New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Low Taxes, High Rhetoric: What Consumers Really Do with Their Tax Cuts


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Republican-Democratic debate over income tax rates and the size of government has been long on rhetoric but short on data. What does published research say about what different economic groups do with savings from income-tax cuts? Will the economy slow if Washington cancels tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires?

Most experts agree that tax cuts can stimulate a weak economy over the short term through increased consumption and investment, provided the money flows to people who are more likely to spend than save. Past observation has shown that because lower-income people often live paycheck to paycheck, they are more likely than the wealthy to spend. Yet “our research suggests that hasn’t been true for the past decade,” says economist Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Because the last few tax cuts have followed financial crises, poorer people may have used the extra income to increase their cushion by building up assets or paying down debt. But the rich haven’t been spending freely either. Last year a study by Moody’s Analytics suggested that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts spurred the wealthy to significantly increase their savings as well.

What should the administration do to design a better economic shot in the arm? One finding on which researchers seem to agree is that consumers respond more vigorously to policies thought to be long-lasting. Therefore, Slemrod says, one farsighted action may plausibly help the economy: convincing the general public that the federal government is committed to getting its fiscal house in order.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe