The Purple Tax Plan

from the Kotlikoff for President website

sponsored by aGREATER.US • Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Tax Reform
secondary topics:

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
83%
BIPARTISAN RATING

The Purple Tax Plan is a simple, transparent, efficient, and progressive tax system. It will help the economy save, grow, produce jobs, and deliver higher wages. The Purple Tax Plan replaces the federal personal and corporate income taxes as well as the estate and gift tax with a broad-based, low-rate, progressive consumption tax and a low-rate, progressive inheritance tax. It also makes the highly regressive FICA payroll tax highly progressive and runs the highly progressive Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credits through the FICA tax. The plan eliminates the need for households and business to file annual income tax returns.

In considering the Purple Tax Plan, please bear in mind that we can have a highly progressive tax system without high marginal tax rates. The Purple Tax Plan features lower marginal tax rates than the current system, yet achieves a much more progressive distribution of tax burdens. It should also generate substantially more revenue. This is due not to "trickle down" or the Purple Tax Plan's very likely strongly positive growth effects, but simply the fact that consumption is a very broad tax base.

We certainly need more revenue. Based on the Congressional Budget Office's long-term forecast of June 22, 2011, our nation's fiscal gap - the difference measured in the present (the present value) of all future projected spending, including servicing the existing debt, and all future taxes is $211 trillion! The fiscal gap represents, in effect, the nation's credit card bill. Unfortunately, we're not even paying interest on this liability, which helps explain its $6 trillion growth over the past year. The Purple Tax Plan would shave roughly $36 trillion off our fiscal gap.

Many people view consumption taxation, imposed as a fixed-rate retail sales tax, as regressive and the taxation of wealth, in addition to wages, at a fixed rate as progressive. Since doing one is mathematically and functionally equivalent to doing the other, both views can't be correct. In fact, both are wrong.

Taxing consumption or, equivalently, the resources used to pay for consumption at a fixed rate is neither progressive nor regressive, but proportional. I.e., if you double economic resources (current wealth plus current and future wages), you double the consumption that those resources will finance, when both quantities are properly measured as present values. Hence, with a fixed consumption tax rate, doubling economic resources will double consumption and double the associated taxes. This is why economist say a consumption tax is proportional.

To make the Purple Tax Plan's consumption tax truly progressive, the plan includes a monthly payment (demogrant), which ensures that those living at or below the poverty line pay no tax, on net, on their consumption.

[Edited for length]

Sincerely yours,
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics, Boston University

http://www.kotlikoff2012.org


 


http://thepurpletaxplan.org

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/what-999-means-for-rich-and-poor-10192011-gfx.html

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here