Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Research Shows Taxes Matter for Investment and Growth

by November 9, 2023
November 9, 2023
Research Shows Taxes Matter for Investment and Growth

Adam N. Michel

New research shows that the 2017 tax cuts significantly raised business investment and boosted economic growth. This most recent study is the latest entry in a long catalog of economic research that finds taxes matter for investment, economic growth, and labor market outcomes. Despite this history of robust results, a recent American Compass report argues that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not significantly impact the economy. More sophisticated economic analyses almost universally find the opposite: taxes matter for investment and growth.

Economists have known this for decades. In a 2012 academic literature review, Will McBride summarizes 26 studies on the empirical relationship between taxes and economic growth. He finds that “all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth.” The research also consistently finds that corporate income taxes are the most economically harmful.

In a more recent 2019 retrospective review of new empirical fiscal research following the 2008 financial crisis, Valerie Ramey shows that, almost universally, tax increases are estimated to reduce GDP. The most consistent result from the time series estimates reviewed shows that GDP declines by between two and three times the revenue the new taxes raise.

The most recent entry in this long list of research uses variations in how the 2017 tax reform impacted different corporations differently. The researchers estimate that the tax cut “caused domestic investment of firms with the mean tax change to increase by roughly 20% relative to firms experiencing no tax change.” The authors extrapolated their short‐​run estimates to assess the long‐​run effects of the law. Their results are consistent with some of the most optimistic modeling of the TCJA’s economic and revenue effects, finding significant increases in capital stock, productivity, and wages.

Numerous individual studies looking across multiple policy changes and using different empirical techniques come to similar conclusions:

Using a narrative method to determine fiscal policy changes, Christina and David Romer found that a tax increase equal to one percent of GDP has a “consistently negative” effect on the path of real GDP, and “the maximum effect is a fall in output of 3.08 percent after ten quarters.” They find the same tax increase results in an 11 percent decline in gross private domestic investment almost three years after the change. 
Using a structural vector auto‐​regression approach, Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig build on earlier research to find “a maximal present value multiplier of five dollars of total additional GDP per each dollar of the total cut in government revenue five years after the shock.” 
Combining empirical methods, Karel Mertens and Morten Ravn found that a one percent cut in the personal income tax rate boosts real GDP per capita by up to 1.8 percent. That translates to a multiplier similar to those described above of about 2.5. They found that a one percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate boosts GDP by as much as 0.6 percent and has “no significant impact on revenues.”
When investigating more targeted reforms to reduce effective tax rates on new business investments, Eric Zawick and James Mahon found that expensing “raised investment in eligible capital relative to ineligible capital by 10.4 percent between 2001 and 2004 and 16.9 percent between 2008 and 2010.” They also found that smaller firms and those with tight cash flow show the biggest investment response.

Ultimately, the economic history of any specific reform will be confounded by numerous concurrent events. In the case of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, its positive economic effects were undermined by President Trump’s trade policies, and COVID-19 truncated the economic record. Despite these headwinds, the reform’s key changes to the corporate tax rate and allowance for full investment deductions had a measurable positive effect, in line with the historical record.

Across this body of research, specific methods may be subject to critique, and the estimates are not all directly comparable; however, studies consistently show a positive effect of tax cuts on investment and economic growth. Economic theory also supports these results. When you lower effective tax rates on work and investment, you should expect to get more of each.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
From Theory to Action: Implementing Decarbonisation Frameworks for Real-World
next post
This Relative Strength Signal Can Provide Early Warning Signs

You may also like

Tax Policy: Missing in Action

August 24, 2023

Governors Running for President

July 20, 2023

My Thoughts on Letters in Black and White

May 25, 2023

More Senators Target Financial Privacy with “CANSEE Act”

July 25, 2023

Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing

November 17, 2023

Medicaid’s Funding Formula Rewards Overspending and Fuels Fraud

May 20, 2025

The FBI Puts Victims of Civil Forfeiture through...

November 8, 2024

Another Negative of Occupational Licenses

April 15, 2024

California Implications of Britain’s Plan to Truncate its...

October 6, 2023

My Year’s Worth of Election Law Writing

January 3, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Elon Musk may speak to Trump aides in push to calm feud

      June 6, 2025
    • Everyone Talks About Leaving a Better Planet for Our Children: Why Don’t We Leave Better Children for Our Planet?

      June 6, 2025
    • MARK HALPERIN: Democrats try to construct a Frankenstein candidate while JD Vance gains momentum for 2028

      June 6, 2025
    • ‘Gone too far’: GOP lawmakers rally around Trump after Musk raises Epstein allegations

      June 6, 2025
    • Democrats begin to embrace Musk amid Trump spat after party railed against him as a ‘dictator’

      June 6, 2025
    • Trump administration defends US and Israeli sovereignty with new sanctions against four ICC judges

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,011)
    • Politics (15,544)
    • Stocks (3,130)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved