[quote name='elprincipe']It was lowered, not eliminated. It's not double taxation anyway, since only the gains are taxed and not the principal.[/quote]
Nonono, that wasn't how the argument was framed when it was lowered (I'm still pretty confident it was eliminated, and would like to see a source showing me the opposite).
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html
Here's an "encyclopedia" argument about it (insomuch as one believes an encyclopedia that comes from a politically motivated source and uses factual/scientific rhetoric to describe the contentious nature of whether or not it is double-taxation (hereafter referred to, pun intended, as the DTs)).
Actually it seems you and the link argue the same thing. Were both taxed prior to Bush? Was one eliminated under Bush? We could be pretending like we disagree but simply talking over each other's heads.
I would say, however, that the last thing we want to do in the current economy is to put a beatdown on capital flows. Higher capital gains taxes = less venture capital available for small businesses or startups. Just not a good idea at any time. Additionally, it's been proven that raising the capital gains tax results in LESS tax revenue for the government.
That last statement is a red herring. Raising the tax rate from 0% to ">0%" most certainly can not result in less tax revenue for the government. There's going to be a baseline at which efficiency is killed off, sure, and returns are dampened b/c tax rates are so high. But you need to mean what you say, and not set up a sentence so easily disregarded.
As for the income tax, yes, I'd say the OP is just further evidence of the mistake that was made in lowering tax rates for the wealthy (as well as everyone else too) in 2001-03. I can understand wanting to reduce tax burdens, especially on those who are middle class and below, but we should have fixed our fiscal situation vis-a-vis debt at that point, then lowered taxes for lower- and middle-class folks when the debt was under control or paid off. Right now, given the huge imbalances in the federal budget, we need to be raising taxes on the wealthy while cutting spending significantly.
couldashoulddawoulda. the people who voted for Bush 10 years ago wanted that cash then, like people in localities want that cash now. You think the stimulus is so bad, the public thinks the stimulus is so bad - why is it so popular among politicians? Even those who voted against it, who proselytized against it, who falsely claim is hasn't done a thing - these are the same people handing out Publisher's Cleainghouse-sized checks to fund projects in their home districts - in *your* home district, in *my* home district, that put you to work, or your friends to work, or your families to work.
That doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to dislike the stimulus; but we're grown ups trying to cram a complex bill that has not been tried before into a singular "good" or "bad" category. Like we do with taxes. And we're teeming with instant gratification. People hate the stimulus, but they'd be begging for a government bailout in its absence (that's the greatest irony, to me).
Again, couldashouldawoulda. I've been saying for over a decade (hell, since I was 17 at least) that marginal tax rates need to return to pre-Reagan levels at the very least. I said that the budget surplus needed to go to the debt in 2000. Voters decided that they wanted $300 checks from Dubya instead, to buy a family meal at "Chuck E Cheese" and have enough left over for the nice chair massager from "The Sharper Image."
We want out cake and we want to eat it too. It's more sickening, to me, to see people clamoring with their hands out waiting for their handouts from Dubya, than it is to see people, desparate and desolate in a time of economic crisis, hoping the government will keep them fed.
