Do capital gains tax cuts increase revenues?

unfortunately, such charts never tell us anything, because capital gains tax cuts don't occur in a vaccuum, but are generally accompanied by "closing loophole" provisions.

Nevertheless, there is probably a short term impact in terms of revenue gains -- for the first couple of years, people sell off stocks they'd been holding onto to avoid the capital gains tax. Once that wears off, receipts go down.

I'd like to suggest that one way to increase revenue is a capital gains tax increase -- for instance, we should see a significant increase in capital gains tax revenues in 2008, because at the end of 2008, the capital gains tax cut expires -- and everyone will be selling off stocks to take advantage of the last year of lower tax rates. (We should also expect to see a sharp decline in the stock market, unrelated to economic conditions, because of this sell-off.)

Oh my. You know you are in for a silly analysis when it starts by referring to the evil "supply-siders" as "zealots" and labels a mischaracterization as a "cherished belief". No knowledgable supply-sider states that ALL marginal tax-rate cuts result in an increase in total revenues. It simply depends on which side of the peak of the Laffer Curve you are on. Secondly, your sarcastic statement "But that would amount to admitting that forces other than the capital gains tax rate determine the course of the stock market. Perish the thought!" is actually offensive! Of course other economic factors apply and must be taken into account. Where do supply siders deny that? Thirdly, the twin sister of "all marginal tax rates cause increased revenue" is the equally silly "all marginal rate increases cause increased revenues" which you seem to indicate must be one of your "cherished beliefs". In fact, evidence from CBO reports (data not verbiage) indicate that the 2003 tax cuts earned $26 billion in 2004 (estimated $125 billion loss but actually a $26 billion 2 year gain!)

Am I completely stupid or doesn't the chart being used pretty basically contradict the article ? The 1997 cut in capitol gains taxes appears to have had no effect on tax revenue. If all other things were equal which they certainly were not, however since the assumption of this article and chart is that they were there are only two ways revenue could have continued to increase:
Investors took advantage of lower capitol gains and cashed in - but that would have only had a very short term effect, OR, the economy grew faster than it would have otherwise. Further, the 2003 cut stemmed a drop in capitol gains revenue and produced at least a 4 year increase. The argument that the benefits of capitol gains tax cuts is a mirage typically presumes an abnormal drop in revenue immeidately before passing the decrease - investors holding assets in the hope of a windfall, and then a very short spike as investors cash out. For the most part your chart seems to indicate that capitol gains revenues track the state of the economy (or the converse) - which is pretty damn literally the supply side argument.
So as best as I can tell, your reporting and your chart are in conflict. Finally CBO specifically and the government as a whole are notoriously bad at projections.