Basically, what I was saying is I agree with the conclusions various economists have revealed in their studies.
Comparing capital gains tax rates and economic growth in America from 1950 to 2011, Brookings Institution economist Leonard Burman found no statistically significant correlation between the two.
Economist Thomas L. Hungerford of the liberal Economic Policy Institute found "little or even a negative" correlation between capital gains tax reduction and rates of saving and investment. One of his often cited quotes on the matter is
"Saving rates have fallen over the past 30 years while the capital gains tax rate has fallen from 28% in 1987 to 15% today .... This suggests that changing capital gains tax rates have had little effect on private saving"
I, personally, don't see a tie in. I know other people say otherwise but, for me, the main thing it goes back to is that capital gains only comes into play when you sell at a profit. Some wealthy people never sell the asset and it never factors. Warren Buffet has said for decades he will never sell a single share of his Coca-Cola stock (I think its Coca-Cola...don't quote me on that but there is something he says he will never sell). But the point being, At some point these people invested heavily into the economy in terms of dollars to get the asset and if they keep it forever, the CG doesn't come into play.
A lot of people DO pass wealth from generation to generation so, yes, the Vanderbilts, Hiltons, etc will always boost that stat of tracing wealth but MANY people DO make their own way. Oprah Welfrey created wealth. Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Zuckerman. A lot of these people now dwarf the "old money" of the country. And some of these people have wealth and then lose it. that happens too.
I don't think it matters that much on how it came to be as much as it does on what we are discussing originally in terms of tax and inequality in earning.
