Either way the govn would be taking more money from the private sector and wasting it in the public sector. None of the stolen $$$$ would go towards paying down the debt. Less private sector dollars means less jobs and personal income.

For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction - Newton`s 3rd Law of Gravity, which also applies to the laws of economics.

Chief among those tax deductions taken by those evil rich people are those made to charitable organizations. The more money the government takes, the less is available to donate to worthwhile causes.

It may be worthwhile to let the mandatory cutting and tax increases occur (so called fiscal cliff). Otherwise, through negotiation, a revenue increase will occur immediately while cuts will phase in over a long time, if ever.

I refuse to hear the rich don´t pay their fair share by someone who claims the EIT Credit.

As we all know, this has been one of Obama´s goals since/before his first election, and as we also all know, this will not solve the USA debt/deficit crisis. This is a a class warfare
agenda item to bring Obama more low income supporters, and just a con game so he can blame the rich and the GOP for HIS OWN ECONOMIC DEFICIENCIES.

Did WaPo just endorse Mitt Romney? Sorry, affluent libs, denizens of the Beltway Rivera, Barry ran on his plan to soak the rich and he´s got a MANDATE, so kindly assume the position.

How about limiting spending?

Newtons Laws of Motion, but otherwise ...

I believe this is also a deliberate effort to get us to scale back on church and other charitable donations. People need the government, not private/religious solutions.

Detestable, despicable progs.
Ramona (the Pest)

The IRS code currently limits itemized deductions. The deductions are reduced at about 150,000, and then essentially eliminated at some higher level of income.
This is Washington Post smoke and mirrors.

The rich paying a "little more" in taxes ain´t gonna do doodle squat compared to how much this guy is spending.

Same point as just stated - the itemized deduction is already limited for taxpayers making more than $150K. I don´t think I get anything now from the itemized deduction.

Sooner than everyone thinks, all sorts of deductions will be gone, including the one for mortgage interest. The real money is in the Trust Funds, but that is a hot donor button, so they will get to that later.

We know how this works. See Graham-Rudman Act--you get the tax increases and cuts never materialize.

He´s got four years. Nothing we have is safe. Nothing.

Wait just a minute here. I thought that we were only going to soak the 1%. How did it suddenly go to soaking 20%? hhhm. Sounds like we´ve all been lied to by the Washington Post Editorial Board.

If they raise money for the government by limiting the charitable deduction, then they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. With lower charitable contributions, nonprofits will either need to cut back on services or seek government grants to continue services at the same level.

Unfortunately, there is no difference today, taxwise, in giving to the billion dollar plus endowments of a Harvard and giving to the local food pantry. Harvard would howl at not receiving so much...but wouldn´t have to change its mission. On the other hand, that local food pantry might have to shut its doors, leaving the government to pick up the pieces.

Limiting the deduction for payments of state and local taxes might be a fun-to-watch thing. Remember that NY, IL and CA with their high taxes - the effective rate is really about 2/3s the stated rate because the Feds let those state residents deduct those taxes.

It´s going to hurt high income taxpayers in high tax states. I like that.

Personally I think the Republican should propose the following. Every college and university in the country has to rollback their undergraduate tuition for the 2013-14 school year to 1980 levels as adjusted for inflation or we impose a 50% tax on the value of the endowment as of 12/31/2012. Future tuition increases may not exceed the prior year´s increase in the CPI. If they do, pay a tax of 10% of the value of the endowment.

The day after the election my Alma Mater called seeking a donation. I told them since most of their professors and students voted for Obama they are never seeing another dime from me.

Well,there´s lots of orgs that are considered charities but are far from it. My guess is liberals don´t give to charities that actually help a person in need.They give to things like the Sierra Club or save the whales or any environmental group actually. They don´t want to give to real charities because they think it´s the govt´s job to help people.

But anyway,getting rid of charitable deductions would create a huge backlash.For one thing every deduction in the tax code has a lobbyist behind it.If you tried to limit the home mortgage deduction the national realty folks would have pitchforks in their hands the next day.

The left,meanwhile would love to get rid of R&D deductions for highly profitable companies like big oil while diverting that money into building more wind farms.

The left would also love to kill the GOP´s reputation for being against tax increases.That´s what this big push on taxing the rich is really about.As liberal as Cal.is,they couldn´t pass a tax increase on the rich without putting it on the ballot so freeloaders can make the decision.

I did a few what-ifs on Turbo-tax (the only way these days to estimate the impact of some activity on your taxes) and found that if your AGI is say 300K limiting state inc tax deductions can have a big impact on your tax bill. For higher incomes - say 500k however, the deduction benefits are pretty much phased out. But of course you still pay more simply based on the now higher tax on the income you earned at that 300k level.

Raising enough revenue to cover the Trillion dollar deficit is going to be really really hard. We´re going to need a lot more regulations or something. I propose that we erect two million wind turbines thus improving national efficiency by providing all Americans with essentially wind-blows-free electricity. And then tax the free electricity. Oh yeah, and legalize weed, taxing it to cover all future Medicare expenses. Tax Cheetos too.

Democrats lie. We have seen this year after year after year.

Therefore:
First, cut spending, a bunch!. Three years from now, reduce the deductions, IF the spending cuts happen. Any "tax the rich" scheme the democrats throw our way should be considered only after 3 years of spending cuts.

I really think the WH wants the financial cliff to happen. That way all taxpayers will be affected not just the rich and they get to blame the repubs for letting it happen. In a perverse way it would serve those who voted for O right.

Spending cuts. There´s an oxymoron if there ever was one. Imaginary cuts of $50B spread over ten years is the standard ploy.

And to put it in perspective, I read yesterday that the Hussein regime is printing $85B per month in fiat currency.

Since apparently no one on the WaPo editorial board has ever taken an economics course, nor do they seem to understand how the world works, maybe they need to spend some quality time in France. First of all WaPo, rich people invest. Brain dead government moochers strutting around with Obama phones do not. Secondly, to France´s dismay, their new President, the white version of ours, just raised taxes on the rich to around 70% and the rich are fleeing out of France with their money as fast as they can - as will the rich here. They have the means. We will end up paying the freight for this travesty and you can take THAT to the nearest bank.

Simplify the whole thing and get it over with. No itemized deductions at all. Just a standard deduction percentage based on total income.