Should the Bush Tax Cuts Be Extended? A Policy Analysis
This paper argues that the Bush-era tax cuts should be retained for the bottom 97% of earners but allowed to expire for the highest income bracket. Drawing on economist opinion, Federal Reserve commentary, and fiscal data, the paper weighs two competing policy goals: stimulating aggregate demand in a slow-growth economy and reducing the federal budget deficit. It concludes that because high-income earners are more likely to save than spend a transitory tax cut — consistent with Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis — extending their cuts yields little economic stimulus while forgoing significant revenue, making expiration the fiscally responsible choice for that bracket alone.
- Introduction: The Core Policy Dilemma: Thesis: extend cuts for most, let top-bracket cuts expire
- Tax Cuts and Aggregate Demand: Expiring cuts for 97% would suppress consumer demand
- The Budget Deficit Argument: Expiring top-bracket cuts raises $700 billion in revenue
- Temporary Extensions and the Friedman Problem: Temporary cuts saved, not spent, per Friedman's theory
- Reassessing the Deficit as a Market Signal: Bond markets show deficit less urgent than politicians claim
- Conclusion: The Optimal Policy Balance: Best balance: extend for 97%, let top-bracket cuts expire
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper cleanly frames a two-sided fiscal debate — economic growth versus deficit reduction — and applies each side to a specific policy recommendation, keeping the argument logically coherent throughout.
- It draws on voices from across the ideological spectrum (Keynesians, monetarists, Reagan-era advisors) to demonstrate that the recommended policy is not partisan, strengthening its credibility.
- The invocation of Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis provides a theoretical anchor that moves the argument beyond political opinion into established economic theory.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a comparative framework — isolating two distinct economic variables (growth and deficit) and analyzing the tax cut policy against each separately before synthesizing a unified recommendation. This technique prevents the common student error of treating complex policy questions as having a single dimension, and it models how economists actually weigh trade-offs in fiscal policy debates.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by stating its thesis directly, then devotes separate sections to the demand-side and deficit-side arguments. It introduces and refutes the "temporary extension" counterproposal using Friedman's theory, then reframes the deficit concern using bond-market signals before closing with a synthesis recommendation. The conclusion restates the thesis with added nuance, tying all threads together concisely.
Introduction: The Core Policy Dilemma
The Bush-era tax cuts should be allowed to expire for the top income earners while being retained for all other taxpayers. There are two distinct economic factors that must be considered in this argument: economic growth and the federal budget deficit (Krugman, 2010). Retaining the majority of the tax cuts is critical for supporting economic growth, but allowing the cuts for the highest income earners to expire is necessary for addressing the deficit.
Tax Cuts and Aggregate Demand
In the current slow-growth economic climate, all possible measures must be undertaken to stimulate demand. American companies face overcapacity, which has essentially neutralized the ability of monetary policy to restore economic growth. Money is cheap and plentiful thanks to the Federal Reserve, but there are few takers because of overcapacity across industries. Under these conditions, economic growth can only be restored by spurring consumer demand.
If the tax cuts expire for the majority of Americans, the result will be a decrease in demand, because consumers will have fewer after-tax dollars to spend. The current state of the economic recovery is "too fragile to allow taxes to go up for the 97% of taxpayers not in the top bracket" (Isidore, 2010). While economist opinion is divided on the question of tax cuts for the top 3% of earners, there is broad consensus that the cuts must be extended for the lower 97% in order to avoid a contraction in aggregate demand.
The Budget Deficit Argument
The budget deficit is also a serious concern. The Bush tax cuts represent a reduction in government revenue, and that reduction was never offset by corresponding decreases in government spending. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Reagan economic advisor David Stockman both argued for higher taxes as a means of helping to balance the budget. "You have to pay your bills," Stockman argued (Haris, 2010).
To combat the budget deficit, one proposal would extend the tax cuts except for those applying to Americans in the highest tax bracket. This approach would allow the government to collect $700 billion in additional revenue from high-income earners — revenue that would be foregone if the cuts were extended in their entirety (Haris, 2010). This position is advocated by most Democrats and many leading economists. It is widely accepted that the United States needs to address its structural budget shortfall through both decreased spending and increased revenues. Allowing the high-end tax cuts to expire would increase government revenue in the short run and contribute to overall fiscal health.
Conclusion: The Optimal Policy Balance
Ultimately, determining the correct course of action on the Bush tax cuts requires carefully weighing two goals that are often seen as mutually exclusive: using fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and reducing the budget deficit. Given that long-term interest rates clearly signal that markets are not concerned about the deficit, the primary policy priority must be economic recovery. The tax cuts should therefore be extended to avoid a contraction in consumer demand — especially critical when the economy's principal weakness is insufficient demand.
The tax cuts should not, however, be extended for those in the highest income bracket. While drawing this line may appear arbitrary — a concession to deficit hawks — the economic logic supports it. Prominent economists on both the left and the right have called for higher revenues, and both Keynesian and monetarist frameworks recognize that transitory income gains are more likely to be saved than spent by those with the financial means to do so. There is therefore little economic benefit to extending the top-bracket cuts, since they are unlikely to translate into consumer spending that supports the recovery. It follows that this bracket, rather than contributing to economic stimulus through spending, should instead contribute to reducing the deficit by allowing its cuts to expire.
The recommended policy is to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest bracket to expire while extending them for the other 97% of Americans. Only this strategy achieves the best available balance between economic growth and deficit control.
Works Cited
Gale, W. (2010). Five myths about the Bush tax cuts. Washington Post. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html
Haris, L. (2010). Raise taxes now — the elders of the economy say so. CNN Money. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/elders_economy/index.htm
Isidore, C. (2010). Economists: Extend Bush tax cuts for everyone. CNN. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm
Krugman, P. (2010). Tax cuts and the economy. New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/tax-cuts-and-the-economy/
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.