Even if the government gets less revenue, he would raise taxes:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/54jr3Ceu894&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
You seem like a bright and thoughtful person, and one who would know better than to rely on a "cut-n-paste" job for your views.
In fact, it was a loaded question. Gibson's assertion that "in each instance" when cap gains taxes were cut revenues went up was just dead wrong.
Capital gains taxes were cut 25% in 2003 to just 15%. Yet capital gains tax revenues in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (the lastest data I've found) show that capital gains tax revenues were far lower than in 2000, when the cap gain tax rate was higher (at 20%).
You can see the cap gain revenues reported by CBO here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7047/02-23-CapitalGains.pdf
This is one area where I agree with Reagan and disagree with Obama and Clinton. Cap gains tax rates should be the same as the income tax rates, like Reagan had it.
There's little reason I can see that folks like Warren Buffet, trust fund babies, and fund managers should pay less than half the tax rate on their income than folks who work for it.
Last edited: