The Capstone
Companion

How to use this companion

A four-step civic argument, designed to be done in writing.

You've read 150 years of tax history, two competing philosophies, and your own tax picture. Now make something with it. Work through the four steps below — ideally in writing, since the discipline of committing words to a page forces clearer thinking than staying in your head.

1. Read Chapters 1–6 first. This worksheet only works if you've done the reading. The Optional Knowledge Check in the book will tell you if you're ready.
2. Use a pen, not a pencil. Pens force commitment. Pencils invite revision before you've thought it through.
3. Don't skip Step 3. The steelman is the hardest and most important step. If you find yourself wanting to write something other than the strongest version of the opposing view, stop and try again.
4. Take ~60 minutes. If you're rushing, you're probably not steelmanning honestly. If you're stuck more than 15 minutes on one step, move on and come back.
5. Self-grade with the rubric on the last page. Be honest. The rubric is for you, not the teacher.

Diagnose the problem

Pick one real tension from the book. State why it matters in one sentence.

Choose one problem. You'll build your entire proposal around it. Mark your selection.

• Highway Trust Fund DeficitThe federal gas tax (18.4¢/gal) hasn't been raised since 1993. Inflation has eroded its purchasing power by more than 50%. The fund that pays for roads and bridges is running a structural deficit.
• Social Security SolvencyThe Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be partially depleted by 2035. Without legislative action, benefits could be reduced to ~77% of promised amounts for current teenagers by the time they retire.
• Regressive Burden of Consumption TaxesCalifornia's sales and gas taxes are flat rates that take a larger share of income from low-wage earners than from high-wage earners — despite being created to fund services that benefit everyone.
• Capital Gains vs. Wage Tax DisparityLong-term capital gains are taxed at 0–20% federally while wages are taxed at 10–37%. Investment income also avoids Social Security and Medicare taxes entirely.
• Bring your ownIdentify a different tension from the book or your own research. Name it on the line below.

If you chose "Bring your own," name the problem here:

Why does this problem matter? In one sentence — be specific. Not "it affects everyone" but how, and to what degree.

Design a fix

Propose a solution under three constraints.

Your proposal must satisfy all three constraints — or explicitly argue why it's worth violating one of them.

• 1Sufficient revenue. It must raise enough money to actually address the problem. Estimate the order of magnitude — doesn't need to be precise, but can't be zero.
• 2Political viability. At least one major party or significant political faction would plausibly support it. A proposal no one would vote for is a fantasy, not a policy.
• 3Honest burden acknowledgment. You must state explicitly who pays more and who pays less under your proposal.

Describe your proposed fix. Be specific about what changes, by how much, and who it applies to.

Steelman the opposition

Write the strongest argument against your own proposal.

This is the hardest step and the most important one. A steelman is not a strawman — it's the best version of the opposing argument, not the weakest. If someone who disagrees with you read your steelman and thought "yes, that's my concern exactly," you've done it right.

Someone who disagrees with my proposal would argue that...

Defend it anyway

One paragraph. Why is your fix worth doing despite the objection?

You've diagnosed a problem, proposed a solution, and articulated the strongest case against it. Now make the affirmative case. Acknowledge the objection — don't pretend it doesn't exist — and explain why the tradeoff is still worth making.

This is what a policy brief looks like. This is what a civic argument looks like. This is the difference between having an opinion and being able to defend one.

Even so, I believe this proposal is worth pursuing because...

Did you do strong work?

Check the boxes honestly. The rubric is for you, not the teacher.

• My problem statement is specific — not "the system is unfair," but a concrete tension with a measurable consequence.
• I can name who is affected and how (which group, which dollars, which behavior).

• My proposal includes a specific number or mechanism — a rate change, a threshold, an indexing rule. Not just "tax X more."
• I can name at least one political faction that would plausibly support it.
• I explicitly stated who pays more and who pays less under my proposal — without softening either side.

• An actual opponent would recognize their position in my steelman — not a caricature, not a weaker version.
• My steelman uses real data or established economic logic, not just feelings or generic talking points.
• I identified a genuine tradeoff my proposal creates — not an edge case or a bad-faith interpretation.

• My defense acknowledges the steelman's force — I don't pretend the objection doesn't apply.
• My defense gives a reason the tradeoff is worth making — not just a restatement of why I like the proposal.

• I could read my four answers aloud to someone who disagrees with me without embarrassment on either side — they'd recognize their position fairly stated, and they'd see why I disagree.