
Introduction
Capital gains are mainly earned and received by individuals in the top 1-10% of income brackets. These individuals typically have 35% marginal tax rates. The typical capital gains tax rate at these income levels is 20%. Capital earnings are taxed at a 43% discount to labor earnings! 😦
This is inequitable on a basic fairness level. Why should some individuals be taxed at a much lower rate, merely because the form of their income is different?
The fact that 90% of capital gains belong to the top 10% of income earners makes this preference even more questionable, especially to those in the middle 40th to 90th percentile income brackets who pay significant federal taxes. Those below the 40th percentile income level pay immaterial federal taxes and tax rates.
Classical economics indicates that factors of production are interchangeable, so no one factor is preferred to another (land, labor, capital and other/management/R&D/intangibles/intellectual property/entrepreneurship).
Classical economics indicates that the return to each factor of production is determined by supply and demand in each factor market. There is no reason to believe that land, labor or capital are mispriced or misallocated.
Capital gains tax receipts have averaged about $150B per year in the last 20 years, or 9% of individual taxes paid. The country is missing out on $65B per year, or 4% of individual taxes paid. 2025 individual income taxes collected amounted to $2.7T. 4% is $104B, or $775 per household!
In addition to this tax preference for capital over labor, land and intangibles, individuals do not pay capital gains taxes until they sell an asset which triggers gain/tax recognition. High income individuals have the investment flexibility to not recognize capital gains for years and decades. When an individual dies, his basis in an unsold asset is stepped up to the value when they die. All of the capital gain is untaxed by his heirs. The IRS tracks this number. The annual step up is roughly equal to the amount of capital gains taxed. Yes, 9% of the $2.7T annual tax take, $239B per year, $1,750 per household.
The total tax benefit is $340B per year, $2,500 per household.
Criticisms and Responses
- Financial capital is required for physical capital investment which is the basis of all economic output. Conceptually, this is incorrect. Land, labor, capital and intangibles are co-producers of output. This is a well-agreed upon result of economics since the “marginal revolution” in the 1880’s. This is a mistaken mirror image of the “labor theory of value” that Marx appropriated from Ricardo.
- Financial capital is the essential ingredient for all economic progress and growth. Again, the factors of production are co-equal. Financial markets are just as balanced as the “factors of production” markets. There is no reason to believe that financial markets require a subsidy to provide adequate finances for demanded investments. The globalization of financial markets makes this even less plausible. Savers around the world are easily able to find places to invest.
- The return to capital includes inflation, which should not be taxed. Again, at theory level, financial markets balance the supply and demand for money. Market participants incorporate the expected inflation level into their calculations. Individuals invest, expecting a certain inflation rate. They know that their “real” returns will be discounted by inflation. In practical terms, the expected inflation rate has been 2% for 30 years. It has been higher for short periods of time. Critics argue that unexpected spikes in inflation should not trigger capital gains taxes. They don’t argue that unexpected decreases in inflation should drive higher capital gains taxes. In technical terms, the IRS rules could include some “adjustment” so that long-term capital gains would be reduced by the excess of inflation versus a 3% rate.
- Capital gains fluctuate with the stock market, so they cannot be relied upon as a source of government income. Over time, the government will collect its fair share.
- Investors will dodge any change in the capital gains rules. OK, the legal changes can go back 3-5 years as needed to capture revenues or accept that the transition will be less than ideal.
- A higher marginal capital gains tax will encourage individuals to hold their assets longer, hoping to escape any taxes at their death. Yes, without reform to the death basis step-up option, the positive impact will be much less.
- Individuals don’t have the liquid assets to pay taxes on the step-up basis at death. Like inheritance taxes, the capital gains tax on the step up in asset basis could be paid across 5-10 years.
- Higher capital gains tax rates will reduce total taxes collected. This is the “Laffer Curve” logic. There is certainty a capital gain tax rate that will discourage investment and recognition of capital gains. This proposal is to tax capital gains at the same rate as earned labor income, about 35%. There is no solid evidence that a one-third tax rate discourages anything. 50% is somewhat different.
- A higher capital gains tax rate will discourage savings and investment. GDP growth will be reduced by 0.1% annually. Macroeconomic models can allegedly “prove” this. Moving out of the 35% “sweet spot” to 50% might reduce savings and investment and GDP growth. I’m not proposing this. Even the negative impact at 50% would be small compared with the improvement in equity and increased commitment of citizens to a fairer state.
- US business investment has declined through time. We need to incentivize savings and investment. US savings and investment do change through time. Many factors drive these changes. Marginal tax rates on capital gains are very minor factors. The US economy has thrived in the last 50 years. It has access to investment because it has proven its ability to deliver for investors.
- Federal capital gains taxes reduce state capital gains taxes. OK, states will adapt.
- I’m not proposing a widespread “mark to market” approach that requires implicit capital gains to be taxed every year for everyone. I do believe that it is possible for the IRS to define regulations to require very high-income individuals who can afford the accounting support to recognize gains on highly liquid market assets each year.
Summary
The “populist revolt” is driven by individuals who think that they don’t get a “fair shake” from our society, economy and government. One “big ticket” item is the preferential lower tax on capital gains versus earned labor income. It’s not fair. It’s not right. It’s $2,500 per household of unfair subsidy. Democrats should make this a major policy plank. The losers from this change are in the top 10% and especially in the top 1% of earners. Now that Republicans have adopted the “common man” as a major part of their political base, they will be required to respond favorably.
How could changing capital gains taxes raise more revenue? | Brookings
How Does the Capital Gains Tax Work?
Historical Federal Capital Gains Tax Rates & Collections 1913-2025
The Economic Effects of Proposed Changes to the Tax Treatment of Capital Gains | Baker Institute
The Fascinating Federalism of Capital Gains Taxes – Econlib
Capital Gains and State Damage from Federal Tax Increases | Cato at Liberty Blog





























































