1

Technical Paper Series 

Congressional Budget Office 

Washington, DC 

Macroeconomic Impacts of Stylized Tax Cuts 

in an Intertemporal Computable General Equilibrium Model 

Tracy Foertsch 

Congressional Budget Office 

Washington, DC 

E-mail: TracyF@cbo.gov 

August 2004 

2004-11 

Technical papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and 

critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO’s formal review and editing processes. 

The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the author and should not be 

interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be 

cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at http://www.cbo.gov (select 

Publications and then Technical Papers). 
 2

Macroeconomic Impacts of Stylized Tax Cuts in an Intertemporal 

Computable General Equilibrium Model 

Abstract 

What are the consequences of stylized cuts in federal personal income tax rates when 

applying alternative options for financing changes in fiscal policy? This analysis uses an 

intertemporal computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, with the Ramsey optimal-growth 

framework at its core, to explore the answer to this question. One such financing option pays 

for cuts in marginal income tax rates by adjusting government spending, the other by 

adjusting future taxes. Both equate a primary deficit with net government interest payments, 

so that the ratio of government debt to gross domestic product (GDP) is constant in the long 

run. 

Tax cuts can have distinctly different economic effects under these different financing 

options, particularly in the long run. For example, cuts in effective marginal tax rates 

financed with lower future government spending can lead to higher real activity—and, thus, to 

higher taxable incomes. In contrast, the same tax cuts paid for with higher marginal rates in 

the future can result in lower economic activity and incomes. 

These conclusions are sensitive, however, to the way the model represents economic 

decisions, and particularly to the way it characterizes a household’s willingness to substitute 

between personal consumption and leisure. A high intratemporal elasticity of substitution 

increases the household’s willingness to trade leisure for consumption today, boosting the 

labor supply response to a change in after-tax wages. Conversely, a low elasticity dampens 

the labor supply response. Thus, even under the same financing option, different reasonable 

elasticity assumptions can lead to different simulated effects of a tax cut on GDP. 
 3

Section 1: Introduction 

Cuts in marginal tax rates can benefit the economy. The resulting increases in people’s aftertax marginal wages and returns to capital can expand the supply of labor and encourage 

greater saving and investment, thus potentially boosting economic growth. But the 

government must pay for these cuts by reducing its spending, raising other taxes, or initiating 

new borrowing. Tax cuts financed with new borrowing must ultimately be balanced in the 

long term with future tax hikes or spending cuts. 

How people believe the government will pay for those cuts and—equally important—how 

they act on those beliefs can influence the tax cut’s long-run effect on the economy. As a 

result, the impact of a short-term change in fiscal policy cannot be fully understood without 

taking into account people’s expectations about its long-term implications. 

This paper explores the consequences of a stylized cut in federal personal income tax rates 

when applying three alternative options for financing changes in fiscal policy. These 

financing options impose the government’s intertemporal budget constraint by specifying 

what actions the government will take to pay for tax cuts in the long run. In the first option—

a balanced budget rule—the government contemporaneously matches tax cuts with spending 

cuts; as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. 

In the second and third options, the government instead temporarily pays for tax cuts with 

new borrowing. The government cannot borrow without limit, however, if it wishes to ensure 

the long-run sustainability of its fiscal policies. To restrict the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must at some point adjust future 
 4

spending or taxes. Thus, the second financing option targets the rate of growth in the debt 

stock by raising taxes some 10 to 20 years in the future; the third achieves the same result by 

cutting future government spending with a similar delay. All three financing options are 

implemented in an intertemporal computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with a 

Ramsey framework. 

Tax cuts can have distinctly different economic effects under these different financing 

options. In the long run, tax cuts financed with lower future government spending lead to 

higher real activity—and, hence, to higher taxable incomes. But in the short run, they do not 

necessarily boost gross domestic product (GDP). Within the first few periods, the promise of 

lower future government spending leads people to consume more goods and services as well 

as leisure—and possibly to reduce their labor supply, investment, and capital accumulation. 

Conversely, in the long run, tax cuts paid for with higher future levies create a disincentive for 

labor and capital, thus reducing output. But, in the short run, they initially raise economic 

activity and incomes, as the household’s anticipation of higher future marginal rates yields a 

marked increase in hours worked, private saving, and investment, and a rapid build-up of net 

produced assets. 

These conclusions are sensitive to the way the model represents economic decisions, and 

particularly to the way it characterizes a household’s preferences between personal 

consumption and leisure. A high intratemporal elasticity of substitution between the two 

implies a strong labor supply response to higher after-tax wages. A low elasticity dampens or 
 5

even reverses that response. Thus, under different elasticity assumptions, the effect of tax 

cuts on GDP can differ not only in magnitude but also in sign. 

The paper proceeds as follows: Sections 2 and 3 outline key elements of this model, its 

options for financing fiscal policy, and its calibration to national accounting data. Sections 4 

and 5 explore a range of possible macroeconomic—and fiscal—impacts from stylized cuts in 

marginal income tax rates, with section 4 giving simulation results and section 5 summarizing 

their sensitivity to changes in model parameterization. Section 6 offers concluding remarks. 

Section 2: Key Model Features 

The model, a standard intertemporal CGE model based on the Ramsey framework, has at its 

core a representative household that chooses to divide its time between leisure and labor, and 

to divide the returns to its labor and capital between consumption and investment.1 The 

household is assumed to have perfect foresight and to be infinitely lived—or, more 

realistically, to be a dynasty in which each generation behaves as though it cares as much 

about the well-being of future generations as it does about its own. 

The model extends the basic Ramsey framework to include a government sector. The 

government purchases goods and services, makes transfer payments to the household, and 

pays interest on any public debt accumulated. Those expenditures are financed through levies 

on labor and capital income, lump-sum taxes, and borrowing. Government spending on 

 

1

 The Ramsey model is a benchmark for studying optimal resource allocation as well as optimal consumption 

and investment decisions. See Ramsey (1928). 
 6

goods and services contributes to the household’s utility, but it does not directly affect the 

household’s consumption and leisure decisions.2

 This is because, in the household’s utility, 

public goods are separable from private consumption and leisure. As a result, simulation 

results would be the same if government spending were excluded from the household’s utility 

function. 

The model imposes an intertemporal budget constraint to ensure that the government does not 

accumulate debt without limit. In its baseline, the stock of debt expands at the same steadystate rate as GDP, implying positive overall deficits. Under a balanced-budget rule, losses in 

government revenue from reducing marginal tax rates on labor and capital income are 

contemporaneously offset by equivalent cuts in government spending on goods and services, 

ensuring no additional debt accumulation. 

Under debt-to-GDP targeting, marginal rate cuts are initially financed by new borrowing, 

leading to an increase in government debt. After an initial delay, the government brings its 

accounts back into long-term balance by reducing spending or increasing marginal rates, 

either of which leaves the stock of debt once again growing at the same rate as GDP. 

Because the household has perfect foresight, it fully anticipates any such changes in fiscal 

policy and adjusts its consumption and saving accordingly. For example, if the household 

receives a lump-sum tax cut from the government, it saves rather than consumes the full 

 

2

 See Barro (1981), Aschauer (1985), Baxter and King (1993), and Cardia et al. (2003) for examples of consumer 

preferences that depend on government spending. 
 7

increase in its after-tax income—completely offsetting any current deficits. As a result, the 

lump-sum tax cut has no effect on the household’s consumption. 

