LOL! Yes, I suppose it is, in a way.
As you might imagine, there is quite a bit of partisan distortion of economic, financial and taxation theories expressed on these threads. In my own way, I attempt to set partisan politics aside, and come up with my own vision of what is "fair" for all Americans. (An impossible task which subjects me to mudslinging from all conceivable ideological directions.)
Anyway, it is this analytical sense of "fairness" that leads me to prefer a Flat Rate personal income tax rather than a graduated rate that could be either "progressive" or "regressive".
Similarly, when discussing tariffs, I prefer a single, uniform, flat-rate "revenue tariff" applied to ALL imported goods. No exemptions for special interests disiring preferential treatment for specific commodities, goods or nations. But also no punitively high "targetted" or protectionist tariffs favoring other special interests. (Those don't work anyway, and often produce distortive results that are opposite to what was intended.)
The First Federal Revenue Law
On April 8, James Madison, once again a congressman from Virginia, addressed the House. He went right to the point. Congress, he said, must "remedy the evil" of "the deficiency in our Treasury." He argued that "[a] national revenue must be obtained," but not in a way "oppressive to our constituents." He then proposed that the House adopt legislation, virtually identical to the unimplemented Confederation tariff, imposing a five-percent tariff on all imports....
...A single, uniform tariff, he insisted, had two advantages. First, it could be imposed quickly, which was important because "the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations is daily vanishing." Second, it was consistent with the principles of free trade ("commercial shackles," he said, "are generally unjust, oppressive, and impolitic")
Anyway, with that background, let's get back to the capital gains tax and your stock market example.
It goes without saying that any kind of tax cut is going to provide SOME kind of economic stimulus in the private sector. Whether that stimulus is sufficiently beneficial to the economy to offset the loss to the Treasury is a different matter. If not, it shifts the burden of taxation to "somebody else".
My major objection, therefor, to elimination of the capital gains tax is that it would set-up a preferred class of citizenry who would be exempt from their legitimate obligation to support the operation of our federal government. I don't subscribe to the worn-out partisan claim that stockholding investors already contribute more than their fair share by employing other people. Stockholding investors have already received the privilege of limited personal liability for providing that socio-economic benefit.
No, those opportunists who acquire personal economic gain through accumulation of short-term stock-trading profits should be taxed just like everybody else. For them, short-term capital gains ARE ordinary income, and it is right to tax them as such.
Long term capital gains are a different story. Especially as they reward the interests of long-term investors engaged in constructive competitive improvement of the business enterprises they have invested in. (I have no love for "corporate raiders" who have intentionally damaged many fine businesses for their own personal gain.)
It goes against my previously stated preference for uniform, no-exceptions, tax rates. But I AM open to proposals regarding the long-term capital gains tax, expecially since this more often affects investors in other properties besides the stock market. We already provide a reduced tax rate for long term holdings (although I'm not really certain that I'd call 1-year "long term") But I could favor abolishing the capital gains tax on investments that have been held for longer periods of perhaps 5~8 years. This would certainly reward those dedicated investors who have truly made the longer term commitment to the successful operation of a viable business operation.