Your online source for: Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy and the Macro Economy.
Copyright © 2004-2010 National Center for Policy Analysis. All rights reserved. » Privacy Policy
If you find a problem or have a comment about this site, please email webmaster@ncpa.org
Are the Bush Tax Cuts Working?
President Bush has signed into law three tax bills in the past three years; these tax cuts amounted to $1.3 trillion in 2001, $96 billion in 2002, and $330 billion in 2003. Democratic opponents criticized the tax cuts (particularly the first one in 2001) as fiscally irresponsible and weighted primarily toward the wealthy, while Republican supporters claimed that the tax cuts would stimulate economic growth and return money to taxpayers across the board.
Major Provisions of the Tax Cuts
The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act, by far the largest of the three tax cuts, was intended to provide tax relief to individuals, families and businesses, thereby stimulating economic growth enough to recover from the recession (which ended in November 2001). Some provisions of that bill include the following:1
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated many of those provisions and cut tax rates on dividends and capital gains-small-business equipment write-off amounts were also increased:2
How Has the Economy Changed Since the Tax Cuts?
GDP Growth
After the recession in 2001 and the first round of tax cuts, economic growth speeded up and is expected to pickup even faster in 2004:3
Employment, Jobs, and Productivity4
Though job creation was slow immediately following the recession and during the first stages of the recovery, it had increased dramatically by late 2002 and 2003.
The job growth statistics are particularly noteworthy because of greater-than-expected increases in productivity levels-high rates of productivity tend to mean less employment:
Furthermore, unemployment claims are at their lowest since the 2001 recession. The high rates of job growth matched with high rates of productivity point to the overall strength of the economy.
Investment, Spending and Inflation5
Consumer spending is on the rise, as is business investment. Economists credit the tax cuts for some of this growth-taxpayers' disposable income rose after receiving their rebates and businesses increased their inventory to meet increased demand.
Though inflationary pressures have risen recently in response to increased business and consumer spending, inflation is low by historical standards:
Dividend Payouts
A study on dividend payouts before and after the 2003 tax cut for all Standard & Poor's 500 companies showed a highly positive response to the tax cut:6
The large and positive response to the dividend tax cut, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, suggests that Congress should make it permanent.
Capital Gains7
The Bush Tax Cuts Are Working
The three Bush tax cuts have offered tax relief to every American taxpayer and businesses as well. Individuals and families kept more of their own income and tended to spend it or invest it, which led to impressive economic growth. Tax relief also lowered the cost of capital, making it easier for businesses to expand, increase profits, and hire more workers. Nearly all economic indicators show that we have recovered from the 2001 recession and are in a period of economic expansion.
Unfortunately, many of the Bush tax cut provisions have "sunset clauses" and will expire soon. Nearly all elements of the 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act will expire in 2011 if legislators do not make them permanent. If that doesn't happen, taxpayers will face the largest tax increase in the nation's history.
That tax increase raises three legitimate concerns:8
Even though, H.R. 4297 is a step in the right direction and the tax cuts have spurred investment, job creation, and economic growth, repealing any part of them would be damaging to American taxpayers on an individual level and to the economy as a whole. Even if Congress allows a tax cut to expire in 2011, investors will respond by locking up their money in short-term projects rather than long-term ones. The U.S. economy is strong, but could become stronger if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
Moreover, according to the Congressional Budget Office's "Budget and Economic Outlook for 2006":9
The Heritage Foundation also found that overall payout of dividends in 2005 was over 36.5 percent higher than the payout before the 2003 tax cut, and dividend income increased by a similar margin after the 2003 cut, from $750 to $1,000.10 Taxpayers also claimed an average of $12,283 in capital gains income in 2003, and shareholder wealth increased by more than $5 trillion.
In May 2006, President Bush signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (H.R. 4297) into law which extend the current tax cuts. His signing assures that millions of taxpayers and millions more workers and business owners will enjoy low tax rates on capital gains and dividends and a potentially stronger economy through 2010. Overall, extending JGTRRA's preferential rate structure on capital gains and dividend income will have small -- but positive -- effects on both gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. Personal consumption and business fixed investment are also likely to post modest gains as a result of H.R.4297 because it is only a temporary extension of an expiring provision.11
Conclusion: Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
In January 2006, the White House economic team began the push to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent because the tax policy program has been shown to help the United States economy to thrive, with steady job creation and strong economic growth.
If the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are allowed to expire, millions of working families will see their economic prospects dim, their job opportunities diminish and economic uncertainty rise. Moreover, taxes will rise dramatically for most taxpayers. Between now and January 1, 2011:12
However, if Congress makes the tax cuts permanent, the major economic benefits begin in 2011. According to the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation:13