Why is raising taxes bad

Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses. Fiscal Policy Tax Laws. Table of Contents Expand. Clinton Years. Taxpayer Relief Act. The Bottom Line. Key Takeaways Economists and government officials often debate the economic benefits of higher versus lower tax rates.

President Ronald Reagan's tax policies were based on supply-side or trickle-down economics, which focused on reducing tax rates for upper-income taxpayers. While President Obama pushed for higher taxes on the wealthy to decrease the federal deficit, President Trump focused his efforts on across-the-board tax decreases, a good portion of which benefitted upper-income taxpayers.

Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate. You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation.

This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. Related Articles. National Debt Explained: History and Costs. Macroeconomics Supply-Side Economics Definition.

It would make investment and hiring plans less viable. As a result of that tax increase, companies would be less competitive and would face a higher cost of investing in the United States. Not only would this discourage investment for a nascent economic recovery when more investment is needed, it would also burden workers.

Estimates show that half the burden of the corporate tax increase would rest on workers over the long term. The Congressional Budget Office assumes a fourth of the burden of the corporate income tax falls on workers. While his advisers are encouraging Biden not to wait to increase taxes because the associated spending will bolster the economy, others are doubting the wisdom of tax increases when our growth is the goal.

Why use any capital on those policies that will not speed up the economic recovery? The notion that tax increases are positive for the economy is false. Reducing marginal tax rates on business income can cause some companies to invest domestically rather than abroad.

Tax breaks for research can encourage the creation of new ideas that spill over to help the broader economy. And so on.

Note, however, that tax reductions can also have negative supply effects. Tax provisions can also distort how investment capital is deployed. Our current tax system, for example, favors housing over other types of investment.

That differential likely induces overinvestment in housing and reduces economic output and social welfare. Tax cuts can also slow long-run economic growth by increasing budget deficits.

When the economy is operating near potential, government borrowing is financed by diverting some capital that would have gone into private investment or by borrowing from foreign investors. Government borrowing thus either crowds out private investment, reducing future productive capacity relative to what it could have been, or reduces how much of the future income from that investment goes to US residents.

Either way, deficits can reduce future well-being. The long-run effects of tax policies thus depend not only on their incentive effects but also on their budgetary effects. If Congress reduces marginal tax rates on individual incomes, for example, the long-run effects could be either positive or negative depending on whether the resulting impacts on saving and investment outweigh the potential drag from increased deficits. That leaves open questions on how large incentive and deficit effects are, and how to model them for policy analysis.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation each use multiple models that differ in assumptions about how forward-looking people are, how the United States connects to the global economy, how government borrowing affects private investment, and how businesses and individuals respond to tax changes.

Models used in other government agencies, in think tanks, and in academia vary even more. The one area of consensus is that the most pro-growth policies are those that improve incentives to work, save, invest, and innovate without driving up long-run deficits. Congressional Budget Office. Edelberg, Wendy. Gale, William, and Andrew Samwick. Joint Committee on Taxation.

Page, Benjamin R. Nunns, Jeffrey Rohaly, and Daniel Berger. Skip to main content. Briefing Book Taxes and the Economy How do taxes affect the economy in the long run?

How does the federal government spend its money? What is the breakdown of revenues among federal, state, and local governments? How do US taxes compare internationally? Federal Budget Process How does the federal budget process work? What is the history of the federal budget process? What is the schedule for the federal budget process? What is reconciliation? How is a budget resolution enforced?

What are rescissions? Federal Budget Outlook How accurate are long-run budget projections? What have budget trends been over the short and long term? How much spending is uncontrollable? What are tax extenders? What options would increase federal revenues? What does it mean for a government program to be off-budget? How did the TCJA affect the federal budget outlook? Taxes and the Economy How do taxes affect the economy in the short run? How do taxes affect the economy in the long run?

What are dynamic scoring and dynamic analysis? Do tax cuts pay for themselves? On what do economists agree and disagree about the effects of taxes on economic growth? What are the economic effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

Economic Stimulus What is the role of monetary policy in alleviating economic downturns? What are automatic stabilizers and how do they work? What characteristics make fiscal stimulus most effective? Distribution of Tax Burdens How are federal taxes distributed? Are federal taxes progressive? How should progressivity be measured? What is the difference between marginal and average tax rates? What criticisms are levied against standard distributional analysis?

How should distributional tables be interpreted? Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax? Who bears the burden of federal excise taxes? How do financing methods affect the distributional analyses of tax cuts? Nonetheless, the paper provides compelling evidence of tax cuts impacting growth through the supply side, consistent with neoclassical economic theory. Ljungvist and Smolyansky look at state corporate tax changes from to assess their impact on employment and income.

By comparing nearby counties across states, this allows the authors to isolate the impacts of corporate tax changes relative to other policies that might affect economic growth.

They find that a 1 percentage-point cut in statutory corporate tax rates leads to a 0. They find that tax increases are almost uniformly harmful, while tax cuts seem to have their strongest positive impact during recessionary environments. As with some of the other studies discussed here, the paper mainly examines short-runs effects, and it is possible that these positive effects could grow over a longer time horizon.

Gunter et al. They find that the effect of taxes on growth are highly non-linear: At low rates with small changes, the effects are essentially zero, but the economic damage grows with a higher initial tax rate and larger rate changes.

These non-linearities imply strong Laffer curve effects: At certain tax rates, further increases beyond that point will actually reduce federal tax revenues. For European industrialized countries, the authors estimate a tax multiplier of Nguyen et al.

They find that income tax cuts, defined in their paper as an aggregate of individual and corporate income, have large effects on GDP, private consumption, and investment. A percentage-point cut in the average income tax rate raises GDP by 0. The effects of consumption tax cuts are comparatively smaller and did not produce statistically significant effects, but the paper finds that switching from an income to a consumption tax base has positive effects on growth.

Consumption taxes are generally viewed as less distortionary than other forms of taxation, as they do not significantly impact incentives to work and invest that are essential for ensuring long-run economic growth. Cloyne et al. The British tax system at this time consisted largely of excise tax es on alcohol, tobacco, and motor vehicles, and to a lesser degree taxes on income and corporate profits.

As this time period predates the development of Keynesian macroeconomic theory, tax changes were generally not designed to be countercyclical, but rather focused on balancing the budget, inequality, or enhancing productivity. While the British economy of a century ago vastly differs from modern economies, this paper does provide compelling evidence of how taxes impact growth in high debt and low interest rate environments.

Their sample includes estimates from 49 studies.