Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Register now for a free account
Visualizing the Romney Tax Debate
Tax reform has emerged as a major bone of contention in the 2012 Presidential election campaign. While President Obama has identified some tax changes, Governor Romney proposes major systemic reform. But is his plan – especially the proposals for individual taxation – viable?
The critics say the individual taxation component of his plan is not viable - indeed that it is not even mathematically possible. This is a very strong claim, since a plan that is mathematically possible may fall short on other tests such as distributional equity and economic efficiency – let alone political saleability.
In the debate that has ensued, a
produced by the
Tax Policy Center
has occupied center stage. Just about all the critics have taken this analysis as their starting point – and Romney has countered by submitting a list of other studies which, he contends, refute the TPC analysis.
we aim to produce a comprehensive visualization of this debate. It includes all the major lines of criticism of the TPC analysis, along with arguments of both critics and defenders from the media and blogosphere. We attempt to identify all the essential arguments for both sides, without repetition, rebuttals of them - and rebuttals of rebuttals. We also aim to depict the relationships and dependencies between the various studies that have been cited in the debate.
Poster created by
on 10:30 PM Thursday 1 November 2012 GMT
What is the 'debate graph'?
is an interactive web tool for visualizing complex problems in public policy and other areas.
The 'graph' in
refers to an inter-connected set of concepts - issues, positions taken in response to them, arguments adduced for and against - and a range of other possibilities that make up the graph's 'ontology'. Each concept is represented by either a sphere or a rectangle, color coded to represent its semantic significance (e.g. green for support, red for opposition). As in network theory we term each concept representation a 'node' (mathematical pedants might say 'vertices' instead)
The basic idea is to reveal the logical structure of complex controversies – such as the debate about Mitt Romney's tax plan. The concepts (nodes) in the graph are connected by arrows that each represent a particular kind of relationship between one node the other. Arrows may be single headed (as with the relationship 'supports') or double headed (as with 'equivalence'. So a position taken in a debate may be supported by an argument that has a set of premises – and each such premise may need to be supported, producing an 'argument tree'.
As you click around the map you will see each node expressed in full detail with supportive citations and embedded multimedia items where appropriate.
read more about
learn how to build your own free maps here
see more Featured maps here
learn how to embed the maps on your website
, and follow us on Twitter
for more updates.
About the Author – Peter Baldwin
I am a former
– a member of the Australian House of Representatives for 15 years. For six of those years I was a minister with responsibilities that included social security and education. I served for a time on the Cabinet committee responsible for reviewing all budgetary expenditures.
Having experienced budgetary dilemmas from the inside and other complex policy issues I developed an interest in the field of argument mapping and visualization. The current US debate over economic policy – which bears on people around the world – is a timely and critical subject to explore with
Explore the graph...
The map of the Romney tax debate has over a hundred nodes, so far. So, what are the best ways to start exploring?
We have suggested some strategies below:
Start at the top:
You can start at the the
top of the map
node) which describes in broad terms the subject matter of the map. To this is attached the
Romney's plan stated
node which simply states his proposal. To this is attached the main issue addressed in the map –
But does it compute
Click this to start exploring the issue. Then keep clicking the bubbles, following the branches that seem most pertinent.
Or cut to the chase:
Both supporters and critics agree that the impetus for this debate was the study by the
Tax Policy Center
that claimed the plan just did not add up – was a mathematical impossibility. You can
jump straight in
here to see the TPC case outlined - and the four main lines of criticism of it to have emerged in the debate. Keep clicking the bubbles to explore each of these lines.
Jump to the protagonists:
This debate has engaged some of the
best economic minds
in the country – on both sides. We have grouped all these under the Protagonists with separate sub-nodes for supporters and defenders of the Romney plan. Each protagonist is connected to locations in the graph where their arguments are cited –
...or view the snapshots (below) of selected parts of the map that shed light on specific aspects of the debate.
Snapshot – What about growth?
Of the several lines of criticism of the Tax Policy Center analysis of the Romney plan, the most contentious was the TPC's use of a 'static' analysis that did not include an assessment of the impact of fundamental tax reform on economic performance. This snapshot depicts this aspect of the debate.
Notice that the arrows flow toward the node
The TPC case
via the node
Growth effect claim
. The latter is one of the key premises of the TPC argument – the claim that no significant growth effect can be expected to result from tax reform. This is challenged by the
Ignores growth potential node
- which is disputed by the TPC but supported by the claim that credible studies confirm that tax reform of the Romney type would boost GDP - and revenue.
See now that nodes identifying three studies now flow into the
node from Rosen, Entin/McBride and Feldstein respectively. Of these the first two employ simulations using economic growth models – Rosen actually relies on a simulation by Diamond, which in turn on a separate labor market study, to provide a growth estimate which underpins his revenue calculation. The Entin/McBride paper on the other hand contains both a growth simulation and a calculation of the resulting budgetary impact.
The studies have been criticized and supported at a number of points. Click the bubbles to explore the immediate context and details – and unpin the view to explore the wider context of the debate.
Open view »
Column width in pixels
Font size in pixels