Citerank: (9) 230959Growth effect smallIn replying to this criticism the TPC cites research by the CBO and the Treasury department indicating the growth effect of Romney's proposals is likely to be small because the base-broadening measures will provide opposing incentives to the rate cuts -and would be small even without broadening.1198CE71, 230964Conclusion is robustWhile maintaining the claimed growth increment from the Romney plan is likely to be slight, the TPC analysis does consider whether growth predicted by Mankiw (a Romney backer) and Weinzeri would rescue the plan. They conclude it makes little difference.1198CE71, 231212Brill and Viard studyThe TPC cites a study by Alan Viard and Alex Brill indicating that lowering tax rates while broadening the base generally does not reduce work disincentives because it leaves effective tax rates unchanged. Elsewhere Brill has defended the Romney plan.1198CE71, 231214CBO and JCT studiesIn addition to the Brill and Viard study the TPC paper refers to additional studies from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation that it claims show that tax cuts even without base broadening would have a small effect.1198CE71, 231725The TPC defendsThe TPC has three lines of defense of its assumption on the growth effect of tax reform - firstly, they point to difficulties in estimating such effects; secondly they cite studies showing such effect will be small; thirdly they claim their analysis is robust even if some such growth is assumed.13EF597B, 232180Modelling difficultiesIn responding to the growth criticism the TPC remarks that to do this properly, all manner of other things would need to be included in the analysis - not just the impact of tax reform in isolation.1198CE71, 232649The TPC caseThe essence of the Tax Policy Center's argument is contained in the excerpt from their paper cited below. We have parsed the argument into a set of premises that must be true for the argument to hold and mapped the debate about each.1198CE71, 232650Available savings claimThe TPC set out a number of assumptions concerning the amount that could be raised by eliminating tax expenditures that benefit high income earners in the individual tax system (the analysis does not include corporate tax). These are enumerated in the cited section.22FF97FF, 232652Growth effect claimIn estimating the revenue effect of the Romney tax reform, the TPC authors needed to make some assumptions about how tax reform affects economic growth. They argue that Romney tax reform would have little effect on GDP growth - but that their conclusions are robust even if some growth eventuates.22FF97FF

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the tradeoffs among three competing goals that are inherent in a revenue-neutral income tax reform - maintaining tax revenues, ensuring a progressive tax system, and lowering marginal tax rates - drawing on the example of the tax policies advanced in presidential candidate Mitt Romney's tax plan. Our major conclusion is that any revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.

For months, Mitt Romney had been advocating tax cut proposals that would reduce revenues by about $5 trillion over the next decade, and that were heavily tilted toward the rich. Yet he did not explain how he would pay for these cuts, just that he somehow would.

In a recent paper I wrote with two colleagues, we showed that a revenue-neutral plan that met five specific goals that Governor Romney had put forth (reducing income tax rates by 20 percent, repealing the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, and capital income taxes for middle class households, and enhancing saving and investment) would cut taxes for households with income above $200,000, and -- as a result of revenue-neutrality -- would therefore necessarily have to raise taxes on taxpayers below $200,000.

This was true even when we bent over backwards to make the plan as favorable to Romney as possible. We considered an unrealistically progressive way of financing the specified tax reductions. We accounted for revenue feedback coming from potential economic growth estimates as estimated by Romney advisor Greg Mankiw. We even ignored the need to finance about a trillion dollars in Romney's proposed corporate cuts..

Our conclusion was not a prediction about Governor Romney would do as President, it was an arithmetic calculation: all of the promises couldn't be met simultaneously without resorting to tax increases on households with income below $200,000.