However, cuts in marginal tax rates do affect the household’s consumption. For example, 

under debt-to-GDP targeting, private saving does not expand by enough to offset initial 

deficits if the household anticipates that cuts in government spending—although delayed—are 

likely to pay for current deficits and debt accumulation attributable to marginal rate cuts. 

Alternatively, private saving is likely to expand by more than enough to offset initial deficits 

if the household anticipates that the government is likely to raise marginal rates in the future 

to pay for current deficits and debt accumulation. 

Firm. A representative firm maximizes profits subject to Cobb-Douglas production function: 

(1) ( )( ) α −α = ⋅ 1 Yt Kt AtNt , 

where Yt is output, Kt the total stock of capital, Nt the total hours of labor demanded by the 

firm, and α the capital share parameter. The vector At denotes labor-augmenting 

technological change; its product with Nt gives the firm’s total labor input. In the model, At

is exogenous and expands at an exogenous rate of t a in each period. 

Solving the firm’s short-run optimization problem subject to (1) gives the firm’s demand for 

labor hours at wage rate ( ) wt and domestic price level ( )t p as: 
 8

(2a) ( ) t t

t

t

t A Y

p

w N ⋅ − ⋅ ⋅ 



 



 = −

−

1

1

1 α 

and its marginal product of capital ( ) mpkt as: 

(2b) 

−1





 



 = ⋅

t

t

t Y

K mpk α . 

The total capital input is fixed in any given period. The build-up in the stock of capital 

between any two periods is determined by 

(2c) ( ) t t t K = − ⋅ K + I −1 1 δ , 

where Kt−1 denotes the beginning-of-period stock of capital, δ the depreciation rate, and t I

the flow of private investment. 

In steady state, Yt, At, and Kt all grow at the same rate, and both the wage rate and the 

marginal return to capital are constant. Thus, the model attributes steady-state growth in total 

labor compensation not to rising factor returns but rather to progress in producing labor 

services per unit of time. To ensure a tractable solution for the steady state, productivity 
 9

growth At applies to leisure hours as well as to labor hours.3 Otherwise, the ratio of the labor 

supply to the total time endowment would not be constant in steady state. 

Output measured at factor prices is combined in fixed proportions with taxes on production 

and imports, along with other national income and product account (NIPA) line items 

excluded from factor incomes. The resulting aggregate gives GDP as the output of the firm’s 

one good. The domestic price of that one good serves as model numeraire. 

Household. A representative household maximizes discounted constant elasticity of 

substitution (CES) utility: 

(3) 

( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) { } ( )t

t t

t

t

t v G C L

A + −

⋅ + − ⋅ ⋅ 















+ ⋅

− − − − + ∞

=

∑

γ ε ε ε ε ε ε ε ε

γ

γ

ω ω

ρ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 1

1

1

1 

by choosing its personal consumption of goods and services ( ) Ct and leisure ( ) Lt , where Lt

is a function of the difference between the total time endowment and hours worked. In (3), ρ

is the rate of time preference, ω is the consumption share parameter, γ is the coefficient of 

relative risk aversion (CRRA), and ε is the intratemporal elasticity of substitution between 

private consumption and leisure. 

Government spending ( ) Gt on public goods and services appears in (3) but is separable from 

leisure and private goods and services consumption. As a result, in the model, government 

 

3

 See Altig et al. (2001) and Goulder and Thalman (1993). 
 10

spending increases utility but does not directly influence decisions about private consumption 

and leisure. This approach is common in the macroeconomics literature because of the 

difficulty inherent in assessing the substitutability of government spending for private 

consumption. 

In steady state, private goods and services consumption and leisure expand at the same rate as 

capital and labor incomes. The vector At from equations (1) and (2a) appears in the utility 

function so that an upward trend in factor prices does not drive that growth. 

The household maximizes its utility subject to a budget constraint, given by: 

(4) ( ) () t t t

t

t

t t k t t l N TR C

p

w K B r K t t ∆ +1 + ∆ +1 = 1−τ ⋅ ⋅ + 1−τ ⋅ ⋅ + − , 

where t l τ and t k τ are effective tax rates on labor and capital incomes, respectively. The 

before-tax rate of return ( )tr is the marginal product of capital less the depreciation rate. The 

household’s total non-financial income is the sum of its after-tax income from labor and its 

net transfer and interest income from the government ( ) TRt . 

The amount of the government’s overall deficit, or, equivalently, the change in outstanding 

public debt ( ) ∆Bt+1 , reconciles the household’s implied wealth accumulation with the national 

accounting identities. Successively solving (4) forward gives: 
 11

(5) ( ) ( ) t

t

t

s

W k rs C ∑ ∏ s

∞

= =

− ⋅ 





 





 = + − ⋅ 0 0

1

0 1 1 τ . 

Initial wealth ( ) W0 , consistent with (4), is the sum of the initial capital stock—net of the 

present value of government deficits—and the present value of non-financial income. It 

equals the discounted flow of personal consumption, or, equivalently, the present value of 

GDP net of gross investment and government spending. Because the household finances not 

only all private investment but also all government deficits, any build-up in public debt is 

reflected in the household’s optimal decision making. 

Solving the household’s intertemporal optimization problem subject to (4) gives the 

contemporaneous ratio of leisure to goods and services consumption as:4

 

(6a) ( ) ε

τ

ω

ω −





 



 ⋅ − ⋅



 



 − =

t

t l

t

t

p

w

C

L t 1 1

; 

it gives the forward change in private consumption as: 

(6b) ( ) ( )t t

k t

t

t

t a C

r

C f t ⋅ + ⋅ 















+

+ − ⋅ ⋅ 















Γ

Γ = + +

+

+ 1

1

1 1 1

1 1

1

1

γ

ρ

τ 

and the forward-change in leisure as: 

 

4

 The intratemporal elasticity of substitution in (3) is between 0 and 1. Forward-looking equations consistent 

with an ε of 1 are also derived. 
 12

(6c) ( ) ( )t t

k t

t

t

t a L

r

L g t ⋅ + ⋅ 















+

+ − ⋅ ⋅ 















Γ

Γ = + +

+

+ 1

1

1 1 1

1 1

1

1

γ

ρ

τ , 

where Γt+1 and Γt are functions of after-tax wage rates, given by (( ) ) t l wt pt f t Γ = 1−τ ⋅ . In 

(6a), an increase in the intratemporal elasticity, for a given increase in after-tax wages, boosts 

current consumption at the expense of current leisure. In (6b), an increase in the after-tax 

return to capital, or ( ) 1 1 1 + − ⋅ + k tr t τ , reduces current consumption in favor of current saving and 

future consumption. With the ratio of Ct+1 to ( ) t t C ⋅ 1 and of + a Lt+1 to ( ) t t L ⋅ 1 equal to + a

1, and, with factor prices constant in steady state, (6b) and (6c) each reduce to 

( ) 1 1 1 + = − ⋅ + k tr t ρ τ , or the model’s Euler condition. 

Government. The government can initially—but not indefinitely—finance tax cuts with 

deficits and new borrowing. In any given year, the sum of the government’s spending on 

goods and services, lump-sum transfer payments to the household, and before-tax net interest 

payments ( )t

gov rt ⋅ B on the existing stock of public debt can exceed total revenues from levies 

on labor, capital, and net government interest incomes. The amount by which expenditures 

exceed revenues—the overall deficit—determines the build-up of new debt. 

