The economic recession has a variety of negative repercussions on the economy, including increased unemployment, weak economic development, and reduced investment, among other things. To deal with a recession, many economic techniques are frequently employed. A recession also denotes a considerable reduction in general economic activity, largely a consequence of a sharp drop in expenditure, and has far-reaching impacts such as unemployment, lower earnings, and missed opportunities (Mankiw, 2021). Cutting taxes and raising prices are two of the most popular and relevant methods. This article first investigates whether government expenditures or tax cuts should combat depression; it then emphasizes why boosting government expenditure is far better than tax reductions as a means of tackling the recession.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
Government Spending Hikes
To combat the recession, the government is frequently forced to choose between raising expenditure and decreasing taxes. Spending increases imply that the government must spend more than its current spending efforts. Raising government expenditure indicates that the government must spend more than expected on public goods and services (Ojede et al., 2017). It boosts spending on health, infrastructure, as well as education, along with many other areas. It includes expenditures, subsidies, and initiatives by the government. Because it involves buying services and products for immediate use to satisfy public or individual necessities within a population, public spending is frequently referred to as public final consumption expenditure, notably in government revenue accounting. Whereas the government might lack the finances to carry out these investment measures during a recession, borrowing is frequently the best way out of expenditure limitations. Aggregate Demand (AD) rises as a result of increased expenditure (Ojede et al., 2017). The pending rise by the government is based on the government’s fiscal stimulus budgetary strategy.
Increases in government expenditure, often known as expansionary fiscal policies, are generally beneficial in combating recessions because they increase economic demand. They result in a rise in economic production in this regard. One of the most obvious signs of a recession is a reduction in economic production. As a result, a decision that increases economic output is favoured above other economic options. Since the government has the option of either lowering taxes or increasing spending, the two cannot coexist because tax cuts would limit the government’s ability to increase expenditures (Ojede et al., 2017). Typically, government revenue drives government expenditure increases, and taxes are the primary source of such money. In reality, tax cuts would result in the lower expenditure by members of the population.
Fiscal stimulus is a significant step forward in terms of boosting total demand in the economy. Nevertheless, it can only be accomplished with higher government expenditure and tax reduction to increase population expenditure. Greater government stimulus spending, maintenance, and construction, as well as increased spending among segments of the greater populace, supports economic progression via a direct guidance on disbursements as well as GDP as a constituent of state spending.
It is vital for one to note that a downturn is defined as a slow-down in overall financial activity in order to identify the definite effect of reducing taxes on the economy and as a way of combatting the downturn. At this point, the economy needed a massive boost to get back on track (Mankiw, 2021). One of the most noticeable effects of tax cuts on an economy is an increase in customer expenditure. President Obama looked into tax cuts worth up to $2 trillion, but realized that there was more work to be done than just picking on one (Mankiw, 2021). However, tax cuts reduce government revenue, implying that federal spending declines unless the government chooses to incur debt. Given the government’s second choice, tax cuts might be an excellent strategy to combat the recession, but only provided government revenue is not severely affected to the point of lowering AD.
Advocates of adopting tax cuts to combat the recession say that lowering taxes improves the economy’s state through increased expenditure. Increased expenditure is unquestionably actual, but it is not entirely successful. Individuals’ improved income enables them to purchase more items and services, hence spending increases once the public is relieved of an excessive tax burden. Nevertheless, tax reductions result in a significant reduction in government revenue. Government returns is the major contributor to the country strength for spending on essential public services, and then when the government lacks the financial means to do so, the government resorts to borrowing. Moreover, AD declines, causing additional economic difficulties such as lower employment, low investment, and inadequate infrastructure.
Furthermore, opponents of tax cuts as a means of combating the recession believe that tax cuts do not benefit everyone or every institution equally, but rather just the wealthy in society (Mankiw, 2021). The premise of such an assumption is that tax cuts reduce public services since tax cuts reduce government income from taxes. Typically, the lower-income majority relies on government services for existence, but when the government is unable to deliver them, wealthy entrepreneurs are ready to profit handsomely from the situation.
as little as 3 hours
The essential point in this argument against tax cuts and increased debt is that cutting taxes pay for itself in the long run. According to economist Arthur Laffer, tax cuts positively affect the economy (Mankiw, 2021). During the Downturn, several tax cuts had a fiscal multiplier higher than one, implying that they spurred enough long-term expansion to ultimately provide more tax income when more overall cash is levied. For instance, during the 1980s, President Reagan slashed taxes in the United States, and all estimates anticipated revenue shortages or (at the very least) no growth in overall taxation receipts. On the other hand, personal income tax earnings virtually quadrupled as from 244 billion dollars to 446 billion dollars amid 1980 and 1989. (Mankiw, 2021). This is according to several studies done throughout that period.
