New Revenues Should Be Real, Not Based on “Dynamic Scoring”

November 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said this week that he was open to additional revenues as part of a deficit-reduction agreement, but only “under the right conditions” — not through higher tax rates but “as the byproduct of a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code.” If he’s suggesting “dynamic scoring” to estimate the budgetary effects of tax reform, that would be a bad idea, as we have explained.

There are good reasons why the Congressional Budget Office and other federal agencies don’t try to measure whether (and by how much) a change in tax or spending policy would affect the overall economy, such as its impact on economic growth — which, in turn, would affect revenues.  Estimates of the macroeconomic effects of tax changes are highly uncertain.  Economists do not agree on the size of macroeconomic impacts from reducing marginal income tax rates or other tax changes.  But, they would likely be small, according to most studies — and not have large enough effects on revenue estimates to justify the problems that dynamic scoring would create.

Given our nation’s long-term budget deficits, the single most important goal of tax reform should be to raise substantial revenue, in a progressive manner, as part of a balanced deficit-reduction plan that also includes reductions in projected spending.

If not done carefully, however, tax reform could expand deficits and threaten the progressivity of the tax code.  One way that could happen is if policymakers embrace dynamic scoring, which would enable them to replace real changes in tax policies with speculative revenue gains based on the assumed macroeconomic benefits of tax reform.

Print Friendly

More About Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water

Paul N. Van de Water is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in Medicare, Social Security, and health coverage issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact

nine + 1 =

 characters available