However, over an infinite horizon, the government’s overall deficit cannot grow faster than 

GDP forever. Rather, the government’s intertemporal budget constraint requires that the 

government run a compensating budget surplus in the future. The government’s intertemporal 

budget constraint is: 
 13

(7) () () 0

0 0

1

0 0

1

1 r T 1 r St B t

t

s

gov

t t

t

t

s

gov

t ⋅ + 





 





 ⋅ = + 





 





 ∑ ∏ + ∑ ∏∞

= =

− ∞

= =

−

, 

where t k t t t

t

t

t l N r K TAX

p

w T t t = τ ⋅ ⋅ +τ ⋅ ⋅ + gives the government’s total tax collections and 

where TAXt summarizes all lump-sum and other taxes. Equation (7) enforces the 

sustainability of the government’s fiscal policies by equating the initial stock of outstanding 

debt obligations ( ) B0 with the present value of the government’s primary surpluses—defined 

as the difference between the government’s total tax collections and t S , its total non-interest 

spending. 

A policy rule targeting the ratio of debt to GDP is one alternative for setting any future change 

in fiscal policy.5

 In the baseline steady state, the stock of debt expands at exactly the same 

pace as GDP; thus, 0 Bt+1 GDPt+1 − Bt GDPt = . In the transition to any new steady state, 

debt can expand at a faster pace than GDP if deficits and new borrowing initially pay for 

marginal rate cuts. 

But, in the long run, effective marginal tax rates on capital and labor incomes must rise or 

government spending must fall to finance higher net interest obligations.6

 The magnitude of 

 

5

 If the government instead follows a balanced-budget rule, its spending contemporaneously adjusts with a 

change in effective tax rates. For example, government spending falls in the event of a cut in tax rates. An 

overall government deficit of zero results. 

6

 Such a rule mimics the policy reaction functions for debt-to-GDP targeting in Bryant and Zhang (1996a, 

1996b). 
 14

those changes in taxes and spending depends on the speed with which the government acts to 

limit the growth of the debt stock. 

Equilibrium Conditions. The model satisfies two broad equilibrium conditions. First, 

markets clear in every period. Thus, an endogenous wage rate equates the household’s labor 

supply with the firm’s labor demand. The supply of the firm’s one good always equals the 

sum of its NIPA final demands, and gross saving always sums to investment. 

Second, the government’s fiscal policy is sustainable in steady state. Therefore, if the 

government targets a ratio of debt to GDP, marginal income tax rates rise or spending falls 

until primary surpluses cover the government’s net interest obligations. The outstanding 

stock of public debt subsequently expands at the same steady-state rate as GDP. 

Section 3: Calibration to Base-Year Data 

The model is calibrated to a base year of 2004, using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

forecasts of NIPA income and expenditure flows and CBO projections of net produced asset 

stocks (fixed and inventory). Construction of an initial steady-state baseline broadly 

consistent with both CBO data sets proceeds in three steps. Table 1 summarizes the 

calibration to the base year. 

Share Parameter Calibration. First, the share parameters in the firm’s Cobb-Douglas 

production function (see equation (1)) and the household’s CES utility function (see equation 

(3)) are calculated so that the model exactly reproduces base-year NIPA data. For instance, 
 15

the firm’s capital share parameter ( ) α is total capital income divided by output at factor 

prices.7

 Total labor income is, in turn, a product of initial (2004) values for average yearly 

hours per employee, average compensation per hour, projected payroll employment, and the 

vector At . In 2004, At equals 1; it trends upward at an exogenous steady-state rate of 2.9 

percent per year.8 

Rearranging the contemporaneous relationship between leisure and personal consumption, 

shown in (6a), gives: 

(9b) ( ) 1

1

1

−

































⋅ 













 ⋅ − = +

t

t

t

t l

C

L

p

w t

ε

τ

ω . 

In (9b), private consumption’s share ( ) ω of the household’s total goods, services, and leisure 

consumption depends not only on the coefficient of relative risk aversion ( ) γ and the 

intratemporal elasticity of substitution ( ) ε between leisure and private consumption, but also 

on leisure ( ) Lt . Leisure consumption—consistent with calibration of the firm’s production 

function—depends on average yearly leisure hours per employee in the base year. 

The model is calibrated using values of γ and ε commonly found in the literature. For 

example, Hall (1988), Campbell and Mankiw (1989), and Zeldes (1989) put the inverse of the 

 

7

 See Shoven and Whalley (1992). 

8

 Hence, the economy expands by 2.9 percent per year, where 2.9 percent is the sum of average annual 

percentage changes in the labor force (0.9) and its productivity (2.0). See Congressional Budget Office (2003), 

Table 2-4. 
 16

CRRA, or the intertemporal elasticity of substitution, between roughly 0.1 and a value over 1. 

Later studies find this elasticity to be generally under 0.5 or between 0.3 and 0.4.9

 The 

intertemporal elasticity here is set to 0.5, giving a CRRA of 2. With fewer empirical 

estimates available, the intratemporal elasticity of substitution is simply set to the base value 

of 0.8 used in Auerbach and Kotlikoff (1987), Altig et al. (2001), and Auerbach (2002). 

The household’s total time endowment is calibrated to limit the responsiveness of the labor 

supply to a change in the after-tax wage rate. Dividing an economy-wide total time 

endowment by projected payroll employment gives an average yearly endowment ( )t endow . 

In the baseline, the ratio of the average yearly endowment to the household’s hours worked is 

1.75, implying that the household allocates some 60 percent of its total endowment to labor.10 

With an average yearly endowment of roughly 2700 hours, a γ of 2, and an ε of 0.8, ω is 

almost 0.7. 

That combination of γ , ε , t endow , and ω puts the simulated, implied labor-supply 

elasticities between 0 and 0.3 in steady state and between 0.1 to 0.4 in the transition to steady 

state (see Table 2). Both ranges roughly correspond to empirical estimates of total wage 

labor-supply elasticities for all persons, which fall between 0 and 0.3.11 

 

9

 See Elmendorf (1996) and Gravelle (2003) for surveys of the empirical literature on the intertemporal elasticity 

of substitution. 

10 See Ballard et al. (1985), pp. 122-132. 

11 See CBO (1996), Table 2, p. 11. 
 17

Closed Economy Assumption. Second, a closed economy is assumed. Net exports are 

therefore eliminated as a source of final demand, and net foreign saving is removed as a 

source of investment finance. To ensure that the sum of the remaining final demands 

(personal consumption, government spending, and private investment) equals NIPA GDP, net 

imports are subtracted from government spending. So that the household is the source of 

saving otherwise originating overseas, its income is increased using a lump-sum transfer from 

the government equal to the amount of the U.S. trade deficit. 

Such an adjustment to base-year NIPA government spending matters little because the model 

is built on the Ramsey framework and because public goods and services do not contribute to 

the household’s utility. However, it has the benefit of holding the government’s primary and 

overall deficits to their NIPA levels. These NIPA overall and primary deficits are modified 

below (also using lump-sum transfer payments) to ensure the sustainability of the 

government’s fiscal policies in the final data for the base year. 

