We should reduce the capital gains tax down to 0% so that we can get the maximum revenue. In fact, if the government started paying people to take capital gains just imagine how much revenue would come in.
I'll have to look at Obama's complete tax plan but there may appear to be an inconsistency. Though, of course, "I will cut your taxes" does not necessarily mean "I won't raise any of the individual taxes." But if he's talking out both sides of his mouth, then by all means let's point it out.
But this chart doesn't seem to quite show the correlation that is described. I don't see anything indicating that a rate reduction does anything to permanently increase revenues. Looks like if anything, all it does it create a couple year spike before it falls back to where it was. If the cut in 97 is solely responsible for the steep increase in 98 and 99 isn't it also responsible for the steep decline in 2000 and 2001? And do we have to ignore the fact that the increases were already going up in 1995 and 1996 before the rate was changed? It looks to me like the rate seems to get changed in the midst of already significant economic changes.
The capital gains tax increased hugely at the beginning of the chart without dramatically impacting gross revenues. So maybe all lowering does is increase uncertainty of revenue?