Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill amends section 1(j)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code to update the taxable income breakpoints used to determine long‑term capital gains tax brackets. It raises the numerical thresholds for the capital gains 0%, 15%, and 20% brackets to higher amounts and applies the changes to tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.
Progressives emphasize distributional harms to inequality.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that specifies which Internal Revenue Code provision to change and supplies an effective date; it accomplishes the basic mechanical requirements of a tax-code numeric amendment but omits fiscal analysis, transitional detail, and explicit handling of edge cases.
This bill amends section 1(j)(5)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code to update the taxable income breakpoints used to determine long‑term capital gains tax brackets.
It raises the numerical thresholds for the capital gains 0%, 15%, and 20% brackets to higher amounts and applies the changes to tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.
The effect is to make higher amounts of realized capital gains eligible for the lower capital gains rates.
Technically simple but fiscally costly and lacking offsets; plausible if folded into a larger package, unlikely as a standalone enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that specifies which Internal Revenue Code provision to change and supplies an effective date; it accomplishes the basic mechanical requirements of a tax-code numeric amendment but omits fiscal analysis, transitional detail, and explicit handling of edge cases. The numeric replacement text displays formatting ambiguities that could impede straightforward implementation without clarification.
Progressives emphasize distributional harms to inequality.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize distributional harms to inequality.
Likely viewed as an untargeted capital gains tax cut that disproportionately helps asset owners.
It may slightly help some middle‑class savers, but is seen as primarily benefiting higher‑income investors and worsening progressivity.
Support would be conditional on offsets or tighter targeting.
A pragmatic but cautious response: recognizes tax relief for investors and some middle‑income households, but wants clear cost estimates and offsets.
Might support if paired with fiscal offsets, a sunset, or targeted provisions to protect budget discipline.
Viewed favorably as pro‑growth tax relief that reduces taxes on investment and savings.
Seen as fairer alignment of capital gains with ordinary income brackets and an incentive for investment.
Would prefer permanence and minimal additional restrictions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple but fiscally costly and lacking offsets; plausible if folded into a larger package, unlikely as a standalone enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize distributional harms to inequality.
Technically simple but fiscally costly and lacking offsets; plausible if folded into a larger package, unlikely as a standalone enactment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that specifies which Internal Revenue Code provision to change and supplies an effective date; it accomplishes the basic mech…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.