Steady-State Conditions. Four steady-state conditions complete calibration. The first two 

restrict the build-up of capital and debt stocks to an exogenous, steady-state rate ( ) SS a . The 

second two determine the rate at which the household trades current for future consumption in 

steady state. 

Beginning with the first two conditions, the steady-state level of the capital stock satisfies: 

(9c) SS

SS

SS a

K

I = δ + , 
 18

while the steady-state ratio of public debt to GDP corresponds to: 

(9d) [ ] ( ) SS SS SS

SS

SS

SS

gov

SS S T GDP

GDP

B

r − a ⋅ = − − . 

Hence, base-year data are consistent with stocks that amass at the steady-state rate only if 

depreciation allowances exactly match private investment adjusted for growth (see equation 

9c), and the government’s primary surpluses cover all of its growth-adjusted net interest 

obligations (see equation 9d). 

Satisfying steady-state conditions (9c) and (9d) requires that we further modify the base-year 

NIPA data. For instance, the depreciation rate consistent with NIPA capital consumption 

allowances and the base-year capital stock equals about 4.4 percent. That 4.4 percent 

combined with NIPA private investment implies that capital amasses at a rate about 1.3 

percentage points below the desired steady state rate. Replacing the NIPA depreciation rate 

with a steady-state replacement rate obtained by subtracting SS a (equal to 0.029) from the 

ratio of SS I to KSS modestly reduces capital consumption and boosts the rate at which capital 

accumulates. 

Additional adjustments to the 2004 NIPA data ensure the sustainability of the government’s 

fiscal position. The closed-economy data consistent with base-year NIPA overall and primary 

deficits imply a build-up of government debt that exceeds 16 percent over 2004. Cutting the 
 19

government’s lump-sum transfer payments to the household limits that expansion to the 

steady-state rate by converting a base-year primary deficit of over $300 billion to a primary 

surplus of about $90 billion—an amount equal to the government’s net interest obligations 

adjusted for growth. 

The approach taken here is roughly similar to that used to construct a baseline consistent with 

a balanced-budget rule.12 There, a lump-sum adjustment to the household’s personal income 

taxes eliminates the government’s overall deficit, ensuring that no debt accumulates. Here, a 

lump-sum adjustment to the household’s transfer payments yields a primary surplus exactly 

equal to the government’s net interest obligations, ensuring an overall deficit consistent with 

debt that accumulates at the same rate as GDP in steady state. 

Finally, the rate at which the household transforms current consumption into future 

consumption reflects two separate steady-state conditions. The firm’s problem gives the 

steady-state ratio of total capital to total labor inputs as: 

(9e) ( ) ( ) α ( ) −α = ⋅ 1

1

SS

SS

SS mpk N

K

; 

the forward-change in the household’s personal consumption (see equation 6b) puts the 

steady-state marginal product of capital at: 

 

12 See Devarajan and Go (1998) and Goulder and Eichengreen (1988). 
 20

(9e′) δ

τ

ρ + − =

SS k

mpk SS 1 . 

Base-year data determine the firm’s inputs of capital and labor as well as after-tax rates of 

return. Substituting (9e′) into (9e) then gives the rate of time preference ( ) ρ and, consistent 

with the model’s Euler condition, the rate at which the household transforms current into 

future personal goods and services consumption and leisure. 

Section 4: Stylized Model Simulations 

These simulations explore the consequences of a 10-percent stylized cut in federal personal 

income tax rates (see Table 3). Two aspects of these stylized tax cuts deserve mention. First, 

cuts in current-law income tax rates fall below 10 percent because the government combines 

all fiscal activities at the federal, state, and local levels. Second, cuts in marginal rates on 

labor income are roughly twice as large as cuts in marginal rates on capital income because 

the policy experiment does not reduce corporate income taxes. 

Whether these stylized cuts expire, or “sunset,” in the simulations depends on how the 

government chooses to pay for lower marginal rates. Marginal income tax rates are 

permanently lower if the government finances tax cuts by reducing government spending. 

They increase after an initial period if the government instead finances current tax cuts by 

raising future income taxes. 
 21

The economic effects of these stylized cuts in current-law income tax rates are simulated 

under two broad financing assumptions.13 Under the first—a balanced-budget rule—the 

government pays for tax cuts by contemporaneously reducing spending by an amount that 

holds the overall deficit to zero in every period. As a result, tax cuts require no new 

borrowing. Under the second—debt-to-GDP targeting—the government initially pays for tax 

cuts with new borrowing. Debt subsequently accumulates at rates exceeding the growth of 

GDP, and the government’s ratio of debt to GDP rises. 

However, the government cannot borrow without limit and still satisfy its intertemporal 

budget constraint. To restrict the long-run rate of public debt accumulation to the rate of 

economic growth, the government phases in debt-to-GDP targeting over a 10-year period 

beginning in 2014. Between 2013 and 2023, the government gradually lowers spending or 

raises taxes so that its primary surpluses rise by just enough to meet a progressively greater 

share of its net interest obligations. From 2024, it uses cuts in spending or hikes in marginal 

tax rates to equate its primary surpluses with its net interest obligations (adjusted for 

growth)—and, thereby, to fix the ratio of debt to GDP. 

Fiscal Policy Adjustments in the Long Run. The steady-state levels of government spending 

and income tax revenues depend on how quickly the government adjusts its fiscal policies to 

ensure their long-run sustainability. For example, the steady-state ratio of government 

spending to GDP is largest if the government adjusts its spending contemporaneously from 

2004 (see Figure 1A). The ratio is smallest if the government temporarily delays cuts in 

 

13 Simulations are carried out using the General Equilibrium Modeling Package (GEMPACK). See 

http://www.monash.edu.au/policy/gempack.htm. 
 22

spending and instead finances marginal rate reductions between 2004 and 2013 with deficits 

and new borrowing. 

The depth of those cuts in spending depends on the duration of that delay. Here, the 

government phases in debt-to-GDP targeting over 10 years—equating its primary surpluses 

with its net interest obligations only from 2024. Between 2014 and 2023, the government 

reduces its spending as a share of GDP only gradually. As a result, public debt continues to 

build at rates that exceed the growth of GDP, and the government’s debt-to-GDP ratio rises. 

The ratio of government spending to GDP in turn falls progressively further below base levels 

through 2024 before settling into a new steady-state trajectory. 

Effective marginal rates climb through 2024 if the government pays for current tax cuts with 

future tax hikes (see Figure 1B). With debt-to-GDP targeting delayed 10 years, marginal 

rates gradually adjust upward between 2014 and 2023 to cover a progressively greater share 

of the government’s net interest payments. They then settle into an above-baseline steadystate trajectory of their own, guaranteeing the long-run sustainability of the government’s 

fiscal balance. 

As a result, levies on labor and capital income as a share of GDP also rise, with labor income 

taxes reaching about 22.6 percent of GDP and capital income taxes reaching almost 4.4 

percent of GDP in steady state (versus respective base levels of 22.2 percent of GDP and 4.2 

percent of GDP). 
 23

Economic Impacts Vary Depending on the Way Tax Cuts Are Financed. If the government 

cuts spending to pay for permanent reductions in effective marginal tax rates, economic 

activity rises in the long run (see Table 4 and Figures 2 through 5). For example, under a 

balanced-budget rule, capital and labor inputs never contract, but instead expand until GDP is 

about 0.6 percent above baseline in steady state. 

Conversely, if the government finances current tax cuts with future tax hikes, long-term 

economic activity falls. Anticipation of higher future levies initially boosts hours worked, 

private saving, and the capital stock. But realized increases in income tax rates ultimately 

reduce the supply of these same factor inputs, pushing GDP almost 0.8 percent below its base 

level in steady state. 

Two options for financing tax cuts illustrate the effects of fiscal policy adjustments on 

economic impacts in the short run and long run. These options are delayed increases in 

marginal tax rates and delayed cuts in government spending. 

Option 1—Tax Cuts Financed with Delayed Increases in Marginal Tax Rates: Tax cuts 

financed initially with deficits and new borrowing and later with increases in marginal tax 

rates boost output in the short run, but not in the long run. 

Between 2004 and 2013, the household’s supply of capital and labor expands in anticipation 

of higher future marginal rates. Hours worked, private saving, and investment all jump in 

response to marginal rate cuts in 2004 (see Figures 3 and 4). But tax cuts are not permanent, 
 24

and the household’s expectation of higher future marginal rates leads to a rapid build-up of 

net produced assets. Reflecting this, the after-tax return to capital, which initially jumps in 

response to capital tax cuts, gradually moves below baseline, and the household trades 

progressively more current personal consumption for future personal consumption and 

leisure—boosting saving and hours worked through 2013. The temporary spike in labor 

supply helps put GDP over 1 percent above its base level by 2013. 

Beyond 2013, realized hikes in income tax rates only gradually reverse these increases in the 

household’s supply of factor inputs. Marginal tax rates on capital and labor income rise only 

incrementally between 2014 and 2023, remaining below baseline for much of the period. As 

a result, private investment remains above its base level while the household’s labor supply—

which cumulatively drops almost 1.5 percent between 2014 and 2024—never falls by more 

than about 0.2 percent per year. GDP, in turn, remains over 0.5 percent above baseline as late 

as 2020. 

Shortly thereafter, however, income tax rates top base levels, and GDP finally slips below 

baseline. GDP hovers near baseline in 2024 only because the household’s net produced assets 

continue well above base levels. Consistent with the draw-down in the stock of capital that 

follows, GDP drops almost 0.8 below its base level in steady state. 

Option 2—Tax Cuts Financed with Delayed Cuts in Government Spending: Tax cuts 

financed with delayed cuts in government spending boost output in the long run, but not 

necessarily in the short run. 
 25

Income effects dominate the household’s short-run and long-run responses to permanent 

marginal rate cuts. This is because the household anticipates that cuts in government 

spending—although delayed until 2014—will be imposed to pay for the deficits and debt 

accumulation occurring between 2004 and 2013. The steeper those delayed cuts in public 

goods spending—which is separable from private consumption and leisure in the household’s 

utility—the more resources the government frees for debt service and private investment in 

the long run and private consumption in the short run and long run. 

Thus, between 2004 and 2024, the household does not increase private saving and investment 

by enough to fully offset the government’s initial, overall deficits. Instead, it smoothly 

expands personal goods and services consumption (see Figure 5) and leisure. The subsequent 

drop-off in hours worked (see Figure 3) and draw-down in capital relative to baseline (see 

Figure 4) work against short-run gains in GDP. 

Beyond 2024, however, cuts in government spending generate accelerated gains in GDP. The 

government fully adopts debt-to-GDP targeting after 2023. Cuts in government spending then 

allow for above-baseline private consumption and investment spending. As a result, capital 

accumulates with a lag after roughly 2023, and GDP expands over the transition to a new 

steady state. 

In that steady state, however, the cuts in government spending are steeper (see Figure 1A) and 

the income effects more pronounced than under a balanced-budget rule. For example, with 
 26

delayed cuts in government spending, steady-state hours worked hover just above baseline, 

making the capital stock almost solely responsible for raising GDP above base levels; in turn, 

gains to personal consumption are nearly 3 percent. By comparison, under contemporaneous 

cuts in government spending, steady-state hours worked are about 0.3 percent above baseline 

and personal consumption climbs only about 2.5 percent. 

Section 5: Sensitivity Analysis 

In sum, tax cuts can have distinctly different economic effects under different financing 

options. For example, cuts in effective marginal rates can in the long run lead to higher real 

activity and taxable incomes if they are accompanied by lower future government spending. 

In contrast, the same tax cuts can ultimately yield lower economic activity and incomes if 

they are paid for with higher future marginal rates. 

But these conclusions are sensitive to the way the model characterizes the household’s 

preferences. The results in Table 4 reflect only one in a broad continuum of possible 

outcomes because the empirical estimates of two key model elasticities are highly uncertain. 

The first—the intratemporal elasticity ( ) ε —determines the household’s preference for 

substituting leisure for personal consumption within a single period. The second—the 

intertemporal elasticity—determines its preference for smoothing personal consumption and 

leisure over time. 
 27

The values assigned to both elasticities help determine the household’s response to tax cuts. 

A small ε implies less willingness to substitute current leisure for current personal 

consumption. The household is therefore less inclined to increase hours worked today to take 

advantage of cuts in marginal rates. Alternatively, a higher intertemporal elasticity suggests a 

greater willingness to reallocate total spending on goods, services, and leisure over time and, 

hence, to forego current personal consumption and leisure for future personal consumption 

and leisure. The household is thus more likely to boost private saving and hours worked 

today in response to tax cuts. 

This section presents a limited analysis of the sensitivity of the model’s results to changes in 

the values of both elasticities.14 To begin, the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is halved 

from its base value of 0.5 to 0.25, doubling the CRRA from 2 to 4 (see Table 5 and Figures 

6A and 6B). The model is subsequently recalibrated so that the ratios of capital to labor and 

capital to output, as well as all NIPA income and expenditure flows, remain at their baseline 

levels. 

Two broad conclusions flow from this analysis—the first concerning the short run, the second 

the long run. First, in the short run, halving the intertemporal elasticity mutes the household’s 

response to lower marginal rates and increases the initial costs of tax cuts to the government. 

Between 2004 and roughly 2023, the impact of lower tax rates on labor supply, saving, and, 

hence, GDP is less positive if the intertemporal elasticity equals 0.25 (see Figures 6A and 

 

14 Limited sensitivity analysis (Shoven and Whalley, 1984; Bernheim et al., 1991) involves an ad hoc look at 

variations in simulation results when a key parameter is changed a discrete number of times over a range of 

alternative values. See DeVuyst and Preckel (1997) and Abdelkhalek and DuFour (1998) for more systematic 

methods of assessing with confidence intervals the simulation uncertainty arising from parameter uncertainty. 
 28

6B). Initial gains in taxable incomes are therefore smaller, and the drop in income tax 

revenues is greater with the lower elasticity. Under debt-to-GDP targeting, the government 

must initially borrow more to finance tax cuts, and the ratio of debt to GDP is subsequently 

higher in steady state. 

In that steady state, however, the GDP effects of tax cuts are similar regardless of whether the 

intertemporal elasticity is set to 0.25 or 0.5. Beyond 2023, a household with an intertemporal 

elasticity of 0.25 responds to fiscal policy in ways that offset lower GDP in the short run. For 

example, with delayed tax hikes, labor supply falls by less in response to higher realized 

marginal rates. GDP losses are therefore smaller than they would be with an intertemporal 

elasticity of 0.5. In contrast, with delayed cuts in government spending, private saving 

increases by more to offset higher overall deficits. The capital stock thus builds, and GDP 

expands at a faster pace than it would with the intertemporal elasticity at 0.5. 

In the next case, the intratemporal elasticity of substitution ( ) ε is halved from 0.8 to 0.4 (see 

Tables 2 and 6 and Figures 7 and 8).15 A lower willingness to trade leisure for goods and 

services makes the household’s labor supply less responsive to changes in tax rates. This 

muted labor supply response offsets the effects of marginal rate changes on investment and 

capital accumulation. 

For example, permanent tax cuts financed by reducing government spending imply more 

pronounced income effects and less—not more—economic activity in the long run. Under a 

 

15 Altig et al. (2001) also consider an alternative intratemporal elasticity of 0.4. Auerbach (2002) reduces the 

value of the same parameter to 0.3 in conducting sensitivity analysis. 
 29

balanced-budget rule, the household’s hours worked are below—not above—baseline with ε

at 0.4. Under debt-to-GDP targeting with delayed cuts in spending, the household’s supply of 

labor initially rises under both values of the intratemporal elasticity. But, mirroring the 

household’s reduced willingness to swap leisure for personal consumption, the initial gain in 

the labor input is smaller and its decline more pronounced with ε at 0.4. 

GDP is therefore lower—not higher—in steady state with the smaller ε . Under a balancedbudget rule, the labor supply slips about 0.4 percent below baseline with an ε of 0.4, but 

climbs about 0.3 percent above it with an ε of 0.8. Under debt-to-GDP targeting with 

delayed cuts in government spending, hours worked in steady state are almost 1 percent below 

baseline with ε at 0.4, but hover just above baseline with ε at 0.8. Under both financing 

options, such below-baseline labor at the lower intratemporal elasticity offsets rather than 

reinforces above-baseline capital stock accumulation, and GDP slips below baseline rather 

than rising above it in steady state. 

Conversely, temporary marginal rate cuts paid for with future marginal rate hikes imply 

more—not less—economic activity in the long run. With ε at 0.8, steady-state hours worked 

are about 0.4 percent below baseline. With the willingness to substitute leisure for goods and 

services consumption halved to 0.4, they are instead only 0.1 percent below base levels. 

Consistent with that muted drop in hours, the capital stock does not slip as far below baseline 

with the lower intratemporal elasticity, and the percentage point loss in steady-state GDP is 

therefore smaller. For example, GDP is almost 0.8 below baseline with ε at 0.8, but is only 

0.5 percent below baseline with ε halved to 0.4. 
 30

Increasing ε to 1 instead augments the effects of changes in marginal rates on hours worked 

and, hence, GDP (see Tables 2 and 7 and Figure 9). For example, the household’s steadystate hours worked climb about 0.4 percent above baseline in response to permanent marginal 

rate cuts under both delayed and contemporaneous cuts in government spending. An 

equivalently positive response from private saving pushes capital accumulation well over 1 

percent above base levels in steady state. As a result, long-run gains in GDP under both types 

of spending cuts are within a few percentage points of each other. 

On the other hand, the household’s labor supply and private saving respond more negatively if 

current tax cuts are paid for with future tax hikes. Hours worked and the capital stock are 

well below baseline in steady state, and the resulting percentage point loss in GDP is 

subsequently more than 20 percent greater than that reported for an ε of 0.8. 

Section 6: Conclusion 

Tax cuts can have distinctly different economic effects under different financing options, 

particularly in the long run. Cuts in effective marginal rates paired with less government 

spending lead to higher real activity—and taxable incomes—in steady state. In contrast, the 

same tax cuts paid for with higher future marginal rates generate lower economic activity and 

incomes in steady state. 
 31

Thus, if the government cuts both current taxes and future spending, GDP and taxable 

incomes rise in the long run. But if it cuts taxes now but raises marginal rates later to pay for 

those same cuts, GDP and taxable incomes fall in steady state. 

However, these conclusions are sensitive to the way the model characterizes the household’s 

preference for leisure, particularly relative to current personal consumption. A high 

intratemporal elasticity of substitution increases the household’s willingness to trade leisure 

for consumption, raising the labor supply response to a change in after-tax wages. In contrast, 

a low elasticity depresses the labor supply response and ultimately the supply-side impacts of 

tax cuts. Hence, even under the same option for financing changes in fiscal policy, different 

reasonable elasticity assumptions can dramatically alter the simulated effects of a tax cut on 

GDP. 
 32

Table 1. 

2004 Calibrated Model Parameters 

Firm’s Production Function 

Capital Share Parameter (α ) 0.34 Calculated from base dataa

Depreciation Rate (δ ) 0.03 Set equal b to 2004 K2004 I less t a 

Household’s Utility Function 

Coefficient of Relative Risk 

Aversion ( ) γ

2.00 Literature Searchc

 

Elasticity of Substitution between 

Ct and Lt ( ) ε 0.80 Literature Searchd

 

Consumption Share Parameter (ω ) 0.67 Calculated from base datae

 

Total Yearly Time Endowment, 

Hours ( )t endow per worker 2687 

Calibrated so that implied labor supply 

elasticities fall within an estimated 

range in steady statef

 

Rate of Time Preference ( ρ ) 0.06 Calculated from base datag

 

Note: 2004 I = 2004 gross investment, K2004 = 2004 stock of capital, and t a = exogenous 

steady-state growth rate. 

a. See equation (9a). 

b. See equation (9c). 

c. See Elmendorf (1996) and Gravelle (2003). 

d. See Auerbach and Kotlikoff (1987), Altig et al. (2001), and Auerbach (2002). 

e. See equation (9b). 

f. See CBO (1996), Table 2, p. 11. Empirical estimates put total wage labor-supply 

elasticities between 0 and 0.3 for all persons. 

g. See equation (9e′). 
 33

Table 2. 

Implied Labor Supply Elasticities under Alternative Values of the Intratemporal 

Elasticity 

Financing Options 2004 2006 2008 2012 2013 SS 

Lower Intratemporal Elasticity ( ) ε = 0.4

Cut Gt Contemporaneously -0.20 -0.20 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10

Raise tl τ and t k τ After 2014 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 

Cut Gt After 2014 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.20

Baseline Intratemporal Elasticity ( ) ε = 0.8

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Raise tl τ and t k τ After 2014 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 

Cut Gt After 2014 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 

Higher Intratemporal Elasticity ( ) ε = 1.0

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ After 2014 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 

Cut Gt After 2014 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 

Note: SS = steady state, Gt = government spending on goods and services, tl τ = marginal 

labor income tax rate, and t k τ = marginal capital income tax rate. 

The implied labor supply elasticity is the percent change in the labor supply divided 

by the percent change in the after-tax wage rate. 

In the base case, the intratemporal elasticity ( ) ε equals 0.8 (see Table 1). In the 

lower-intratemporal-elasticity case, ε is halved to 0.4; in the higher-intratemporalelasticity case, it is increased to 1.0. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 34

Table 3. 

