Obama should compromise on tax rates for highest earners

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If he can get enough elsewhere.  But the deductions that cost the most are also the ones that are most popular and not likely to be touched save via that proposed deduction cap.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's face it, it's not worth all that much. Restoring Clinton-era rates for those making more than $200,000-$250,000 per year only raises $70 billion to $80 billion a year. Capping deductions, raising the capital gains tax while eliminating the carried interest loophole, or raising the estate tax could are other ways to raise revenues from the wealthy. So if this is Boehner's one non-negotiable item, then I would say Obama should be flexible on it, despite his veto threat. What say you all?

I think it would be healthier to keep capital gains taxes lower.

A modest capital gains tax hike would likely not harm the economy much, but would help the deficit in the short term as people sell to lock in their gains at the older rate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I recall, it's not the tax hikes but the spending cuts that are expected to do the most short term economic damage, especially the defense cuts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why not just go over the fiscal cliff and then in early 2013 reinstate the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000?

Why is it necessary to wait until we've reached the "cliff" in 2013 to vote on such a bill?  It could just as easily be done now.  Or is the argument that the House Republicans will refuse to vote for such a bill now, but on Jan. 1 they'll suddenly accept it?

The idea is that once the tax hike takes place, the GOP will become more amenable to a bill to restore the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 since in theory they won't be voting for a tax hike.  Since even after we go over the cliff Grover Norquist would likely still call anything that doesn't extend the full set of temporary tax cuts a tax hike, I'm dubious as to the logic as well.