Taxing Everything That’s Nailed Down
Taxing Everything That’s Nailed Down
Notes From the Field By James Hickman (Simon Black) January 22, 2026
In the ancient town of Casinum—modern-day Cassino, Italy—parts of a Roman amphitheater still stand after nearly 2,000 years. Carved into the stone, in Latin, is an inscription that translates to: "Ummidia Quadratilla, daughter of Caius, built the amphitheatre and temple for the people of Casinum at her expense."
Ummidia Quadratilla was a wealthy Roman businesswoman who funded multiple public works, all out of her own pocket. Her name was carved in stone for eternity. When she died, she was respected enough that the younger Pliny wrote admiringly about her.
The Romans (and Greeks before them) called this practice euergetes—wealthy citizens funding infrastructure projects in exchange for public recognition. Rich people actually competed with one another to see who could give more since public generosity elevated one’s status.
The most generous would have parades thrown in their honor— though naturally they would have to pay for the parade.
Today’s attitudes towards taxpayers are entirely different. Politicians are constantly inventing new ways to extract more and more from people, and then publicly shame the people who pay the most money.
They call their biggest tax payers “greedy” for following the very tax code that politicians write, and then demand they pay their "fair share" without ever defining how much that is.
In tax year 2022 (the most recent data that the IRS has published), the top 0.001% of taxpayers in America paid, on average, nearly $60 million each. The top 0.0001% (about 150 people) paid in the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars each.
(By comparison, the average taxpayer contributes about $7,333.)
You’d think that politicians would be grateful and supportive of people who write such enormous checks to the government. I mean, they ought to name an aircraft carrier for someone who consistently pays billion-dollar tax bills.
Yet, again, politicians vilify and shame them. This is a bizarre, almost cannibalistic approach. Any private business would treat its top customers with respect and dignity. At a minimum they wouldn’t vilify the individuals who pay the most money.
But guess what? Successful people are extremely mobile. It’s 2026, not 1026. No one is a medieval serf anymore, tied to the land.
California is learning this lesson the hard way. The state already has one of the highest income tax rates in America—13.3% at the top bracket.
Wealthy people have long tolerated California’s high income taxes as the price they pay for living in a place with great weather.
Yet now California voters are considering a ballot measure to impose a "one-time" 5% wealth tax on billionaires—a levy on their total assets, retroactive to January 1, 2026.
And that was finally enough. Billionaires are getting out of Dodge, because they’re not dumb enough to think that this tax will be a “one-time” thing.
The United Kingdom is experiencing something similar.
**************************************
For over 200 years, the UK had a "non-dom" regime that allowed wealthy foreigners living in Britain to avoid UK taxes on their overseas income. It was one of the few things remaining in recent years which made Britain attractive to international wealth.
In March 2024, the Conservative government announced they would abolish it. The Labour government confirmed the change after winning the July election, and the regime officially ended in April 2025.
The mere announcement triggered an exodus. Over 10,000 millionaires left the UK in 2024, and thousands more followed in 2025.
They brought their money with them. No more big spending, no more employees, no more economic activity.
So what does a desperate government do when the wealthy flee?
They tax everything that's nailed down.
Here’s a great example: Britain’s Labour government recently announced plans to double the tax rate on local bars and pubs.
These establishments are already being squeezed from every direction. The government charges duty on beer, plus VAT, plus special taxes on every pint sold.
Now the Labour government is raising those tax rates by 30 to 70%, starting this April.
The response? Over 1,000 pubs have banned Labour MPs from their establishments. Prime Minister Keir Starmer got barred from one of his local pubs in London. Signs reading "No Labour MPs" are appearing in windows across the country.
But I wouldn't count on this changing anything. Remember, the UK government couldn't even be bothered to investigate the years-long grooming gang scandal until public outrage forced Prime Minister Starmer's hand—he'd initially dismissed calls for an inquiry as a 'far-right bandwagon.'
It’s all so insulting.
Bear in mind that the British government is re housing 36,000 asylum seekers in hotels at £145 per night—all at taxpayer expense.
Plus, local councils spent £52 million on diversity and inclusion officers over the past three years. Britain is still sending foreign aid to India—a country with its own space program.
Meanwhile 10 million pensioners, i.e. actual British people, lost their winter fuel payments so that the government could save £1.5 billion.
It really boggles the mind. Before raising taxes, shouldn't governments examine how they're spending the money they already take in?
The fundamental problem is that government programs, once created, are almost impossible to end. There's never an honest reckoning; spending just keeps rising, forcing governments to keep searching for new revenue.
Naturally they always want to tax the rich... But eventually “the rich” skip town, so the government starts taxing every that can’t relocate. Pubs. Property. Small businesses. The middle class.
This is why tax mitigation is part of any sensible Plan B.
It's not unpatriotic to expect the government to spend money wisely. Any rational person—not even as a Plan B, but as a Plan A—should explore legal means to minimize their tax burden.
That could mean moving from a high-tax state like California or New York to a no-income-tax state like Texas or Florida.
Maximizing retirement account contributions—a self-directed Solo 401(k) alone lets you shelter up to $69,000 per year.
For Americans willing to live abroad, the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion can shield up to $132,900 from federal taxes.
Banning politicians from the local pub might feel good. But the most rational way to respond— when the government isn’t even willing to stop funding outright fraud— is to follow the rules of their own tax code to minimize the amount of your money that they’ll waste.
To your freedom, James Hickman Co-Founder, Schiff Sovereign LLC