ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


"How would the fact that the proposed tax cut is temporary reduce its demand-side and supply-side stimulus?"
The reason it would reduce the demand-side stimulus is that people will know that this just means a tax increase later and will save accordingly. The offsetting effect, however, is that a lot of people who would be getting money from this are presumably under borrowing constraints, which would negate the aforementioned "Ricardian" effect.
As for "supply side-stimulus", I guess I just find it weird to see those two terms together. I have always thought of "stimulus" to mean a short term boost to the economy, but the problem right now isn't that we don't have enough goods and services to go around--it's that we don't have enough demand to buy the goods and services available. I think what you're getting at is the long run supply-side effects, which are nil in this proposal since incentives aren't altered if this is only temporary.
Because the tax cut would be temporary, most people won’t alter their behavior. Hence, although they might spend the temporary windfall, longer term, demand won’t change. Businesses know this as well. So while they might clear out some inventory, they won’t change production plans and hence won’t hire any new workers.
A temporary payroll tax cut isn’t going to do any more good than the $300 and $600 checks did last year.
As a side note, it’s refreshing to see a liberal Democrat admit that the Social Security Trust Fund is “nothing more than an accounting device.” Perhaps now at least some of the politicians will be able to treat it as something less than sacrosanct.
Is there any question that a temporary tax cut will do nothing to spur the economy? Reich should know better.
Also, the payroll tax is not a tax, it's a payment into a pension system (or so the ruse that is Socialist Insecurity goes). It would seem to me that a cut in the payroll tax WOULD have Ricardian implications. People WOULD save the tax cut because their Social Security pension will be smaller because of the cut.
What I find interesting is that a leftist like Reich is willing to gut the funding mechanism of the social welfare program that has done the most to keep the Democrats in power. If the payroll tax can be cut without political consequence to Republicans, then Social Security can be privatized without political consequence.