Marginal Labor and Capital Income Tax Rates over the First 10 Years (in Percent)a

Current-Law Marginal 

Tax Ratesb

Marginal Tax Rates 

after Tax Cuts Percent Difference 

 Labor Capital Labor Capital Labor Capital 

2004 32.0 16.8 30.3 16.4 -5.3 -2.6 

2005 32.8 16.9 31.0 16.4 -5.4 -2.7 

2006 32.9 16.9 31.1 16.5 -5.4 -2.7 

2007 33.1 17.0 31.3 16.5 -5.6 -2.7 

2008 33.3 16.9 31.5 16.5 -5.6 -2.6 

2009 33.6 17.8 31.7 17.3 -5.5 -3.0 

2010 33.8 17.8 31.9 17.3 -5.5 -3.1 

2011 35.5 18.4 33.5 17.8 -5.7 -3.3 

2012 35.8 18.4 33.7 17.8 -5.8 -3.3 

2013 35.8 18.4 33.6 17.8 -6.1 -3.3 

a. Marginal income tax rates are permanently lower if the government finances tax cuts by 

reducing government spending. Marginal income tax rates increase after 2014 if the 

government instead finances tax cuts by raising future taxes. 

b. Under the Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), cuts in 

capital gains and dividend taxes expire in 2009. Under both JGTRRA and the Economic 

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), all other recent cuts in 

marginal rates on capital and labor income expire in 2011. 
 35

Table 4. 

Economic Effects of a 10-Percent Cut in Federal Personal Income Tax Rates: Base Case 

(in Percent) 

Financing Options 2004 2009 2014 2024 2044 SS 

GDPa

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.0 -0.50 -0.80

Cut Gt after 2014 0.5 0.4 0.2 -0.40 0.1 0.3 

Capital Stocka

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.1 

Raise tl τ and t k τ after 2014 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.8 -0.80 -1.50

Cut Gt after 2014 0.0 -0.20 -0.90 -1.40 0.4 0.8 

Hours Workeda

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.9 1.0 1.2 -0.40 -0.40 -0.40

Cut Gt after 2014 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 

Ratio of Debt to GDPb

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 31.50 36.70 42.70 50.10 50.10 50.10

Cut Gt after 2014 31.60 37.20 44.50 54.40 54.40 54.40

Note: SS = steady state, Gt = government spending on goods and services, tl τ = marginal 

labor income tax rate, and t k τ = marginal capital income tax rate. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 

a. Percentage changes from baseline in the indicated year. 

b. Level of debt to GDP in the indicated year. 
 36

Table 5. 

Economic Effects of a 10-Percent Cut in Federal Personal Income Tax Rates: Lower 

Intertemporal Elasticity (in Percent) 

Financing Options 2004 2009 2014 2024 2044 SS 

GDPa

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.1 -0.30 -0.80

Cut Gt after 2014 0.4 0.1 -0.30 -0.90 -0.10 0.2 

Capital Stocka

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.0 -0.10 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.1 

Raise tl τ and t k τ after 2014 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 -0.40 -1.60

Cut Gt after 2014 0.0 -0.70 -1.80 -2.70 -0.40 0.8 

Hours Workeda

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.9 1.0 1.1 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40

Cut Gt after 2014 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Ratio of Debt to GDPb

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 31.60 36.80 42.90 50.30 50.30 50.30

Cut Gt after 2014 31.60 37.60 45.50 56.30 56.30 56.30

Note: SS = steady state, Gt = government spending on goods and services, tl τ = marginal 

labor income tax rate, and t k τ = marginal capital income tax rate. 

The intertemporal elasticity is halved from 0.5 to 0.25, giving a coefficient of relative 

risk aversion (CRRA) of 4. This is the base value of the CRRA applied in Auerbach 

and Kotlikoff (1987). 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 

a. Percentage changes from baseline in the indicated year. 

b. Level of debt to GDP in the indicated year. 
 37

Table 6. 

Economic Effects of a 10-Percent Cut in Federal Personal Income Tax Rates: Lower 

Intratemporal Elasticity (in Percent) 

Financing Options 2004 2009 2014 2024 2044 SS 

GDPa

Cut Gt Contemporaneously -0.30 -0.30 -0.20 -0.20 -0.10 -0.10

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 -0.40 -0.50

Cut Gt after 2014 0.2 0.0 -0.30 -1.00 -0.60 -0.50

Capital Stocka

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.0 -0.20 -0.10 0.2 0.4 0.4 

Raise tl τ and t k τ after 2014 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.5 -0.80 -1.20

Cut Gt after 2014 0.0 -0.40 -1.30 -2.00 -0.30 0.1 

Hours Workeda

Cut Gt Contemporaneously -0.40 -0.40 -0.30 -0.30 -0.40 -0.40

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.5 0.6 0.6 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10

Cut Gt after 2014 0.3 0.2 0.1 -0.40 -0.70 -0.70

Ratio of Debt to GDPb

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 31.60 37.20 43.80 52.00 52.00 52.00

Cut Gt after 2014 31.70 37.80 45.80 56.80 56.80 56.80

Note: SS = steady state, Gt = government spending on goods and services, tl τ = marginal 

labor income tax rate, and t k τ = marginal capital income tax rate. 

The intratemporal elasticity is halved from 0.8 to 0.4. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 

a. Percentage changes from baseline in the indicated year. 

b. Level of debt to GDP in the indicated year. 
 38

Table 7. 

Economic Effects of a 10-Percent Cut in Federal Personal Income Tax Rates: Higher 

Intratemporal Elasticity (in Percent) 

Financing Options 2004 2009 2014 2024 2044 SS 

GDPa

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.1 -0.60 -0.90

Cut Gt after 2014 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.6 

Capital Stocka

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.2 

Raise tl τ and t k τ after 2014 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 -0.80 -1.70

Cut Gt after 2014 0.0 -0.10 -0.70 -1.00 0.7 1.2 

Hours Workeda

Cut Gt Contemporaneously 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 1.1 1.2 1.4 -0.30 -0.40 -0.50

Cut Gt after 2014 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 

Ratio of Debt to GDPb

Raise t

l τ and t k τ after 2014 31.50 36.50 42.10 49.10 49.10 49.10

Cut Gt after 2014 31.50 37.00 43.90 53.20 53.20 53.20

Note: SS = steady state, Gt = government spending on goods and services, tl τ = marginal 

labor income tax rate, and t k τ = marginal capital income tax rate. 

The intratemporal elasticity is increased from 0.8 to 1.0. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 

a. Percentage changes from baseline in the indicated year. 

b. Level of debt to GDP in the indicated year. 
 39

Figure 1A. 

Financing Tax Cuts with Reductions in Government Spending: Alternative Options 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

(Government Spending as a Percentage of GDP)

Cut Spending After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Note: The steady-state baseline ratio of government spending to GDP is about 12.8 percent. 

The baseline ratio of government spending to GDP falls below the roughly 20 percent 

implied by the original national income and product account (NIPA) data because 

government spending is adjusted to give a baseline consistent with a closed economy 

(see section 3). 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must cut spending in the 

future. 
 40

Figure 1B. 

