The question is too confusing to answer. I would love to see the income tax and capital gains tax fall by the wayside, but those kinds of taxes would have to be replaced by something, and that kind of change stirs up a hornet’s nest.
Be careful. Do you want to see Democrats take the House and veto-proof control of the Senate?
I don’t think it’s confusing at all. It’s a transfer of time when I pay the taxes from yearly on my income to yearly what the income from my investments earn instead.
In other words, assuming I could do this, 0% tax on my income but reasonable taxes on my investment income instead. In a way, not declaring my personal income as income but the money earned from investments.
It’s really asking the question as to whether government could realize more income if they allowed people to invest their otherwise taxed income and tax the income earned from investments.
It’s a variation of what the government already does when it allows you to tax deduct your expenses from your business because they can tax more money from you on the other side from the higher income that is yielded from you being able to invest in your business.
It’s really an academic question as to when government should be taxing income to obtain the greatest amount of taxes, while minimizing the effect of taxes upon the economy.