First off, Meg would still pay CGT on any gains. That is, Federal CGT.

Now Federal CGT is 15% and it has always been lower than income tax rates. well certainly for the last 30 years anyway.

Why? Because the gains you make are on money that you have already earned and paid income tax on. Which is why many nations do not tax capital gains at all. it's a form of double taxation.

And because you want to encourage people who risk their capital to create jobs and grow the economy.

And because often a long-term capital gain is just the result of inflation and not a real gain.

Several US States don't tax capital gains either, for all these good reasons.

But more importantly, those States that do tax capital gains, always tax it at a special, lower rate like the Feds, for the reasons given above.

So California is really an anomaly, having a CGT at the level of your top, marginal income tax rate.

It is that anomaly, almost unique in the entire planet, that Meg seeks to amend.

See? It really isn't as bad as you claim, unless of course you just want to bash the rich. But you're not that bitter and envious, are you Tim?

Kinda reminds me of Nurse Mildred Ratched from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

dont tax the rich just the stupid people

Double taxation of capital? Even if they really have paid income taxes on it (not necessarily the case) why the hell not? You people have no problem with double, triple, quadruple taxes on the non-rich. So take that argument home and come back with something more entertaining. Thanks for playing.

Folly,

Without mixing personal issues into the response, the point made regarding double taxation is incorrect. While the initial principle on which the gains are made has been taxed, the gains themselves have not yet been taxed and therefore fall into the category of income.

As per the IRS:
"Income means all 'income' you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services...including any income from sources outside the United States or from the sale of property..."

If those capable of using principle to illicit gains (be them from interest or dividends what-have-you) wish to avoid taxation, they can use non-taxable accounts, e.g. Roth IRA, SEP IRA, or invest in interest-bearing government backed bonds etc. There are countless closed-end funds on the NYSE that generate dividends that are considered tax-free at both the state and federal levels as well as other instruments that the IRS considers tax exempt.
http://www.irs.gov/taxexemptbond/index.html

Therefore, anyone living within, conducting business within, a citizen or resident of the United States (and subsequently each state), who earns interest, dividends, proceeds, etc, should be liable for the tax upon those sums.

Why wouldn't anyone with the good fortune to generate large amounts of income show integrity fulfill their financial obligations? Why should anyone be exempt? Even those that have been unfortunate enough to have lost their jobs and receive unemployment benefits are expected to pay taxes on that "income".

Forget bashing and subjectivity, take a closer look at the specifics.

thats what meg does, thats why she doesnt list her taxes when asked. but im sure she'll push to pay our taxes to the state (not the rich or herself mind you) via paypal so she can collect fees...after all why else would someone pay $100,000,000.00 for a job that pays 100,000.00

So if I understand folley, risky income should be taxed at a lower rate? So we should not save with insured institutions. But rather we should all risk our investments in high risk investments?
Income is income. I do a job that has a high risk to it so should my income be taxed at a lower rate than someone who has a low risk job?
Taxes pay for our services like roads, police, fire, education. Just look at the rest of the industrialized world and you will see that those that have higher taxes than the US also have higher standards of living. Switzerland is an excellent example, high taxes, free education, longer life expectancy, free health care. They also have lots of very wealthy citizens.
Taxes are not bad just they way they are spent is what needs to be fixed, stop taking money and wasting it. Fund education, health, public safety and job creation with our tax money. Not drug wars, big prisons, foreign wars, farm subsidies for not growing food etc...

Please check your facts. Interest income, which you refer to in your comments, and dividends would still be taxed at full ordinary income tax rates. Meg's proposal is targeting investment into the state, not interest and dividends, which come from stocks and interest bearing assets.

Capital Gains, the increase in value of an asset (e.g. stock goes from 10 to 12, cap gains = 2). Texas and other states without capital gains have large economies growing more rapidly than California because investors prefer reducing their capital risk by incorporating in lower tax states. The math is simple.

If you receive a Pension of any type, have a 401k, or receive any money from investments via a company (e.g. CalPERS), you benefit from this too.

Want job growth? Want incremental investment? Reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes.