If you feel that taxes are a valid way for a government to implement social engineering, encouraging some behaviors and discouraging other behaviors, than you can't ever complain about the complexity of the US tax code.
I would wager that a lot of people who nod their heads that this is a good idea, also wax poetic at parties about how the tax code is broken and overly complicated.
I might well fit in that latter group, but I consider that the 'engineering' in this case was on the part of the fund managers.
The managers have basically been surfing on the tax status of their investors' gains. Funds of their own which were actually invested are still taxed at the capital gains rate. But the managers' bonus can not seriously be called capital gains, because it gets paid when they make a profit but they have no corresponding liability to their investors if the fund should lose money. It's not as if the investors were somehow lending a portion of their investment to the manager, or s/he would owe repayment regardless of performance. Any portion of the investors' gain paid as a bonus is income and deserves to be taxed as such.
The lower tax rate on capital gains is meant as an incentive for people to invest their assets instead of just hoarding them; investment implies an element of risk.
I would wager that a lot of people who nod their heads that this is a good idea, also wax poetic at parties about how the tax code is broken and overly complicated.