U.S. And International Politics

[Michael Capasse]

I used to vote for the occasional Democrat but no more. I will not vote for anybody willing to put a D next to their name. I like John Fetterman but as long as he's a Democrat, he won't get my vote. It's unlikely I would ever get a chance anyway since I live in Ohio and there's no way the Dems would put somebody that sensible on their ticket, but if hypothetically they did, I still wouldn't vote for him. I'm not exactly in love with the GOP but I will vote for most of their candidates for one reason. They aren't Democrats.

Ignorance is a choice.

[Zeon Mason]

Deleted

[Zeon Mason]

Deleted

[Zeon Mason]

It was a choice between 2 scary looking candidates both of whom exhibited signs of suffering from delusions of grandeur and one making strange gestures while the other was laughing hysterically for no reason.

So I went with the crazy capitalist that likes gold and puts his name in big letters on everything , because he was the only one who promised to get the border under control and was saying “.America Firsf”

The other crazy female candidate with hysterical laugher was promising to raise the capital gains tax to 40% which would wipe out my retirement income.

[Tom Graves]

It was a choice between 2 scary looking candidates both of whom exhibited signs of suffering from delusions of grandeur and one making strange gestures while the other was laughing hysterically for no reason.

So I went with the crazy capitalist that likes gold and puts his name in big letters on everything , because he was the only one who promised to get the border under control and was saying “America First.”

The other crazy female candidate with hysterical laugher was promising to raise the capital gains tax to 40% which would wipe out my retirement income.

No, you went with the con artist who happens to be Vladimir Putin's favorite "useful idiot" (or worse).

Is your taxable income more than a million dollars per year?

If not, then Kamala's raising the capital gains tax to 28% (not to 40% which you mistakenly believe) wouldn't apply to you.

So, what it boils down to is that Kamala is a woman with a "crazy" laugh and you were misled by [fill in the blank].


ME: Did Kamala Harris promise to raise the capital gains tax to 40%?

No, Kamala Harris did not promise to raise the capital gains tax to 40%. She proposed increasing the top federal long-term capital gains rate to 28% for households with annual income over $1 million (from the current 20%), which is a more modest increase than in President Biden’s earlier budget proposals.

Key Details from Her Proposal

Core proposal: Tax long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at 28% (instead of ordinary income rates) for taxable income above $1 million.

This was announced in September 2024 and represented a softening from Biden’s FY2025 budget, which called for taxing capital gains at ordinary income rates (top rate 39.6%) for high earners.

Combined with the existing or proposed Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) of 3.8%–5%, the effective top federal rate on capital gains for the highest earners would be around 33% (or up to ~38% in analyses including certain interactions). State taxes could push combined rates higher in some places (e.g., over 40% in high-tax states), but the federal component she directly proposed was 28%.

Context and Comparisons

Current top federal long-term capital gains rate: 20% (plus 3.8% NIIT for high earners).

Historical note: Rates were near 40% in the late 1970s (pre-Reagan cuts), but Harris’s plan did not restore that.

Other elements: She also supported a billionaire minimum tax on unrealized gains for those worth $100 million+ (a narrow proposal from the Biden administration) and taxing unrealized gains at death above exemptions, but these are distinct from a broad 40% rate on realized gains.

Claims of a 40% (or higher) promise often stem from conflating her plan with Biden’s original budget, adding NIIT/state taxes, or referencing older Democratic proposals. Reliable analyses from sources like the Tax Foundation, CRFB, CNBC, and ITEP confirm the 28% figure as her stated position.

In short, the claim is not accurate—her public proposal was for a 28% rate on long-term capital gains for top earners.

ME: If the capital gains tax were raised to 28%, would it have had a negative effect on the retirement income of some people?

GROK: Yes, raising the long-term capital gains tax to 28% (as Harris proposed for households with taxable income over $1 million) would have a negative effect on the retirement income of some people.

Who Would Be Affected?

