Do liberals care that raising the capital gains tax rate WILL result in lower revenues?

Of course not. Even Obama admitted in that ABC debate that increasing the capital gains was about "fairness."

As to Michelob's point, take a hard look at the chart that he links, and I've linked below. In 1997 we were in the middle of a boom economy, and the rate was cut. Tax revenues from capital gains kept going up.

They went down in 2003, but only for that year the cut was instituted, then they started climbing back up too.

I think it's fair to say that his chart is a pretty good indication that a capital gains rate cut results in revenue increases, with a possible immediate dip.

A capital gains tax is only charged on the profit(s) on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. So the really affects the wealthy moreso and I have no problem with that until I become wealthy.

However their are several ways to avoid capital gains as well as capiatal gains exclusion rules and offseting capital gains with losses.

Now I agree that raising capital gains is bad but I disagree on your premise and by the way I am a liberal.

Raising capital gain is basically a tax hike which will hit all of us proportionally. 80% of Americans are investors these days, from retirement funds to college and health savings accounts to just day traders. This tax is going to hit a lot of citizens, and not just “the rich” either. Raising the capital gains discourages Americans from investing in business, and makes it less profitable for those who do so anyway this is espeacially true for small businesses.

Now if we could raise it on companies like exxon, cheveron, walmart, haliburton and other giants only I am not opposed to that but this should be balanced by incentiving job creation and an overall reduction in corporate taxes and a repeal of some many of the stupid tax breakes the receive to a flat tax rate with a higher capital gains tax.

My opinion.

Further, the amount of revenue brought in by this tax is going to be negligible given that it will undoubtedly slow investments.

First of all, capital gains = income. In America, income IS taxable at a progressive rate. It should be no different with the stock market. investing = risk and thats part of the game. higer risk = higher profits/loss and even if the profits were taxed at higher rates, then the investor would still come out better than other means of investing. (that's enough to encourage stock market economic activity) And sister girl, you are probably one those guys who goes in every day and punches the clock. Have your white republican friends brainwashed you into voting against your own economic interests? Next time you ask so many question's, separate them into individual queries!

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts went up only 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of Total revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and Lower revenues, not Higher revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

No, it's a spurious correlation is what it is.

You better take a look at what really drove markets and economic expansion like the creation of 401Ks, roth IRAs, allowing companies to divest themselves of pension obligations, the exploitation of new technologies and so on.

In fact, I don't think there is a major school of economics that would support that link between minor fiscal policy changes and markets and government revenue, and I am including the Chicago School.

Michelob: Great job! I don't think people understand the math because I can't see why you got the thumbs down. You are exactly right. Of course the 15% decline is due to our friend Inflation (reduction in purchasing power) based on the premise that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar received sometime in the future. It's basic finance!!!

Here you go Einstein. Don't feed from the Supply side.

"...the reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% in 2003 did not result in an increase in revenue over the course of the business cycle. In 2000 receipts totaled $119 billion, which equals $143 million in 2007 dollars. In 2007, they totaled $122 billion. That's a 15% decline."

Edit: That's not an equal point in the business cycle. You mess with the bull, you get the horns, son. Just admit you're talking out of the wrong orifice and call it a day.

Atlas has already shrugged.Will be a sad day for American if either Liberal Democratic is elected.That sucking sound that will be heard around the world will be investment capital leaving this once great nation.Do the Libs who head the democratic party care.NO.

Best thing to do is convert to liquid assets and be prepared to leave to Mexico or South America.

Democrats and their Liberal base will never comprehend that the affluent of this nation are the fuel to our economy.

Liberalism is a mental disorder, so probably not.

I am no economist but it does not matter because I oppose violence. If you do, then you cannot support forced taxes because the govt will put you in jail for not paying income taxes. (I have no problem with gas taxes or other usage taxes that I can avoid.)

Taxes take the money out of my wallet which I could use to better educate and feed my family. Anyone who wants to tax the rich or poor, really is a vile human being.

Here is the chart for the ones with their heads stuck in the sand.

The capital gains tax will hurt the low income people more than the high income (who can afford to pay it). So, Obama wants to raise it to 28% ensuring that only the rich can invest in stock. Thats elitism.