Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Analysis: Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds Analysis: Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study ...

This ad will end in seconds
Close X

Want access to this content? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation



Analysis: Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds



Here's a brief economic history of the last quarter-century in taxes and growth.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and gross domestic product growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.


Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No.

Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.

But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth.


That was the conclusion from David Leonhardt's recent column  for The New York Times, and it was precisely the finding of a new study from the Congressional Research Service, "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945." 

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax-rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90 percent. Today it's 35 percent. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 10th of a percent of taxpayers fell from about 50 percent to 25 percent in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2 percent in 1945 to 12.3 percent before the recession.

Here are two graphs of the top 0.1 percent and 0.01 percent. The first shows average tax rates since 1945 — down, down, down.  The second shows share of total income since 1945 — up, up, up.


In short, the study found that top tax rates don't appear to determine the size of the economic pie, but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households.

The paper is a good reminder to be humble about taxes as a tool for growing the economy. They remain, above all, a tool for collecting revenue and tweaking incentives for specific economic behavior. Congress has cut tax rates repeatedly over the last 60 years, while the country and the global economy have undergone considerable changes that probably had a greater effect on growth. For years after World War II, the U.S. was a singular economic powerhouse with an enormous manufacturing base that employed nearly 40 percent of the economy. For the last decade-plus, the economy has grown at a considerably slower pace and the gains have accrued to a smaller and more elite share of the economy.

Latest Politics Posts:
Loading feed...

comments powered by Disqus