Department of "Huh!?": Harvey Rosen Says That the Romney Tax Cuts Will Raise National Incomes by "3, 5, [or] 7 Percent"
Am I reading this right? http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
If raising the net-of-tax rate for the upper class from 65% to 72%--an increase of 10% in the natural log--raises national income by between 3 and 7 percent, then wouldn't…
Reagan's ERTA raising the net-of-tax rate for the upper class from 30% to 50%--an increase of 51% in the natural log--have raised national income by between 15 and 35%?
Reagan's raising in 1986 of the net-of-tax rate for the upper class from 50% to 72%--an increase of 36% in the natural log--have raised national income by between 11 and 25%?
Clinton's lowering in 1993 of the net-of-tax rate for the upper class from 72% to 60%--a decrease of 18% in the natural log--have
raisedlowered national income by between 5 and 12%?Bush's raising in 2001 of the net-of-tax rate for the upper class from 60% to 65%--an increase of 8% in the natural log--have raised national income by between 2 and 5%?
We simply do not see such supply responses in the historical record, do we? To propose that they exist is wholly inconsistent with the fact that American growth 1938-81 was faster than since 1981, right?
What am I missing here?
