HB4102, titled the Revitalizing Investment, Savings, and Entrepreneurship Act or the RISE Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code to cap the federal tax rate on adjusted net capital gain at 15 percent. In practical terms, the bill would revise the capital gains tax brackets so that the rate applied to adjusted net capital gain would not exceed 15 percent, replacing the current higher top rate structure for some taxpayers. The bill applies to taxable years beginning after enactment.
The measure is a federal tax proposal aimed at lowering the tax burden on investment income, with the stated policy goal of encouraging investment, savings, and entrepreneurship. It was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, where tax legislation is typically considered. If enacted, it would alter how capital gains are taxed under Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and could reduce federal revenue from capital gains taxation, particularly for higher-income taxpayers with significant investment gains.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 1(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by changing the capital gains rate schedule so that the tax rate on adjusted net capital gain does not exceed 15 percent. This would directly affect taxpayers who realize capital gains, especially investors, business owners, and others with substantial investment income, and would likely reduce tax liability for some filers relative to current law. It would also have implications for federal revenue and the distribution of tax burdens across income groups.
Sentiment
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history for HB4102 in the provided materials, so no formal committee or floor sentiment is available. Based on the bill’s title and purpose, the measure appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as pro-investment and pro-growth tax relief. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context means the overall sentiment cannot be assessed beyond the bill’s stated policy rationale.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the policy tradeoff between encouraging investment and reducing tax revenue. Supporters would likely argue that a lower capital gains rate promotes savings, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, while critics may view the cap as a tax preference that disproportionately benefits higher-income taxpayers and could worsen revenue losses or tax equity concerns. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided committee or vote records.