Is there any issue that is demagogued more and argued in as intellectually dishonest a way than the capital gains tax?  I know that our elected officials often don't let the facts get in the way of their efforts to obfuscate for political gain, but their consistent campaign of disingenuousness on this topic is remarkable, even by their low standard.  And, the great irony of it all is that it's the Democrats who fight reductions in the tax with great vigor, even though their constituents stand to benefit the most.  How is that?  Simple.  Every time the rate has been increased, the amount of capital gains tax revenue collected has been reduced dramatically.  Concomitantly, each time the rate has been lowered, capital gains tax revenue collections have increased substantially.  Why is that good for Democrats?  Easy.  How else can they fund their never ending litany of social programs without bringing in more tax receipts?  Apparently, they'd rather cut off their nose to spite their face.  Many Democrat politicians obviously think they get more mileage out of the class warfare argument than they would from actually growing the amount of money available to fund their precious entitlements.

In case the facts do matter, consider the following from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). 

"Over the past 30 years a consistent pattern has emerged:  every time the capital gains tax has been cut, capital gains tax revenues have risen.  Every time the capital gains tax has been raised, capital gains tax revenues have fallen.  Here are some prominent examples:

• In 1968, real capital gains tax receipts were $34 billion at a 25 percent tax rate.  Over the next eight years the tax rate was raised four times, to a high of 35 percent.  Yet with the tax rate almost 10 percentage points higher in 1972 than in 1968, real capital gains tax revenues were only $27 billion — 21 percent below the 1968 level.
• In 1978, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent, $28 billion in capital gains taxes were collected.  By 1984, after the tax had been cut to 20 percent, revenues from the lower tax rate were $41 billion — 46 percent above the 1978 level. 
• In 1986, the tax rate increased by 40 percent, from 20 to 28 percent.  Did tax revenues climb by 40 percent?  Just the opposite occurred.  In 1990, the federal government took in 13 percent less revenue at the 28 percent rate than it did in 1985 at the 20 percent rate.  In 1991 (and again in 1992), the government collected more than 15 percent less revenue than it did in 1985.
• In 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28 to 20 percent, net capital gains on assets sold were roughly $335 billion. A year later, capital gains had jumped to $459 billion.  (The tax cut was retroactive to May 1997.)  In 1996 the Treasury collected roughly $85 billion in capital gains revenues.  In 1997 those tax payments soared to $100 billion.  Capital gains revenues for the period from 1997 to 2000 were nearly double what they were during the preceding period. 
• After the 2003 capital gains tax cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion.  The budget deficit fell from $401 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007.  Capital gains revenues increased from $55 billion in 2002 to an estimated $110 billion for 2006.  Every indicator shows that the 2003 investment tax cuts helped increase growth, stock market values and federal tax receipts."

If you're still not convinced...if you believe this is morally objectionable (even though the government collects more revenue) because the rich benefit most from lower capital gains tax, be aware that the portion of total taxes paid by the wealthiest 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% has only increased over the past 10+ years.  In fact, the bottom 50% now account for less than 3% of total tax receipts, as opposed to 4% in 1999.