Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? - Jonathan Smith

Translator: Fatiya Azizah Reviewer: Reno Kanti Riananda

When President Ronald Reagan began his first term in 1981,

Ketika Presiden Ronald Reagan diangkat pada tahun 1981,

the US economy was struggling.

ekonomi Amerika Serikat sedang kacau.

Unemployment rates were high and getting higher,

Tingkat pengangguran tinggi dan terus naik.

and in 1979, inflation had peaked at an all-time high for peacetime.

Tahun 1979, inflasi mencapai rekor tertinggi dalam sejarah.

In an effort to combat these issues,

Untuk menangani ini,

Reagan's administration introduced a number of economic policies,

Kabinet Reagan membuat beberapa aturan ekonomi,

including tax cuts for large corporations and high-income earners.

termasuk potongan pajak untuk perusahaan dan konglomerat.

The idea was that tax savings for the rich

Harapannya, penghematan pajak dari golongan berada

would cause extra money to trickle down to everyone else,

dapat dialirkan ke orang lain.

and for that reason,

Itulah alasannya

these policies are often referred to as trickle-down economics.

peraturan ini sering disebut dengan ekonomi trickle-down.

From the 80s to the late 90s,

Dari tahun 80-an sampai akhir 90-an,

the US saw one of its longest and strongest periods

Amerika Serikat menyaksikan perkembangan ekonomi

of economic growth in history.

terkokoh dan terlama dalam sejarah.

Median income rose, as did rates of job creation.

Rata-rata pendapatan naik, begitu juga rata-rata lapangan pekerjaan.

Since then, many politicians have invoked trickle-down theory

Sejak saat itu, banyak politisi mengutip teori trickle-down

as a justification for tax cuts—

untuk membenarkan pemotongan pajak—

but did these policies actually work,

tetapi apakah peraturan ini benar-benar bekerja,

either in the sense of stimulating economic growth,

baik dalam konteks menstimulasi perkembangan ekonomi,

or in terms of improving circumstances for Americans?

maupun memperbaiki keadaan masyarakat Amerika?

Would they work in other circumstances?

Apakah teori ini relevan di keadaan lain?

To answer these questions,

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini,

the main things to consider are whether the impact of the tax cut

pertimbangan utamanya adalah apakah pengaruh pemotongan pajak

on the government’s tax revenue is harmful,

membahayakan pendapatan pajak pemerintah,

whether the money saved in taxes actually stimulates the economy,

apakah penghematan uang pajak benar-benar mendorong perkembangan ekonomi,

and whether stimulating the economy actually improves people’s lives.

dan apakah stimulasi ekonomi benar-benar memperbaiki kehidupan masyarakat.

The idea behind tax cuts is that if taxes are too high,

Gagasan di balik potongan pajak adalah jika pajak terlalu tinggi

people will be less willing to work,

masyarakat tidak ingin bekerja,

which would ultimately decrease tax revenue.

menyebabkan penerimaan pajak berkurang.

So at a lower tax rate, the government might actually gain more tax money

Dengan pajak rendah, pemerintah akan mendapat lebih banyak pajak

that it can theoretically put towards improving life for its citizens,

yang secara teoritis dapat mengembangkan hidup masyarakat,

because people will work more when they get to keep more of their earnings.

karena orang bekerja untuk mendapatkan banyak gaji.

Of course, there’s a limit to how much the government can cut taxes:

Tentu, ada batas pemotongan pajak oleh pemerintah:

at a zero tax rate there is no tax revenue regardless of how much people are working.

saat tarif pajak nol, tidak ada pemungutan pajak.

So while cuts from a very high tax rate might be fine,

Potongan pajak pada tingkat pajak tinggi mungkin baik-baik saja,

cuts from a lower tax rate might be counterproductive,

tetapi potongan pada tingkat pajak rendah akan kontra produktif,

hampering the government's ability to accomplish crucial things.

menghambat kemampuan pemerintah menyelesaikan hal-hal penting.

Tax rates were extremely high when Reagan took office.

Di masa jabatan Reagan, pajak sangat tinggi.

His administration cut the highest income tax bracket from 70% to 28%

Kabinet memotong penghasilan kena pajak dari 70% ke 28%

and corporation tax from 48% to 34%.

dan pajak penghasilan dari 48% ke 34%.

By comparison, as of early 2021,

Sebagai perbandingan, di awal 2021,

those rates were 37% and 21% respectively.

tarif masing-masing adalah 37% dan 21%.

When tax rates are lower, tax cuts for the wealthy can be harmful.

Saat tarif pajak rendah, potongan pajak untuk golongan berada bisa berbahaya.

For example, in 2012 to 2013,

Contohnya, di tahun 2012 hingga 2013,

lawmakers cut the top tax-rate in the state of Kansas by almost 30%

parlemen memotong tagihan pajak di Kansas sebanyak 30%

and reduced some business tax rates to zero.

dan mengurangi tingkat pajak perusahaan hingga nol.

As a result, the government’s balance sheet immediately fell

Hasilnya, neraca pemerintah rugi besar,

into negative territory and did not recover,

dan tidak bisa diperbaiki,

implying that wealthy individuals and companies did not invest

menandakan individu dan perusahaan kaya tidak menginvestasikan kembali

back into the economy.

penghematan tersebut.

In short, the money did not trickle down.

Singkatnya, uang tidak mengalir.

This appears to be a trend:

Kejadian ini terulang:

in a study over multiple periods of history and across 18 countries,

dalam penelitian tentang periode sejarah di 18 negara berbeda,

The London School of Economics found that cutting taxes

The London School of Economics menulis bahwa memotong pajak

increased the wealth of the top 1% of people,

meningkatkan kekayaan 1% elit global,

but had little effect on the economy as a whole.

tetapi tidak berpengaruh pada keseluruhan ekonomi.

In order for tax cuts for the rich to truly stimulate the economy,

Supaya pemotongan pajak bisa meningkatkan ekonomi,

they would have to spend the saved money

penghematan pajak harus digunakan

putting it back into, for example, local businesses—

dan diinvestasikan kembali, misalnya ke bisnis lokal—

but this isn’t what happens in practice.

tetapi bukan ini yang terjadi di lapangan.

No economic policy operates in isolation:

Semua kebijakan ekonomi berbeda:

each time and place is unique with multiple policies in place simultaneously,

setiap waktu dan tempat berbeda dengan kebijakan yang berkembang,

so there is only ever one test case for each set of scenarios.

jadi hanya ada satu uji kasus untuk tiap skenario kejadian.

This makes it difficult to deliver definitive rulings on whether

Sulit untuk menentukan aturan pasti

an economic policy worked,

antara satu kebijakan ekonomi

whether something else might have worked better,

dan kebijakan lainnya yang bisa digunakan,

or whether it would work in a different situation.

atau situasi tertentu juga berpengaruh.

And yet, rhetoric around trickle-down economics,

Namun, topik mengenai teori trickle-down,

both during the Reagan era and since,

pada era Reagan maupun setelahnya,

often promises something definitive:

menjanjikan sesuatu yang pasti:

that spending by society’s richest members on things other than taxes

pengeluaran kaum kaya raya selain pajak

directly improves the financial circumstances of the less wealthy.

dapat berpengaruh secara langsung kepada kehidupan masyarakat miskin.

And there’s not much evidence to support that.

Namun, tak ada cukup bukti untuk mendukung tentang hal itu.