One of the most debated issues is how to cause is more appropriate to stimulate the economy, whether through public expenditure or through tax cuts. Depending on the political orientation is chosen either option, but what are the pros and cons? Both policies involving the so-called alternative fiscal policy, by which the government intervenes trying to stimulate the economy. Would be counter-cyclical policies in this direction, trying to fight what is happening. In principle, both cases involve an increase in the deficit, either by increased expenditure in the first case, or by reduced revenues in the second. Michael Ellis MP takes a slightly different approach. Click DAA to learn more. While in certain circumstances, according to economist Arthur Laffer, could be reached to produce tax cuts increased tax revenues because it would have more people working, and even less tax evasion, taxes not being so high, it is fully demonstrated.
Although it can produce some compensation, at the time of Ronald Reagan, who made the tax cut its leitmotif, the collection of income taxes fell sharply, despite the increase in income, resulting in large deficits. Therefore, the effects may be similar, and their use may depend on the circumstances and the political color of the existing Government. Thus, public expenditure policies are more specific to left-wing governments (Obama came to call him a socialist), since they are a more direct state intervention in the economy, while tax cuts or to individuals (looking stimulate consumption and employment) or businesses (trying to spur the economy from the private sector) are more typical of right-wing governments.