Two bipartisan deficit reduction plans proposed by the Public Finance Committee and the Dominici Rivlin Group recommended that the prime capital gains rate be completely abolished. While both plans would tax capital gains as ordinary income, they would also lower the maximum regular rate to 28%. Lowering the maximum capital gains rate would greatly benefit the very rich. As shown in Figure 3, the richest 1% enjoys 80% of the benefits of the current preferential rates12 and they would benefit even more if these rates were further lowered. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that by lowering the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%, 99% of the tax cut would go to the richest 1% of Americans.13 Capital gains tax rates depend on how long the seller owned or held the asset. Short-term capital gains on assets held for less than one year are taxed at normal income rates. However, if you have held an asset for more than one year, more preferential long-term capital gains apply. These rates are 0%, 15% or 20% – depending on your income level. * This estimate was prepared at our request by Jane Gravelle, Senior Economic Policy Specialist at the Congressional Research Service, but does not reflect the views of the Congressional Research Service. The range reflects the difference between the revenue-maximizing rate assumption (including additional taxes) of 28.5% and 32%. † Both options will increase the maximum effective tax rate on capital gains to approximately the income-maximizing rate.
Real estate such as real estate and collectibles, including works of art and antiques, fall under the special capital gains rules. These profits specify different and sometimes higher tax rates (see below). Even if those in the bottom bracket get a big advantage with a zero percent rate, almost all of the benefits of reduced rates on capital gains go to the top of the income spectrum. According to the Tax Policy Center, nearly 95 percent of the benefits of the prime rate go to those who earn more than $200,000 a year, and more than three-quarters of the benefits go to those who earn more than $1 million a year. The driving force behind this regression is almost entirely related to the fact that the richest Americans own the vast majority of the wealth in this country. In 2011, half of all capital gains were realized by 0.1% of taxpayers. The prime rate is also extended to certain incomes that are generally not considered capital gains. Coal royalties and, for example, the sale of livestock are both considered long-term capital gains. Some types of wages are technically paid from the sale of shares, and bonds (“deferred interest”) can also be counted as capital gains. Instead of further reducing capital gains tax rates, the new ITEP report proposes several key reforms that would tax capital gains in the same way as ordinary income. These reforms include taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, restricting the exclusion of capital gains income when passed on to heirs or charities (the report proposes to maintain a $250,000 exclusion for these gains), and cracking down on strategies to shift capital gains tax through similar exchanges and derivatives.
Overall, ITEP estimates that these reforms could potentially generate nearly $3 trillion in revenue over a 10-year period. Revenue returns could be even higher if Congress took a harder line and introduced full market-value taxation (which would tax unrealized profits on an annual basis), showing how beneficial the tax treatment of capital gains income was. In the long run, reducing capital gains would also contribute little to the economy. There is no historical correlation between capital gains and economic growth.19 And tax rates have little impact on savings, as Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service explains: However, the progressive system is marginal. Income segments are taxed at different rates. For example, the rates for a single tax filer in 2020 are as follows: The IRS divides taxable income into two main categories: “ordinary income” and “realized capital gain.” Ordinary income includes wages earned, rental income and interest income from loans, CDs and bonds (excluding municipal bonds). A realized capital gain is money from the sale of a capital asset (shares, real estate) at a higher price than you paid for it. If the price of your asset increases but you do not sell it, you have not “realized” your capital gain and therefore do not owe tax. Since tax rates on long-term gains are likely to be more favorable than short-term gains, monitoring how long you hold a position in an asset could be beneficial in reducing your tax bill. It has also been argued that lowering taxes on profits would boost economic growth and entrepreneurship. While it is difficult to obtain evidence of the impact of tax cuts on savings rates and thus on economic growth, most evidence does not point to a significant reaction of savings to an increase in returns. In fact, not all studies resonate positively, as a higher return could allow individuals to save less while achieving the desired goal.20 The new push towards capital gains tax indexation following the passage of the extremely costly and regressive Tax Reductions and Employment Act shows once again that there may be no limit to the amount of tax reductions for the rich.
would saturate anti-tax conservatives and the Trump administration. This decision is not only questionable from a legal point of view, but also a clearly regressive tax policy; it can facilitate tax avoidance; This would accumulate an additional $100 billion for the country`s debt and make tax legislation more complex. In other words, this proposal should not have been seriously considered in the first place and should now be categorically rejected. The most important thing to understand is that long-term realized capital gains are subject to a much lower tax rate than ordinary income. This means that investors have a strong incentive to hold assets valued for at least one year and a day and qualify them as long-term assets and for the prime interest rate. There are a few other exceptions where capital gains can be taxed at rates above 20%: opponents of lower rates for capital gains counter that prime rates are a poorly targeted solution to the highly exaggerated problem of double taxation, that the costs of taxing inflation are more than outweighed by the benefits of deferring taxation. And that while there is a theoretical basis for assuming that lower capital gains rates will promote growth, there is little evidence that this relationship exists. Critics also argue that multiple rates for different types of assets and income create unnecessary complexity, encourage tax arbitrage, and distort investment decisions. Finally, critics argue that falling capital gains rates have been a major driver of growing wealth and income inequality in the United States. . .