Increaser of Productivity
Tax reductions can also boost productivity, offsetting the revenue loss. Tax cuts can frequently provide the finest of both sides: inferior tax proportions while increasing tax receipts and economic development. This is a benefit of tax cuts that expenditure increases cannot provide. According to the “Laffer Curve,” lowering income tax rates boosts the inducement to labor in a great manner for government to obtain additional levy revenue (Weerasekera, 2018). Reduced tax levels, for instance, could inspire residents to work for extended hours and foreigners to relocate to the nation. Thus, the results from two factors: lower tax rates make work more appealing (whenever one keeps more of their income).
Duty cutbacks similarly, handles other additional issues that expenditure increases are incapable of addressing: tax evasion and avoidance. During a recession, a revenue shortage pushes employees to engage in tax avoidance behaviors, such as taking employment that pay under the table and failing to record their earnings. This is harmful to the goal of economic recovery (Weerasekera, 2018). Lower tax rates always result in a significant decrease in tax evasion and tax avoidance.
The Substitution and The Income Effects
According to the substitution effect, an increase in the price of a commodity encourages buyers to purchase other goods. It also assesses how much the higher price motivates consumers to buy alternative things while maintaining income. The income impact examines how a change in cost of products affects consumer revenue. When values increase, it efficiently decreases disposable proceeds and decreased demand for better results as a result of this lessens in disposable revenue (Weerasekera, 2018). For example, if meat prices rise, people may be enticed to move to alternate food sources, such as purchasing vegetables. However, with the rising cost of meat, they will have less disposable cash after buying some meat. As a result of the income effect, people will buy less meat.
Conclusion to the Best Option
The method that leads to overall economic growth stimulation is the most excellent alternative for the government to combat economic recession. Tax cuts should not be regarded as an option since they are fraught with complications. To begin with, tax reductions only profit the limited wealthy members of the public, whose influence on collective demand is economic-wise insignificant. Given the relative aspect of the entire levy arrangements, superior government earnings are derived from the duty paid by people who are earning less. Likewise, they could bear the worst price if at all the government reduced taxes and spending on critical communal goods as well as services. Tax reduction may as well result in a discrepancy. A rise in the loss from the budget would then result to increased public debt, of which it might result in the crowding-out outcome, leading to higher interest rates, which could significantly counter the government’s core purpose of stimulative spending.
When the government runs out of money, the only option to raise expenditure, which is the only route out of growing AD, is through foreign or public borrowing. The only way to avoid balancing the budget and causing severe economic difficulties linked with the burden of interest rates is to prevent tax cuts. Tax cuts may appear perfect and valuable in the shorter term, but the alternative would be an enormous burden on both the government and the people in the long term. Rather than lower taxes, government expenditure increases appear to be the best method for the government to combat the crisis.
In conclusion, recessions, such as the economic crisis that shook labor markets throughout the world a few years ago and the one currently occurring as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, have a negative impact on the economy, employment, and people. As is common, the negative implications will include an increase in unemployment (particularly among the young), adjustments in employment conditions (from fully=employed to contract employees), or a decrease in working hours (short-term employment) or pay. They may also result in chronic losses in an entire generation’s future wages, while employees’ state of health may suffer as a result of job instability. As this article has shown, the most distinctive approach to efficiently and successfully combat economic crisis is to raise public spending, developing and expanding the breadth of job chances during a downturn.
Mankiw, N. (2021). Six debates over macroeconomic policy. In Principles of Economics (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Ojede, A., Atems, B., & Yamarik, S. (2017). the direct and indirect (spillover) effects of productive government spending on state economic growth. Growth and Change, 49(1), 122-141. Web.
Weerasekera, H. (2018). Tax rates and tax evasion. South Asia Economic Journal, 19(2), 229-250. Web.