Fiscal Stimulus And The Role Of Tax Measures

Any person struggling through difficult times will seek out other means of financial support including borrowing money that may be harder to pay back in the future. The United States will often follow a similar path and spend more money than it earns. Deficit spending in the United States comes with some advantages, disadvantages, and strong criticism. Some feel deficit spending is good for getting the economy back in motion while others contend it does nothing for the economy. The effects of deficit spending are carefully examined to determine if the United States is improving or degrading the future of the economy.

In the article “Job One: Tax Code Rewrite,” William O’Keefe, an author who cares about tax reform, argues that the Obama Administration should rewrite the tax code in order to reduce the unemployment rate. He supports this claim with a formal tone by using opinions and anecdotes as evidence. According to William, we need “systematic reforms to our tax code and regulatory policy.” The author targets a tax reform audience that cares about the economy. William’s purpose is to persuade readers that Obama’s stimulus tax bill will not help the economy or business in the long run. This work is significant because it challenges the Obama Administration to rethink their priorities.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), is an economic stimulus package that was signed into law in February of 2009 (Grunwald, 2010). The Recovery Act was enacted to stimulate the United States (U.S) economy during the (2007-2009) recession (Investopedia. 2009). According to The White House, the Recovery Act “includes measures to modernize our nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need. (The White House, United States Government, 2009)”.

A macroeconomic policy is known at the government’s regulations to control or stimulate aggregate indicators for the economy. In other words, these are policies that focus on providing solutions to help stimulate economic growth and fight financial situations; in this case the recession. The macroeconomic policy that would be a legitimate solution to the recession would be Fiscal Policy, but more specifically, Expansionary Fiscal Policy. The reason why this would be a legitimate solution is because unlike Expansionary Monetary Policy, it has a more direct effect on aggregate demand. In other words, the government will aim to increase how much money is spent in order to stimulate aggregate demand. Furthermore, potential tax cuts will serve as a catalyst for spiking aggregate demand by granting people the capability to consume and invest (Forsythe, 2012). As an ultimate effect, the recession that America is going through will show more direct signs of economic growth, and will not have much of an influence in sparking inflation in the long

When the Federal government has to find ways to regain any money lost they lean on the expansionary Fiscal policy and the monetary policy to regain money into the economy. Whether, a change in taxes or even government spending. Even to the three major tools of the expansionary monetary policy to focus on. In the first part of this paper, I will discuss the expansionary fiscal policy and how the Federal government was involved and the changes that needed to be made to taxes, government spending. The second part of this paper, I will discuss the monetary policy and the tools the Federal Reserve used when under this policy. The expansionary fiscal policy was out to kick start the economy, and the expansionary monetary policy was out to change interest rate, and influence money supply. When discussing these two policies you have to think about one aspect when will it ever stop? Will a policy always have to be part of the economy to help the government one way or another?

A budgetary stimulus is a necessity to help avoid recessions. Fiscal policy is when a government adjusts its’ spending levels and tax rates in order to impact the nation’s economic status. It is linked to the monetary policy which involves a bank and affects the nation’s money source. When there is an increase in unemployment and the economy is soon reaching a recession, the fiscal policy will help maintain the economy. The fiscal policy will decrease taxes and widely promote government spending. On the other hand, when unemployment is declining and prices are escalating, the policy will reduce government spending and raise the prices on taxes. The Great Recession was a horrific economic crisis that led businesses and buyers to drastically

All the people in the United States are effected by the fiscal policies. Team C will address the how and why the U.S. budget deficits, budget surpluses and debt effect different individuals and institutions. There are a wide array of individuals effected by fiscal policy, which include tax payers, future Social Security and Medicaid users will be effected. The unemployed individuals and University of Phoenix students will be effected by fiscal policy. The U.S. financial reputation , an exporter, and importer, and effects of the GDP will also be covered about the effects of the U.S fiscal policy.

