Lower tax rate should stimulate economic activity and generate more revenue to the government than higher tax rate

The U.S Senate was positive to President Donald Trump`s tax reform and passed the tax reform bill in the early hours of Saturday morning. The U.S tax cuts are a move to a simpler tax system. Mr Trump said the Americans will love the new system.

It is the largest tax cut in the U.S in history, and it is the biggest package in terms of tax cuts ever. Mr Trump said something beautiful will come out of that picture. The tax cuts will be tremendous and that`s what this country need, he said.

(Picture: United States Debt to GDP)

 

This is a bold decision for Mr Trump. He is trying to do what no other president in the U.S has done since Ronald Reagan in the 80`s; rewriting the tax code. The congress agreed on a tax reform package 31 years ago, and now they are doing the same.

Senate Republicans passed a bill overhauling the federal tax code, and 51 senators voted for the «Tax cuts and jobs act,» with just 1 Republican voting against.

No Democrats supported the legislation.

A significant individual tax cut was proposed by President John F. Kennedy and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the belief that cutting tax rates would stimulate investment and spending, with overall beneficial effects (including replenishment of some lost tax revenues).

President Ronald Reagan signed tax cuts into law, which some belive stimulated a doubling in total tax revenues (from 500 Billion to 1 Trillion dollars) during the period from 1980 to 1990.

On the other side; the deficit and national debt more than tripled (from $908 Billion in 1980 to $ 2 Trillion in 1990) because government spending rose even faster than increases in tax revenue.

As a result, income tax receipts as a percent of GDP fell from 11,3% to 9,3% in 1984 and did not to revert to original levels until the late 1990`s, even though overall revenue skyrocketed in terms of real dollars.

(Picture: United States Government debt)

 

President George W. Bush signed two major tax cuts into law: one in 2001 and one in 2003. These are often collectively referred to as the «Bush Tax Cuts». Some people claimed the Bush tax cuts have led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less.

Washington Times credit the Reagan tax cuts with the eventual surplus of the late 1990`s. Others doubt this claim however, and instead belive the surpluses were a result of a combination of a decrease in government spending, the passing of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (which dictated several tax increases), and the use of the PAYGO system.

Others claims the Bush tax cuts have conferred the «largest benefits, by far on the highest income households. At the state level, former Democratic Governor Bill Richardson in recent years has supported tax cuts to spur economic growth.

A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by the U.S government. The immediate effects of a tax cut are a decrease in the real income of the government and an increase in the real income of those tax rates have been lowered.

Due to the perceived benefit in growing real incomes among tax payers, politicians have sought to claim their proposed tax credits as tax cuts.

In the longer terms, however, the macroeconomic effects of a tax cut are generally not predictable because they depend on how the taxpayers use their additional income and how the government adjusts to its reduced income.

Depending on the original tax rate, tax cuts may provide individuals and corporations with an incentive investments which stimulate economic activity. Some politically conservative opinion-makers, such as Art Laffer (better known for the Laffer curve), have theorized that this could generate so much additional taxable income that a lower tax can generate more revenue than was collected at the higher rate.

(Picture: Laffer Curve: t* represents the rate of taxation at which maximal revenue is generated. The grey curve is as drown by Laffer, however, the curve might not have only a single peak, nor must it peak symmetrically at 50%)

 

However, basic math states that cutting tax rates in half would require an economy twice the size to generate the same amount of tax revenue.

High tax rates doesn`t necessarily mean large revenue to the government. Lower tax rates can increase the government’s revenue. It seems difficult for some people to understand that.

100% tax rate means theoretically zero revenue because taxpayers lose their incentive to work. The economic effect of a 100% tax rate is to decrease the tax base to zero. If this is the case then somewhere between 0% and 100% lies a tax rate that will maximize revenue.

The tax cut shouldn`t be a bearish sign for the investors. Lower tax for the corporations means reduced unemployment and an incentive for investors to invest in new stocks and that will create more new jobs.

A corporate tax cut from 35% to 20% will boost the stock market, and the Senates $1,4 trillion tax bill will also boost the corporate earnings and thats positive for the stocks and the stock market.

The economy is a complicated system. Inflation, political uncertainty and the Fed`s monetary policy can add volatility. It remains to see.

I have said so many times and need to say it once again; this is the most unloved bull market in history.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shiny bull. The author has made every effort to ensure accuracy of information provided; however, neither Shiny bull nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities or other financial instruments. Shiny bull and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.

———————————————–advertisement——————————————————-