Moody’s on economic stimulus package.

This was issued two days ago, so the information is about the effects of different types of stimulus, not an analysis of the plan that came out today.  Now unlike the Heritage Foundation, Moody’s reputation is built on their unbiased analysis.

While the President’s nonrefundable tax rebate would help the struggling economy, a refundable rebate would be substantially more helpful. In a refundable tax rebate—favored by most Democrats—all households would receive the same size check regardless of how much they owe in income taxes. For example, at a cost of $100 billion, every U.S. household could receive a $900 check. The extra boost would come via the spending of households with very low incomes, who wouldn’t receive a nonrefundable rebate since they typically don’t owe income taxes. Moreover, higher income households that are more likely to save their rebate checks would receive less under a refundable plan.

So in their analysis, providing support to those who don’t pay federal income tax is a better stimulus if you provide rebates.  Now on to the key component in the eyes of the Heritage Foundation, the bonus deprecation, here is Moody’s take,

The economic bang-for-the-buck of bonus depreciation is very modest (see table).[7] Indeed, of all the tax and spending policies considered, it provides the least amount of stimulus. Such incentives offer a limited boost because many businesses have difficulty quickly adjusting long-planned capital budgets. Moreover, most investment is made by businesses with no tax liability in the first place. Investment incentives also complicate matters for financially pressed state governments that base their business taxes on federal tax law.

Ouch, that has got to hurt.

Unfortunately the plan that was worked out today did not include an extension of unemployment insurance or increase in food stamp funding.  This is very unfortunate as Moody’s, along with Joseph Stiglitz as reported yesterday, have said this is the best investment,

Extending unemployment insurance and expanding food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump. A $1 increase in UI benefits generates an estimated $1.64 in near-term GDP; increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73 (see table). People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.

The benefit of extending unemployment insurance goes beyond simply providing financial aid for the jobless, to more broadly shoring up household confidence. Nothing is more psychologically debilitating, even to those still employed, than watching unemployed friends and relatives lose benefits.

On the topic of permanent tax cuts for the investor class, Moody’s doesn’t think that is particularly effective,

Making permanent the current dividend income and capital gain tax rates would also be poor economic stimulus. The current 15% tax rate that most investors currently pay is set to soon expire and tax rates will jump. There is an argument that making them permanent would create some certainty for investors, who are currently uncertain about prospects for the stock and bond markets. But whatever the longer-term benefits, the near-term economic boost would be small. The problems plaguing financial markets are broad and deep and unlikely to be measurably affected by such a policy change. Moreover, even assuming with the most favorable financial markets, the stimulus potential of such a move is small; each $1 in net cost to the Treasury produces only 37 cents worth of GDP, according to our model.

Here is their very nice table that is referenced.

Economic Stimulus

Their data makes government spending look a lot more effective than tax cuts.  You can see that even with the tax cuts, those that are most effective are those that target low income, rebates for those don’t pay federal income taxes or payroll tax holiday.



  1. Mary Treacy said,

    January 25, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Thanks for your great work on this blog. Would you be interesting in receiving MnCOGI information — If so I have information about Sunshine Week, Freedom of Information Day and a March day-long conference titled “Afloat on the wireless pond.” This last is a Sesquicentennial event – an interesting mix of folks. Let me know if you want more info on any of these projects. MT

  2. endtheecho said,

    January 25, 2008 at 7:45 pm


    That would be great.

  3. October 11, 2008 at 7:08 am

    […] have to wait until after the election, but I hope people will keep in mind these Moody’s bang for the buck […]

  4. October 13, 2008 at 10:35 am

    […] an excellent study of what ‘stimulus’ effect one can expect from various different policy options. Source Attached Images   __________________ Visit my forum at: […]

  5. October 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    […] Yglesias and Klein note this handy chart from Moody’s that illustrates exactly what return you can expect on a stimulus investment in a variety of […]

  6. November 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    […] o rebajar el impuesto de capitales es, como estímulo fiscal, un poco patético. A corto plazo, no añade crecimiento apenas; se está dando más dinero a un segmento de la población que no lo va a gastar de inmediato. Las […]

  7. January 30, 2009 at 11:58 am

    some how this information needs to get to the general public.

    Because there are why to many Republican speaking heads on the news shows going around talking about how spending isn’t the thing to do and people are believing them

  8. Rachel Maddow fan said,

    February 7, 2009 at 9:04 am

    This information was just featured on the 2/6/2009 Rachel Maddow Show. Hopefully, it will continue to filter out. I had no idea about the potential effectiveness of different kinds of tax cuts and/or spending to stimulate the economy and this was a real eye-opener. Extremely well presented, by Rachel, too.

  9. Dwight Pazos said,

    February 21, 2013 at 10:00 am

    Critical to any society is maintaining good health care for all. Imagine a society where illness is rampant. The cost to government for negligently ignoring the sick, dying and those who will become ill due to lack of proper health care will necessarily be borne by taxpayers in one form or another. Originally, health care was provided in the US by employers because many workplace environments were dangerous. Employers worried about lawsuits from improper adherence to worker safety. :

    Most up-to-date article straight from our web blog

  10. cara diet said,

    June 15, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    No matter if some one searches for his essential thing, so he/she wants to
    be available that in detail, so that thing is maintained over here.

Leave a Reply to cara diet Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: