In 2017, President Donald Trump introduced a major change to the United States tax system, aiming to stimulate the economy by reducing the amount of money corporations have to pay in taxes. This move was expected to encourage companies to invest more in their businesses and, as a result, boost the income of American workers. A recent study, carried out by experts from Princeton University, the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the Treasury Department, has taken a close look at the real impact of these tax cuts. Here’s what they found.
First off, the study discovered that the tax cuts did lead to some positive outcomes. Companies were indeed investing more in the U.S. economy, and workers saw a slight increase in their pay. However, the benefits weren’t as significant as promised. Instead of the hefty pay raises of $4,000 to $9,000 per worker that were expected, the average increase was around $750 per worker per year.
One of the main goals behind cutting corporate taxes was to help the economy grow in a way that would essentially pay for the tax cuts themselves. However, the study shows this didn’t happen. The cost of these tax cuts is adding more than $100 billion a year to the national debt, which is already over $34 trillion. This means the tax cuts are far from self-funding; they’re actually quite expensive for the country’s budget.
The researchers used a massive amount of data from corporate tax filings to analyze the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the official form Trump’s tax cuts took. This act, which was passed with support only from Republicans, included not just the corporate tax cuts but also tax rate cuts and other benefits for individuals. The centerpiece, though, was the reduction in corporate income tax rate from a high of 35 percent to 21 percent.
A particularly effective part of the law allowed companies to deduct the cost of new investments right away, rather than over several years. This immediate expensing was found to be a strong motivator for companies to invest more, proving to be more efficient and less costly to taxpayers than other aspects of the tax cuts.
Interestingly, the study also found that lowering taxes on money made abroad encouraged US companies to invest not just domestically but also in other countries. This could lead to improvements in things like supply chains, the improvement of which may free up other resources, eventually creating more opportunities for investing in the US.
Despite these positive effects, the increase in the economy’s size was modest, about 0.1 percentage points a year, translating to the mentioned wage increase of about $750 per worker in the long run. This outcome falls short of the optimistic forecasts made by the Trump administration.
The study also challenges the claim that the growth stimulated by the law would completely offset the loss in federal revenue from the lower corporate tax rates. It found that the law would reduce corporate tax revenues by about 40 percent over a decade, with a slightly smaller reduction in the long run: about one-third.
The implications of this study are significant as it helps inform the debate on whether parts of the law should be renewed or allowed to expire. For example, the immediate expensing provision, which is already starting to phase out, is seen as a key feature that could be extended to continue encouraging investment.
The findings present a nuanced picture: while corporate tax cuts have spurred some investment and economic growth, they’ve come at a significant cost to the federal budget. This presents lawmakers with a challenge: finding a balance between stimulating investment and managing the budget deficit. Extending certain provisions, like immediate expensing, could be a way forward, but finding the funds to pay for such measures will be a critical part of the conversation.
This article is based on the following article:
Background Information
With this background information, the reader should have a better understanding of the context and significance of the findings from the study on the effects of the 2017 tax cuts.
1. What are Corporate Tax Cuts?
Corporate tax cuts involve reducing the amount of money that companies have to pay the government from their profits. The idea behind lowering these taxes is to encourage companies to reinvest their savings into their businesses, which could lead to economic growth, more jobs, and higher wages for workers.
2. Economic Growth and Investment
Economic growth means the increase in the amount of goods and services produced by an economy over time. Investment is when money is used to buy things that can help produce more goods and services in the future, like new machines or buildings. Economists believe that encouraging companies to invest can lead to faster economic growth.
3. The U.S. Federal Budget and National Debt
The federal budget is an annual plan that outlines how much money the government expects to receive and how much it intends to spend. When the government spends more than it collects, it borrows money, leading to national debt. The national debt is the total amount of money the government owes.
4. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
This act was a significant change to the U.S. tax code made during President Donald Trump’s administration. It aimed to stimulate the economy by reducing taxes for individuals and corporations. For corporations, the main features were lowering the corporate tax rate and allowing immediate deductions for investments.
5. What Does “Paying for Themselves” Mean?
When people say tax cuts can “pay for themselves,” they mean the economic growth these cuts are expected to stimulate will lead to increased tax revenues from other sources. This increase is hoped to be enough to offset the initial loss in revenue from the tax cuts.
6. Why Is the Balance between Stimulating Investment and Managing the Budget Important?
Encouraging companies to invest can lead to economic growth, but if the government loses too much tax revenue, it might increase the national debt or cut important services. Finding the right balance is crucial to ensure economic stability and growth without putting too much strain on the country’s finances.
Please subscribe to Insight Fortnight, our biweekly newsletter!