Your article is so full of (perhaps unwitting?) nonsense I cannot easily sort out the wheat from the chaff. Defining terms might be a good start.
The government budget is *already balanced* otherwise someone made an accounting mistake. What is certainly not balanced is the "fair" distribution of the net government spending. That is a function of macroeconomic injustices and perversions of the braid public purpose. The public purpose is not to create a few billionaires and mass unemployment (which I define as anything above 1% involuntary unemployment and underemployment, defined as people seeking to get the state's tax credit to redeem their $ denominated liabilities [less credit fraud]).
All outstanding balances in US$ are "the USA government debt obligations". But so are Tsy bonds. It is the latter you can eliminate (overnight, with a legislative pen by adopting permanent zero interest rate policy, i.e., halt the flow of basic income only for people who already have money), and we should definitely not desire to eliminate the former, since that is by accounting identity net private savings.
The real macroeconomic justice issue is who holds those savings & deposit accounts? The problem being it's the top Ten Percent. Which is a metric for gross injustice, if one considers the distribution of those tax credits is hihgly non-gaussian (due too rentier effects: rich get richer).
Zero-interest bonds would have no buyers and so would raise no funds. Issuing money directly allows the government to pay for stuff. The Constitution forbids the government from issuing dollars, but it does allow for minted coins. You can achieve the objective of the government issuing currency by using the work around I proposed. It achieves the same objective as zero interest bonds, and it would actually work.
European levels of tax would likely result in European levels of growth. People don't realize how far the US has been pulling ahead of the EU, with gdp growth up to 5x higher. Many countries with higher taxes burdens than the USA have had 0 gdp growth since the 2008 crisis. This tradeoff should be mentioned in your analysis.
We had much of that tax structure in the 1990’s and growth was pretty good then, and we had a budget surplus. Europe employs a massive VAT, effectively a sales tax. Since GDP is largely net final sales a VAT taxes GDP and when you tax something you get less of it, so the slower growth in Europe doesn’t seem all that surprising.
Note, I am not calling for a VAT.
The new taxes in addition to the 1990’s real-world-tested levels, are all on investment income, which impacts financial markets, not the real economy. Taxes on capital gains will likely lead to lower market valuations. The market is grossly overvalued (the Buffet ratio is twice what it used to be), which creates risk for financial crisis. Tamping that down would be a positive effect.
The tax on dividends might reduce the amount of dividends paid out. And the higher capital gains tax might reduce the amount of stock buybacks. If so this would mean more money reinvested back into the economy. Over the last 7 years 97% of profits have been used for buybacks and dividends.
The tax on interest would have a tendency to raise interest rates. But the cessation of government bond issuance, means a vast excess of demand for bond relative to supply. So even though interest taxes would go up, the rates would still fall.
All in all, there is no reason to expect a negative economic effect.
Your article is so full of (perhaps unwitting?) nonsense I cannot easily sort out the wheat from the chaff. Defining terms might be a good start.
The government budget is *already balanced* otherwise someone made an accounting mistake. What is certainly not balanced is the "fair" distribution of the net government spending. That is a function of macroeconomic injustices and perversions of the braid public purpose. The public purpose is not to create a few billionaires and mass unemployment (which I define as anything above 1% involuntary unemployment and underemployment, defined as people seeking to get the state's tax credit to redeem their $ denominated liabilities [less credit fraud]).
All outstanding balances in US$ are "the USA government debt obligations". But so are Tsy bonds. It is the latter you can eliminate (overnight, with a legislative pen by adopting permanent zero interest rate policy, i.e., halt the flow of basic income only for people who already have money), and we should definitely not desire to eliminate the former, since that is by accounting identity net private savings.
The real macroeconomic justice issue is who holds those savings & deposit accounts? The problem being it's the top Ten Percent. Which is a metric for gross injustice, if one considers the distribution of those tax credits is hihgly non-gaussian (due too rentier effects: rich get richer).
Zero-interest bonds would have no buyers and so would raise no funds. Issuing money directly allows the government to pay for stuff. The Constitution forbids the government from issuing dollars, but it does allow for minted coins. You can achieve the objective of the government issuing currency by using the work around I proposed. It achieves the same objective as zero interest bonds, and it would actually work.
European levels of tax would likely result in European levels of growth. People don't realize how far the US has been pulling ahead of the EU, with gdp growth up to 5x higher. Many countries with higher taxes burdens than the USA have had 0 gdp growth since the 2008 crisis. This tradeoff should be mentioned in your analysis.
We had much of that tax structure in the 1990’s and growth was pretty good then, and we had a budget surplus. Europe employs a massive VAT, effectively a sales tax. Since GDP is largely net final sales a VAT taxes GDP and when you tax something you get less of it, so the slower growth in Europe doesn’t seem all that surprising.
Note, I am not calling for a VAT.
The new taxes in addition to the 1990’s real-world-tested levels, are all on investment income, which impacts financial markets, not the real economy. Taxes on capital gains will likely lead to lower market valuations. The market is grossly overvalued (the Buffet ratio is twice what it used to be), which creates risk for financial crisis. Tamping that down would be a positive effect.
The tax on dividends might reduce the amount of dividends paid out. And the higher capital gains tax might reduce the amount of stock buybacks. If so this would mean more money reinvested back into the economy. Over the last 7 years 97% of profits have been used for buybacks and dividends.
The tax on interest would have a tendency to raise interest rates. But the cessation of government bond issuance, means a vast excess of demand for bond relative to supply. So even though interest taxes would go up, the rates would still fall.
All in all, there is no reason to expect a negative economic effect.