Did you read my comment? Dividends are considered income! Capital gains is a different thing, and the distinction exists largely because only a small subset of the population has the ability to make a lot of money from capital gains -- because, by its nature, it requires a lot of capital...

Qualified dividends are taxed as capital gains.

Capital gains are income and reported on Form 1040. What they are not is "ordinary income" subject to the income tax table. A person with $700k on capital gains is well inside the top 1% of income.

It doesn't really matter too much if it's taxed twice, the majority of people with 10 million dollars in a portfolio are passive investors of whatever liquid and hedgeable assets are available.

The complaint at issue is that a passive investor who happened to have 10 million dollars that they inherited at 30, sticks it in betterment for 50 years while drawing a top 1% of income 380k for expenses ( accounting for tax rate ) will eventually have 130 million dollars. They can easily pass this amount down to children at estate tax rates to enable the next generation to do nothing as well, or they could use any one of a number of tax sheltering methods to avoid or defray the estate tax as well.

Generational wealth, or "idle wealth" has been a concern in the US from Thomas Jefferson onward - capital gains taxes are merely one mechanism to restrict it.

> It doesn't really matter too much if it's taxed twice, the majority of people with 10 million dollars in a portfolio are passive investors of whatever liquid and hedgeable assets are available.

I'm not wading into that debate. I'm just concerned with accurate use of terminology, as multiple people in this discussion seem to be playing fast-and-loose with it.

lumost: Good idea: incentivize consumption.