Former Bush Administration economist and Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw put a few thoughts down on the impact of the Bush tax cuts expiring. In it, he uses an interesting test case--himself.
I am a big fan of Mankiw, but I have a quibble with his approach.
He lays out his whole case as a comparison between what his situation would be after 30 years of NO taxes whatsoever, and what his situation would be with the Bush cuts lapsing. Only at the end of his example does he come back to the fact that this isn't a choice between no taxes and something else. It is a choice between the present tax rate and a marginally higher one. Don't get me wrong--I don't want the higher taxes either--I just don't like the way he makes his point here.