction.
Every exemption, every carve-out, every loophole represents a moment when someone with money and access sat down with someone who writes legislation, and they reached an agreement. The provision got inserted. The money flowed — in campaign contributions, in speaking fees, in PAC donations, in the soft currency of access and gratitude that doesn’t always have a number attached to it.
This is not a conspiracy. It doesn’t require secret meetings or explicit deals. It requires only that the people writing the tax code are the same people who need to raise money from the people the tax code affects. That structural overlap does the rest.
The complexity of the code is not an accident of competing priorities and historical accretion. The complexity is the inventory. Every carve-out is a product that was sold. Every loophole is a protection that was purchased. A simple, broad-based tax system — one that taxed all forms of wealth accumulation at roughly equivalent rates — would eliminate thousands of those products overnight. The people whose income depends on selling those products have a very clear interest in the code staying exactly as complicated as it is.
That includes the members of Congress who depend on donations from the people who benefit from the provisions. It includes the lobbyists who charge to defend existing provisions and insert new ones. It includes the estate planners, the tax attorneys, the financial advisers whose entire business model is navigating a system that no ordinary person can navigate alone.
The complexity isn’t the problem to be solved. The complexity is the point.
The reform that worked, and what happened to it.
In 1986, the system was interrupted. A bipartisan coalition in Congress, working across party lines with the Reagan administration, passed the Tax Reform Act. It broadened the base. It eliminated the tax shelter industry. It closed the mechanisms that had allowed high-income earners to paper their income into nothing.
It worked. The shelters are gone. They have not come back. High-earning professionals — the surgeons, the lawyers, the finance people — genuinely do pay high taxes today because of what happened in 1986.
What 1986 didn’t close was the buy-borrow-die loop, the stepped-up basis at death, the estate tax machinery. Those remained. And in the decades since, they have been the focus of sustained, organized, funded effort by the people they protect.
The anti-estate tax campaign of the 1990s — funded by 18 of the wealthiest families in America, the Mars family, the Kochs, the Waltons — rebranded the estate tax as the “death tax,” made it sound like something that came for family farms and small businesses, and drove public opinion against a mechanism that affected almost no one outside the very wealthy. It worked. The exemption rose. The rates fell. The loopholes multiplied. The tax that once collected meaningful revenue against dynastic wealth now collects almost nothing.
This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because organized money, applied consistently over decades to the people who write the rules, produces predictable results. The people with the most to gain from the current arrangement spent what was, for them, a rounding error to protect arrangements worth tens of billions. That is not corruption in the cinematic sense. That is rational resource allocation by people who understand exactly how the machine works.
The public angst is part of the product.
Here is where the design becomes visible.
Every few years, the tax system surfaces as a political issue. Politicians on both sides make speeches about fairness. Reform proposals are introduced. Hearings are held. Economists testify. The public gets angry.
And then nothing happens.
What the public doesn’t see — what the speeches are designed to prevent them from seeing — is that the anger is useful. An angry public is a donating public. A donating public is a public that can be managed. The reform proposal isn’t meant to pass. It’s meant to generate the response that generates the counter-donation that funds the campaign that returns the incumbent who introduced the proposal.
The people introducing reform proposals and the people funding opposition to those proposals are often in sustained, mutually beneficial relationship with each other. The proposal creates the threat. The threat unlocks the money. The money maintains the access. The access ensures the proposal never quite makes it to a vote, or arrives at a vote in a form that can’t pass, or passes in a form that’s been hollowed of substance before it gets there.
This is not cynicism. This is the documented operational history of tax legislation in the United States for the last thirty years. The estate tax campaign is the clearest case study, but it is not the only one. Every major reform effort of the last three decades has followed a version of the same arc: introduction, alarm, fundraising, dilution, failure, repeat.
The public’s frustration with a system that feels rigged is accurate. What the public tends to misread is the purpose of that frustration. It isn’t a flaw in the system. It’s a feature. An angry but confused electorate is exactly what the system needs to keep running.
The alarm that nobody is racing to answer.
This year, the federal government spends more than $1 trillion on interest payments — more than on the military, more than on any discretionary program. The Congressional Budget Office projects that figure more than doubles by 2036. The nonpartisan scorekeepers have said explicitly: the fiscal trajectory is not sustainable.
The Federal Reserve chair, speaking at Harvard in March, said the debt level itself isn’t the crisis. The path is. “It will not end well,” he said, “if we don’t do something fairly soon.”
The math for addressing that path runs in one direction: a broader tax base. More revenue from the wealth that has accumulated untaxed for decades. The 1986 precedent shows it can be done. The mechanism for doing it is understood.
The people who would need to act to do it are the same people who are paid, reliably and continuously, to prevent it.
The alarm is ringing. The building is full of people who profit from the fire.
The next dispatch will look at what happens when the can has no more road to be kicked down — and who will be standing closest to the edge when the math runs out.
Sources: Ray Madoff, “Our Tax System Should Make You Furious,” The Ezra Klein Show / New York Times, April 17, 2026. Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook 2026–2036, February 2026. Jerome Powell remarks at Harvard University, March 30, 2026. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, March 2026.
Leave a Reply