Brad DeLong objects to my recent NY Times column by displaying some Tax Policy Center data that, he says, shows the Bowles-Simpson tax plan is hard on the poor and easy on the rich.  Progressives, he concludes, should oppose the plan.

The problem, however, is the benchmark used in this particular table: current law as of 2015.  Under current law, all of the Bush tax cuts expire, and millions of new taxpayers are hit by the AMT.  That is an outcome that has never been in effect and that neither political party endorses.  It is an artifact of legislative history.

A better benchmark, as noted by Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center, is current policyHere are those results.  The implication is exactly the opposite.  All income groups take a hit, particularly those at the top of the distribution.

May 282010

Click on grapic to enlarge.  Source: Scott Hodge from Tax Policy Center estimates.

Apr 102010

Here is a striking way to describe our looming fiscal problem:

A study we conducted at the Tax Policy Center found that Washington would have to raise [income] taxes by almost 40 percent to reduce — not eliminate, just reduce — the deficit to 3 percent of our GDP, the 2015 goal the Obama administration set in its 2011 budget. That tax boost would mean the lowest income tax rate would jump from 10 to nearly 14 percent, and the top rate from 35 to 48 percent.

What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.

© 2011 Random Observations for Students of Economics Random Observations for Students of Economics