> Firstly, you may not like the outcome. Changing the entire time-and-capital structure of an economy is Serious Business and is going to be utterly unpredictable (if it were predictable things would be more stable. They're not).
I already don't like the outcome of the last change to the "entire time-and-capital structure of [the] economy," which wasn't that long ago, and is due to expire anyway.
Not being intimately familiar with US politics, I can only assume this is somehow connected to income tax schedules (which I understand is a hot topic there).
The thing is, however, that tinkering with capital is more important than income. Why? Because capital dwarfs income.
In fact, the more advanced an economy is, the deeper its structure of production is. That is, the more of it is involved in capital instead of income.
Income is the golden river for taxation purposes because it is what is left once capital has done its thing. It is easily identifiable, easily to calculate and easy to extract . It also exercises people's political instinct because most folk, being wage-earners, are far more personally familiar with income and expense than asset and liability.
But that doesn't change the fact that fiddling with the capital structure of an economy is, in the long run, probably the bigger deal.
I already don't like the outcome of the last change to the "entire time-and-capital structure of [the] economy," which wasn't that long ago, and is due to expire anyway.