Let the Bush tax cuts die
An Ernst and Young study purports to show that ending these breaks would cut jobs and output. Don't believe it
Topics: Jared Bernstein, George W. Bush, Ernst and Young, Taxes, Tax cuts, Politics News
Before the Ryan-palooza stuff broke out, a couple of folks asked me about this Ernst and Young study purporting to show that allowing the high-end Bush tax cuts to finally sunset would lead to lots of lost jobs and output.
I and many others have argued to the contrary: that the high-end sunset was precisely the right place to start in terms of finally getting some new revenue in the picture, a position the White House and Senate Dems have also consistently embraced in recent months. And that based on their wealth accumulation, their lack of income constraints relative to lower-income households, and known elasticities (high-income households’ response to tax changes), job/growth impacts would be small.
After looking through the E&Y study, I didn’t find anything to convince me otherwise. First off, E&Y quite conspicuously fail to simulate what it is the president is proposing, so their main findings shouldn’t be considered in evaluating his proposals. Second, when they get a little closer to what he is proposing, they find it adds jobs.
The first thing that surprised me about this study was the finding that the proposed tax increases on a narrow group of taxpayers — the top 2 percent — would have large effects on growth and jobs. Most of us who think about this analytically walk around with multipliers like these from the CBO in our heads (see table 2 here) showing much small multiplier effects for tax cuts on high- versus middle-income families. Taking the midrange of the CBO’s elasticities, the high-income multiplier is less than half that of the middle-income one (0.9 versus 0.035).
But E&Y say that “[t]he reported income of high-income taxpayers has been found to be more sensitive to tax rates than that of low- and moderate-income taxpayers. Thus, increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers may have larger effects on the size of the tax base than among other taxpayer groups.”
How does that square with the CBO elasticities, ones that are very much representative of economists’ consensus? It’s that E&Y have a different — I’d say “wrong” — dependent variable. It is true that taxable income — i.e., reported income — is sensitive to tax changes. Rich people move stuff around to avoid higher rates. That’s inefficient and a good reason to avoid complexity in the code, particularly preferences for one type of income over another.
Jared Bernstein joined the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in May 2011 as a Senior Fellow. From 2009 to 2011, Bernstein was the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Follow his work via Twitter at @econjared and @centeronbudget. More Jared Bernstein.





Republican Virginia Lt. Governor Nominee: Obama Sees World "From A Muslim Perspective"
Rep. Issa Aware Of IRS Investigation Since Last July
French President Hollande Signs Marriage Equality Bill
Obama Group Braces For Progressive Backlash Over Keystone
Comments
15 Comments