I don't know if you want a mathematical analysis of macroeconomics or just a statement. If it is the former, I am afraid I can write a paper. My understanding is that if the tax law is amended for the sake of economy, the consumption tax or turnover tax must be raised unilaterally, so that it is possible to encourage economy if things are not easy to sell. Y=C+S, there is a complementary relationship between savings and consumption in income, with high savings and low consumption; Troika of economic development: investment, consumption and export. Every place has to look at which one is missing according to its own actual situation. For example, China invests almost as much, but exports too much and consumes too little. Encouraging savings is not conducive to economic development; More abstractly speaking, if consumption is less, producers will not be able to realize the thrilling leap of commodities mentioned by Marx, realize value through exchange and expand reproduction, and everyone will be finished; Moreover, tax itself is a very complicated thing, which may be seriously counterproductive after being modified by interference such as transfer payment.

In addition, after reading the comments downstairs, it is said that putting money in the bank is dead money. From a micro point of view, yes, but from a macro point of view, no. Banks will use it in the form of investment, and money will still go out in the form of loans, which is also a very necessary way to go out; It just compares the respective proportions of consumption and export. Many times, the result of economic contraction that is many times more serious than inflation is just "insufficient consumption" caused by "lack of confidence".

Economics has been put on hold for too long, and the answers are confusing, for reference only.