Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (139811)	4/20/2001 6:42:28 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 769667

J.F, you're right in the sense that at some point a shift would occur and less revenue would be received from capital gains taxes. Where that point lies (percentage wise), I'm really not sure. The fact that revenue increased after capital gains tax reduction was passed isn't theory though. I've read somewhere (not sure exactly where now), the IRS publishes the figures, and the amount of revenue significantly increased after both rate reductions were passed. Once, I believe, in 86 and the other a few years ago. Personally, I believe we should end the tax altogether like the Japanese have done. But barring that, the least we should do is subtract the inflation rate from the gain. You're right, 80 billion isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Which is one reason I could never understand why Democrats made such a big deal about reducing the rate.