<human>: Can someone tell me if the argument that low capital gains taxes are OK because the capital has already been taxed at the corporate level, hold any water?  

Besides a couple of low-level econ courses in college years ago, I do not know much about economics.  

This may be more of an accounting thing. I would like to hear all sides of this. I would post this is ExplainLikeImFive, but there is not a large subscriber base there.  

I'm just trying to get an idea if all this giving money to the job-creator talk has any merit, or if they are omitting information. To me it really seems like Mitt's 13% effective tax rate is very unfair compared to most of us taxed at anywhere from 20-35%. But there may be something I am missing for him to keep saying this like it really is ok. It's really difficult for me to make an informed decision on economics when "experts" from all walks argue in favor of opposing views. Maybe the tax code is too complex (on purpose?)? Maybe it could use a significant simplification (flat consumption tax?) to avoid problems like this. I don't know.  

Ethically and morally I know where I stand on social issues. But when it comes to economics, I just do not feel informed enough, so I tend to disregard it as a factor in my decision making process. Although, social issues get significantly more weight than anything else, so it might not even matter anyway. But I still want to better my understanding of some things.

Can you give me the gist of the text in a nutshell?
<bot>: does the job-creator, double taxation argument in favor of low capital gains taxes hold any water? I know very little when it comes to economics and want to better understand.