Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
kaggle-ho-011113House Oversight

Economic commentary on capital gains taxation and macroeconomic theory

Economic commentary on capital gains taxation and macroeconomic theory The passage contains only theoretical opinions on tax policy and macroeconomic modeling without any specific names, transactions, dates, or actionable leads involving powerful actors. Key insights: Advocates taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates.; Critiques traditional macroeconomic equations and concepts.; Calls for bank reform and devolution of commercial banks.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-011113
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Economic commentary on capital gains taxation and macroeconomic theory The passage contains only theoretical opinions on tax policy and macroeconomic modeling without any specific names, transactions, dates, or actionable leads involving powerful actors. Key insights: Advocates taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates.; Critiques traditional macroeconomic equations and concepts.; Calls for bank reform and devolution of commercial banks.

Tags

kagglehouse-oversighttax-policymacroeconomicsbank-reform

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
I would tax capital gains as much as ordinary income for the same reason. Level the playing field. Solow saw most of the truth, but didn’t go far enough. Mill saw more. And even Mill stopped short. All we have to do is look at the charts and tables. Capital accumulation does not exist. Any attempt lowers consumption with no growth to show for it. Keep track of national wealth including human capital by my method here, and also by Petty’s of 1664, 1676 and 1685. What would we think of corporate management that added up only the smaller part of corporate assets? We now consider physical capital only. Political parties debate what taxes and the national debt should be without the key facts. Policy prescriptions can also aim at schools and what they teach. Macroeconomics should start over. It reached most of its present form in the “years of high theory”, in the 1920s through 1950s, without the concepts of human capital or market-valued capital. It is founded on the inaccurate Y = C + I equation and the concomitant belief that output equals pay plus profit. It recognizes ex ante — ex post distinctions only crudely as to saving, by taking it as either invested or uninvested, and not at all as to investment itself. By missing the lag between market effects and book reaction, it misreads some of our worst years as our best and conversely. The path forward is omnibus funds and devolution of commercial banks. Bank reform along the lines I suggested should need no help from lawmakers. But for gosh sakes, let’s not set up barriers against it. Commercial banks and 10:1 leverage make slumps inevitable. Crashes are as sure as death and taxes until we phase them out. Summary Macro has meant a tightrope walk between the risks of inflation and recession. That doesn’t have to be. The problems are detachable. Even today, It should be practical to redefine legal tender as real or inflation-corrected dollars. But the deeper Chapter 8 Banks, Money and Macroeconomics 2/8/16 24

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.