Ryan's Road Map & Revenues

Reihan Salam (one of my favorite bloggers) notes a criticism of Paul Ryan's Roadmap when it comes to revenues:

I've been heaping praise on the Ryan Roadmap because it strikes me as a serious, thoughtful response to our long-term, slow-burning fiscal crisis. But it suffers from a glaring flaw, namely it's too-rosy revenue projections. Howard Gleckman has offered a smart critique that deserves Ryan's attention.

But, and this caveat is a whopper, CBO assumed this wonderful outcome would occur only if the revenue portion of Ryan’s plan generated 19 percent of GDP in taxes. And there is not the slightest evidence that would happen. Even though Ryan’s plan has a detailed tax component, his staff asked CBO to ignore it. Rather than estimate the true revenue effects of the Ryan plan, CBO simply assumed, as the lawmaker requested, that it would generate revenues of 19 percent of GDP.

It does seem to be a legitimate criticism that Ryan has decided to pick the revenue level rather than subject his own revenue plan to scrutiny at this time. Having said that, it's important to consider the number that he settled on.

Using CBO and OMB figures, The Heritage Foundation reports that the 30-year average historical tax burden is 18.4% of GDP. In other words, this average is very close to the 19% that Ryan chose for the CBO analysis.

Ryan could have chosen a number lower than this average in some attempt to score points with the hardcore anti-tax faction, or he could have chosen a much higher number which would have allowed him to spend even more on his Medicare vouchers and deflect at least some of the criticism he has faced. That he chose to do neither of these and instead went with an utterly reasonable assumption is certainly to Ryan's credit.

Ryan's Road Map on Taxes

Congressman Paul Ryan has shown leadership on a national level and is a source of many great ideas. His Road Map for America's Future has some appeal, but I am less than enthusiastic when it comes to the income tax provisions:

This highly simplified code fits on a postcard. It has just two rates: 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers and $50,000 for single filers, and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. It also includes a generous standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four), and no tax loopholes, deductions, credits or exclusions (except the health-care tax credit).

While I wholeheartedly support tax code simplification, this proposal seems to have two shortcomings.

First, a continuation of the tax credit for health insurance. I think many people would agree that the preferential tax treatment of health insurance premiums is a factor in their high rates of inflation. Continuing this practice is not a step in the right direction for tax simplification or health insurance reform.

Second, elimination of the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit, which is a refundable credit. I know, spoken like somebody with six kids and one income. Dad29 recently highlighted the idea that we ought to be expanding the child tax credit.

The argument centers around the fact that we have a social insurance system (i.e. Social Security and Medicare) where current benefits are paid by current workers. Ryan's ideas for these programs may include some reforms that reduce this arrangement, but they do not eliminate it entirely. This means that future benefits require future workers, and producing future workers takes children, hence the enhanced credit.