In short, the larger the tax cuts, the larger the deficits, the larger the deficits the larger the debt that is incurred to offset the budget deficit. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan organization put out an article talking about the impact of the tax plan that Donald Trump is proposing. In the article titled How Much Will Trump's Tax Plan Costs it says, "Based on what we know so far, the plan could cost 3 to 7 trillion over a decade- our base-case estimate is 5.5trillion in revenue loss over a decade." Either way, the tax plan presented by Donald Trump, even with the best case scenario it is a loss of $3 trillion in revenue. The more revenue the government loses from tax cuts, the more the deficit and debt

Fiscal policies, if used efficiently, can be extremely effective and helpful to the economy. However, many pros and cons are tied to this method. Firstly, fiscal policies can be effective because they can focus spending to precise purposes.1 Therefore, the money that the government spends can be used on the things that would benefit the economy the most. Additionally, the government can reduce negative externalities with the use of taxes.1 An example of this would be taxing things that have a negative impact on the environment, such as companies producing an immense amount of pollution.1 Additionally, the government can also tax companies that are using too much of a limited resource.1 By doing this, the government not only can use the money gained from taxing to help the economy, but they would be reducing externalities such as these in order to help the country. Lastly, the effects of a fiscal period are much more immediate and quicker in comparison to a monetary policy,1 This means that the recessionary

In the most recent years, our economy has plummeted and there have been several suggestions on how to regain economic stability. Unfortunately, the tax incentives that are intended on boosting our economy have not aided our current financial crisis. Economists have not been able to agree on incentives that would further support the recovery of our nation; therefore, not much has been done to correct our current financial deficit. During his time in office, Obama has ratified several tax incentives that have helped regain some of our financial stability. The “making work pay” tax credit, employer incentives for hiring unemployed

Fiscal policy: Given the breadth and depth of this recession, it was clear that the Treasury and the entire Obama administration had to take bold actions. In fact, right at the beginning, they were committed to a fiscal stimulus policy package which would be “substantial” enough to pull the economy out of the recession. The final stimulus package signed into law in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was totaled $787 billion including about one-third tax cuts and one-third aid for states and the unemployed. Of the rest, labor health and education investment got 8%, and infrastructure investment got about 7%. It also included a large amount of government money to

Observers of failed economic stimulus packages have developed a fear that these large sums of funding will be mismanaged and therefore will not be able to stimulate the economy (“History of Government Spending,” n.d.).

The policy response from the G.W. Bush is that there are three main parts to the fiscal policy stimulus. An individual tax that the Internal Revenue service sent out started in mid-2008. There were two business provisions that encourage investment during 2008 by increasing limits on expensing investment costs and accelerate depreciation of qualifying investments. The specific steps taken in early 2008 were the home owner purchases rebate and tax cuts.

By examining states across the country that have experienced greater business growth and have decreased unemployment, the cause of the economic growth traces back to reduced marginal tax rates. Likewise, greater investment and productivity comes from lowering tax rates, since returning more money to the US taxpayers encourages their saving and work effort. Lowering taxes also results in perhaps the most important effect, increasing government revenues and reducing the national debt. With America’s increasingly massive national debt and stagnant economy, the need to improve the country’s economic situation grows more important every day. Perhaps when Congress goes to prepare its next budget, it should consider reducing marginal tax rates as a remedy for the nation’s economic

The recent recession lasting from 2007 until 2009, and the effects of which are still highly visible in the U.S. economy, led the Federal Reserve to use new and largely untested methods for protecting the country from a total financial collapse. The new strategy, which blurs the lines between monetary and fiscal policy, had been attempted only once before, and is open to criticism from several difference angles. This report documents the history, purpose, and controversy surrounding quantitative easing as a strategy to mitigate the effects of the recent recession. After considering these factors, the conclusion is drawn that quantitative easing was a modestly successful policy, yet one which should not be employed again. Although