High-income retirees with substantial taxable brokerage accounts (not IRAs or 401(k)s) who realize large gains to fund spending. Example: A $100,000 long-term gain at the current 20% top rate nets $80,000 after tax. At 28%, it nets $72,000 — an 10% reduction in proceeds from the gain itself.

This requires selling more shares to maintain the same spending level, accelerating portfolio depletion over a long retirement.

Retirees near or above the $1 million income threshold in a given year (e.g., from a big stock sale, business exit, or concentrated positions). Combined with the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (potentially rising), the effective federal rate could reach ~31.8–33%.

Those in high-tax states, where state capital gains taxes (often ordinary income rates) could push combined burdens noticeably higher.

Ripple Effects

Higher taxable income from gains could make more Social Security benefits taxable, increase Medicare IRMAA surcharges, or trigger other phase-outs.

Reduced incentive for frequent rebalancing or realizations, potentially leading to less optimal portfolios or higher volatility exposure.

Indirect market effects: While modest, higher taxes on high earners could slightly dampen asset prices or returns over time, affecting all investors (including those in tax-advantaged accounts).

Who Would Likely See Little or No Direct Impact?

Most middle-class retirees whose total taxable income stays well below $1 million — they’d remain in the 0% or 15% long-term capital gains brackets.

Those relying primarily on Social Security, pensions, or traditional IRA/401(k) withdrawals (taxed as ordinary income regardless).
Users of Roth accounts (tax-free) or strategies like holding until death for step-up in basis.

Analyses (e.g., Tax Foundation) show the 28% proposal is targeted at high earners and would raise revenue mainly from them, with smaller dynamic economic drags compared to larger hikes.

Bottom line: At 28%, the direct hit is narrower and milder than a 40% rate, mostly affecting wealthier retirees with large taxable portfolios. Many average retirees using taxable accounts for supplemental income would still face modestly lower after-tax proceeds on realizations, making tax-efficient planning (e.g., asset location, Roth conversions, tax-loss harvesting) even more valuable.

ME: What about households with less than one million dollars of yearly taxable income?

For households with less than $1 million in yearly taxable income, the 28% capital gains rate would not apply. They would continue to pay the current long-term capital gains tax rates: 0%, 15%, or 20%, depending on their total taxable income.

Current Long-Term Capital Gains Brackets (2025)

These brackets are based on total taxable income (not just the gain amount):

0% rate: Single: Taxable income ≤ ~$48,350; Married filing jointly: ≤ ~$96,700

15% rate: Single: ~$48,351 to ~$533,400; Married filing jointly: ~$96,701 to ~$600,050

20% rate: Single: Over ~$533,400; Married filing jointly: Over ~$600,050

(The exact thresholds adjust annually for inflation.)

Harris’s proposal specifically targeted the top rate (replacing the 20% bracket) only for income above $1 million. Most households—even upper-middle-class ones with significant investment income—would see no direct change to their capital gains tax rate.

Potential Indirect or Minimal Effects

Very few retirees or households under $1M taxable income would face the higher rate. Even someone realizing a large one-time gain (e.g., selling a business or appreciated stock) would only pay 28% on the portion of income exceeding the $1M threshold. The rest of their gains would still qualify for the regular 15% or 20% rates.

Other tax interactions could still matter for those near the higher brackets:Large gains could push total income high enough to make more Social Security benefits taxable.

They might increase Medicare IRMAA premiums or trigger the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (which applies above ~$200K/$250K modified AGI, regardless of the proposal).

No broad impact on typical middle-class or even affluent retirees relying on taxable accounts, as long as their annual taxable income stays below $1 million.

In short: For the vast majority of households (well over 99% based on IRS data), Harris’s 28% proposal would have had zero direct effect on their retirement income from capital gains. The change was narrowly targeted at very high earners. Tax-efficient strategies like asset location, Roth accounts, and tax-loss harvesting would remain just as valuable as they are today.