FORTUNE -- You may think you've been hearing a lot about income inequality lately, but just you wait. The November elections aren't going to be fun for Democrats, and the bad hand that the middle and working classes has been dealt is one of the few topics where Congressional Democrats will have an advantage with voters.
The problem for these politicians is that it isn't exactly clear how government power can address inequality, at least in a way that's politically palatable. Income taxes on the wealthy have already gone up significantly since the beginning of President Barack Obama's first term, while increasing entitlement benefits is dangerous given the already unsustainable path those programs are on.
So what's a left-leaning politician to do? Institute a national sales tax, argues Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, a professor of law at the University of Michigan. In a new paper, he lays out a case for taking action on inequality, providing this illuminating chart, which shows the differences in income inequality levels among several of the leading economies since World War Two:
As you can see, the U.S. has seen a rise in income inequality, as measured by the Gini Coefficient, and ranks as one of the most unequal developed economies. What separates the U.S., with its high levels of inequality, from countries like Germany and Japan, which are more egalitarian? Well, one thing is a national sales tax, otherwise known as a value added tax. This is a bit counterintuitive since sales taxes are thought to hit the less affluent harder than income taxes. That's because sales tax rates are the same regardless of your income, and low-income earners spend more of their total income than the wealthy on sales taxable purchases.
But Avi-Yonah argues that what's done with those sales tax receipts is more important. If we use a sales tax to bolster the social safety net -- programs like Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, and Medicaid -- then even a regressive tax could work to reduce income inequality. Stronger social security will help the baby boomer generation, which has lived through an era in which private companies have abandoned guaranteed pension schemes yet members of this generation have not saved for retirement by other means. Other programs will help those on the lower end of the income spectrum, who have been left behind amid a rapid transformation of the U.S. economy and the disappearance of medium-skill, middle-class jobs. In fact, such measures may be necessary to maintain social cohesion and an open economy, Avi-Yonah writes:
Strengthening the social safety net is important to sustaining growth. Open economies tend to have stronger safety nets, because the gains from having an open economy tend to impose risk on the people who lose from globalization, so that a strong safety net is in a democracy a precondition to obtaining widespread political support for openness, which in turn produces growth.
Why use a national sales tax, rather than a progressive income tax, to finance an expansion of the welfare state? First of all, it's easier to avoid income taxes than it is to avoid sales taxes. Wealthy Americans have all sorts of ways of sheltering their income, and such deductions make financing government spending difficult. Second, sales taxes are paid by all segments of society -- working and nonworking people alike -- giving it a broad financial base. Meanwhile, the current system for financing the safety net requires taxing young and productive workers to help older and unproductive workers, which Avi-Yonah argues is fundamentally unstable. Third, a sales tax is much cheaper to administer than income taxes.
The only catch, of course, is that enacting a new tax isn't exactly popular. But Avi-Yonah believes the example of countries like Australia makes him hopeful that it's possible to build this system in the U.S. "Good politicians like John Howard of Australia have managed to build a broad legislative coalition to enact a VAT even after promising not to do so, and win reelection decisively."
Then again, John Howard didn't have a Tea Party to deal with.
Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly noted that Reuven S. Avi-Yonah is a professor at Michigan State University. Avi-Yonah is a professor at the University of Michigan.
Conventional wisdom says to hold out on Social Security benefits until you're 70 and can maximize your payout. That's not always the best case.
By Jean Chatzky
FORTUNE -- Would you leave $180,000 on the table? How about $323,000? No, I'm not smoking anything. And I'm not kidding either. Those are the average amounts forsaken by singles and couples respectively who take Social Security at age 62 rather than waiting (until age 70 MOREJan 14, 2014 10:12 AM ET
As 2013 draws to a close, it's time to tie up a few loose ends and put a ribbon on this year's top stories.
FORTUNE -- Different people mark the end of the year in different ways. One of my traditions is reviewing my work for the year, owning up to mistakes that I haven't already corrected, and following up on some of what I've written. It's not as much fun MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 23, 2013 5:00 AM ET
If you wait until 70 to collect and live to your mid-eighties, you win big. But who says you'll make it that far?
FORTUNE -- Year-end festivities are approaching, with Hanukkah lights nearing their peak, Christmas lights going up, and the New Year's celebration almost upon us. So what better time than the season of light is there to talk about ... mortality?
No, I'm not raising this gloomy topic just to be MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 4, 2013 5:00 AM ET
A plan that could stiff Social Security recipients to pay down U.S. debt isn't just stupid. It's downright Madoffian.
FORTUNE -- Do you think it would be a good idea for the federal government to act like Bernie Madoff? To take money from people for decades, only to say, "Sorry, I'm out of cash," when it comes time to pay them what they're owed?
It's hard to imagine anyone who would think MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Sep 27, 2013 5:00 AM ET
If it's fair to limit taxpayers' expense for retirement money being set aside by "the rich," it's vastly more fair to limit taxpayers' expense for Obama's own package.
FORTUNE -- It's a lot of fun to be able to make what you think are clear, simple points about the difference between what people in power propose for the likes of you and me, and what they get for themselves.
But every once MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 10, 2013 5:00 AM ET
It seemed like a great idea at the time: sweeping tax cuts that would never go away because of an endless economic boom. The day of reckoning has come.
FORTUNE -- What seems brilliant today can come back to bite you in the butt tomorrow when the world changes. That's my major takeaway from the fiscal cliff soap opera.
It's a lesson that Republican tax-cutting zealots are now learning, painfully, as their MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 21, 2012 5:00 AM ET
If we're going to cut benefits -- which is likely inevitable -- let's be careful to mitigate the impact on the less fortunate.
FORTUNE -- Well, there's at least one virtue to the depressing numbers that Social Security's trustees unveiled last week -- they prove that I was right in February when I wrote that the system's finances had deteriorated badly thanks largely to the energy price boosts created by Arab MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Apr 27, 2012 1:00 PM ET
It's an old trope: Tap the nation's wealthy to help the less fortunate in their autumn years. Too bad they're already tapped out.
FORTUNE -- It's almost time for one of Washington's rites of spring: the arrival of the new Social Security trustees' report. The report, which is usually issued in April, will show Social Security's finances deteriorating because of a higher-than-projected inflation adjustment for 2012. This is likely to touch MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 29, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Inflationary fallout from the Arab Spring pushed up payouts to Social Security beneficiaries, leaving an already troubled system in even worse financial shape.
FORTUNE -- Washington was consumed for months by the debate of how to "pay" for this year's Social Security tax holiday, which cut the tax employees pay to 4.2% of their covered wages from the normal 6.2%.
But unnoticed amid the debate, Social Security's finances have deteriorated badly over MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 23, 2012 9:19 AM ET
|Regulators pave way for Internet "fast lane" with net neutrality rules|
|What stumps Warren Buffett? Minimum wage|
|Facebook profit triples on mobile growth|
|Analysts offer no apologies for missing Apple's Q2 2014 earnings beat|
|Apple shares soar on increased buyback|