http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997
Read up Clinton signed off on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
"The top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%."
Oh, I understand the mechanisms by which both Clinton and Bush lowered capital gains, and economically it makes sense, spurring the economy by encouraging investment. From a government perspective it probably makes sense as well, as government probably takes in more tax revenue. But is it fair morally?
This is an especially important question because so much of what is taxed as capital gains is a zero sum game; one entity makes money, one entity loses money, with no actual increase in societal investment. Another chunk consists of stock options; a contractual right to buy stock at a specified discount from current market price, which is exercised simply by filing some paperwork, not only has no actual increase in societal investment but no risk as well. Then there's the Schumer exemption . . .
I have no problem with preferential rates for long term investments where one's own money is at risk, but other than that, seems to me that income is income is income and should be taxed thusly - preferably equally on every dollar above the federal poverty line, or on every dollar above the federal poverty line plus some small number of exemptions.
I also have no problem with Mitt Romney - he's following the rules and also being quite generous. But I think the current tax code is neither optimum for business nor fair.