Marginal Income Tax Rates under Alternative Financing Options 

Tax Rate on Labor Income 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104 -8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline Rates)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously or After 2014

Tax Rate on Capital Income 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104 -4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline Rates)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously or After 2014

Note: Marginal income tax rates are permanently lower after 2013 if the government 

finances tax cuts by reducing government spending. Marginal income tax rates 

increase from 2014 if the government instead finances tax cuts by raising future taxes. 
 41

Figure 2. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on GDP under Alternative Financing Options 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 42

Figure 3. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on Hours Worked under Alternative Financing Options 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 43

Figure 4. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on the Stock of Capital under Alternative Financing Options 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 44

Figure 5. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on Personal Consumption under Alternative Financing Options 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

-1.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 45

Figure 6A. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on GDP If the Government Raises Income Taxes after 2014: 

Alternative Values of the Intertemporal Elasticity 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Intertemporal Elasticity = 0.25

Intertemporal Elasticity = 0.5

Note: The intertemporal elasticity is halved from 0.5 to 0.25, giving a coefficient of relative 

risk aversion (CRRA) of 4. This is the base value of the CRRA applied in Auerbach 

and Kotlikoff (1987). 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. Here, the government temporarily pays for tax cuts with new borrowing. 

But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt accumulation to the rate of economic 

growth, it raises marginal income tax rates after 2014. 
 46

Figure 6B. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on GDP If the Government Cuts Spending after 2014: 

Alternative Values of the Intertemporal Elasticity 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

0.8

0.4

0.0

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Intertemporal Elasticity = 0.25

Intertemporal Elasticity = 0.5

Note: The intertemporal elasticity is halved from 0.5 to 0.25, giving a coefficient of relative 

risk aversion (CRRA) of 4. This is the base value of the CRRA applied in Auerbach 

and Kotlikoff (1987). 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. Here, the government temporarily pays for tax cuts with new borrowing. 

But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt accumulation to the rate of economic 

growth, it cuts government spending after 2014. 
 47

Figure 7. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on GDP under Alternative Financing Options: Lower 

Intratemporal Elasticity 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: The intratemporal elasticity is halved from 0.8 to 0.4. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 48

Figure 8. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on Hours Worked under Alternative Financing Options: Lower 

Intratemporal Elasticity 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: The intratemporal elasticity is halved from 0.8 to 0.4. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 49

Figure 9. 

The Effect of Tax Cuts on Hours Worked under Alternative Financing Options: Higher 

Intratemporal Elasticity 

2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

(Percentage Change from Baseline)

Raise Income Taxes After 2014

Cut Spending Contemporaneously

Cut Spending After 2014

Note: The intratemporal elasticity is increased from 0.8 to 1.0. 

Financing options determine the actions the government takes to pay for tax cuts in the 

long run. The government can contemporaneously match tax cuts with spending cuts; 

as a result, tax cuts require no new borrowing. Alternatively, it can temporarily pay 

for tax cuts with new borrowing. But to limit the long-run rate of public-debt 

accumulation to the rate of economic growth, the government must raise marginal 

income tax rates or cut spending after 2014. 
 50

References 

Abdelkhalek, Touhami and Jean-Marie Dufour. “Statistical Inference for Computable 

General Equilibrium Models, with Application to a Model of the Moroccan Economy.” 

Review of Economics and Statistics, 1998, Vol. 80 (4), pp. 520-534. 

Altig, David, Alan Auerbach, Laurence Kotlikoff, Kent Smetters, and Jan Walliser. 

“Simulating Fundamental Tax Reform in the United States.” American Economic Review, 

2001, Vol. 91 (3), pp. 574-595. 

Aschauer, David Alan. “Fiscal Policy and Aggregate Demand.” American Economic Review, 

March 1985, Vol. 75 (1), pp. 117-127. 

Auerbach, Alan. “The Bush Tax Cut and National Saving.” National Tax Journal, 

September 2002, Vol. 55 (3), pp. 387-407. 

Auerbach, Alan and Laurence Kotlikoff. Dynamic Fiscal Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 1987. 

Ballard, Charles L., Don Fullerton, John B. Shoven, and John Whalley. A General 

Equilibrium Model for Tax Policy Evaluation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 

1985. 

Barro, Robert J. “Output Effects of Government Purchases.” Journal of Political Economy, 

December 1981, Vol. 89 (6), pp. 1086-1121. 

Baxter, Marianne and Robert King. “Fiscal Policy in General Equilibrium.” American 

Economic Review, June 1993, Vol. 83 (3), pp. 315-334. 

Bernheim, B. Douglas, J. Karl Scholz, and John B. Shoven. “Consumption Taxes in a 

General Equilibrium Model: How Reliable Are Simulation Results?” National Saving 

and Economic Performance, B. Douglas Bernheim and John B. Shoven, eds. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 131-158. 

Bryant, R.C. and L. Zhang. “Alternative Specifications of Intertemporal Fiscal Policy in a 

Small Theoretical Model.” Brookings Working Paper, No. 124, 1996a. 

———. “Intertemporal Fiscal Policy in Macro-Economic Models: Introduction and Major 

Alternatives.” Brookings Working Paper, No. 123, 1996b. 

Campbell, John Y and N. Gregory Mankiw. “Consumption, Income, and Interest Rates: 

Reinterpreting the Time Series Evidence.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual: 1989, Olivier 

Jean Blanchard and Stanley Fisher, eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1989, pp. 185-

216. 
 51

Cardia, Emanuela, Norma Kozhaya, and Francisco J. Ruge-Murcia. “Distortionary Taxation 

and Labor Supply.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, June 2003, Vol. 35 (3), pp. 

351-373. 

Congressional Budget Office. “The Budget and Economic Outlook.” January 2003. 

———. “Labor Supply and Taxes.” January 1996. 

Devarajan, Shantayanan and Delfin S. Go. “The Simplest Dynamic General-Equilibrium 

Model of an Open Economy.” Journal of Policy Modeling, 1998, Vol. 20 (6), pp. 677-

714. 

Devuyst, Eric A. and Paul V. Preckel. “Sensitivity Analysis Revisited: A Quadrature-Based 

Approach.” Journal of Policy Modeling, 1997, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 175-185. 

Elmendorf, Douglas W. “The Effects of Interest-Rate Changes on Household Saving and 

Consumption: A Survey.” Federal Reserve Board Working Paper, June 1996. 

Goulder, Lawrence H. and Barry Eichengreen. “Saving Promotion, Investment Promotion, 

and International Competitiveness.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working 

Paper, No. 2635, June 1988. 

Goulder, Lawrence H. and Philippe Thalman. “Approaches to Efficient Capital Taxation: 

Leveling the Playing Field vs. Living by the Golden Rule.” Journal of Public Economics, 

1993, Vol. 50, pp. 169-196. 

Gravelle, Jane. “Issues in Dynamic Revenue Estimating.” CRS Report for Congress, 

Congressional Research Service, June 5, 2003. 

Hall, Robert E. “Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption.” Journal of Political Economy, 

1988, Vol. 96 (2), pp. 339-357. 

Ramsey, Frank P. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving.” Economic Journal, 1928, Vol. 38, 

pp. 543-559. 

Shoven, John B. and John Whalley. “Applied General Equilibrium Models of Taxation and 

International Trade.” Journal of Economic Literature, 1984, Vol. 22, pp. 1007-1051. 

———. Applying General Equilibrium. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 

1992. 

Zeldes, Stephen P. “Consumption and Liquidity Constraints: An Empirical Investigation.” 

Journal of Political Economy, April 1989, Vol. 97 (2), pp. 305-346.