Trends in the Distribution of Household Income, 1979-2009


Published on

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income, 1979-2009

  1. 1. Congressional Budget Office August 6, 2012 Trends in The Distribution of Household Income, 1979–2009Presentation to the NBER Conference on Research in Income and Wealth Ed Harris, Principal Analyst Frank Sammartino, Assistant Director for Tax AnalysisThis presentation provides information published in Trends in the Distribution of HouseholdIncome Between 1979 and 2007 (October 25, 2011) and updated in The Distribution ofHousehold Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009 (July 10, 2012).See and
  2. 2. Uneven Growth in After-Tax Income ■ Households in the top 1 percent experienced very rapid growth in after-tax income over the 1979–2009 period – Peak to peak (1979-2007), their after-tax income grew by over 300 percent – Recent recession disproportionately affected highest income households in 2008 and 2009, causing their income to fall by over one-third • Capital gains fell by 75 percent between 2007 and 2009 • Other capital income also fell substantially – Some evidence exists of a rebound in 2010 for high-income households ■ Rest of the top quintile has also fared better than the lower four quintiles ■ After-tax income for the middle three quintiles grew by almost 40 percent over the 31 years, a little over 1 percent per year ■ Lowest income quintile tracked the middle three – Their income didn’t fall as much in 2008–2009 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  3. 3. Cumulative Growth in Average Income After Transfers andFederal Taxes, by Income Group Percentage Change in Income Since 1979, Adjusted for Inflation 350 300 Top 1 Percent 250 200 150 100 81st to 99th Percentiles 50 0 Middle Three Quintiles Lowest Quintile -50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  4. 4. Increasing Market Income Inequality Caused theIncreases in After-Tax Income Inequality ■ Market income inequality rose almost continually over the period – Some pauses around three most recent recessions – In the early years, change in inequality was driven by increased inequality within income sources, especially labor income – By the later years, a shift among sources of income had become a more important factor ■ Taxes and transfers did not offset increasing market income inequality – Peak to peak (1979–2007), the gap between market income inequality and after-tax income inequality changed little – In 2008 and 2009 the equalizing effect of the tax and transfer system grew, driven by cyclical and policy factors • Legislated increases in UI and SNAP benefits • 2008 stimulus payments, 2009 ARRA tax reductions CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  5. 5. Summary Measures of Income Inequality, With andWithout Transfers and Federal TaxesGini Index0.70.6 Market Income0.5 Market Income Plus Transfers0.4 Market Income Plus Transfers Minus Federal Taxes0.3 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  6. 6. Income Concentration, by Source Concentration Index 1 Capital Gains 0.9 Business 0.8 Income 0.7 0.6 Capital Income 0.5 Labor Income 0.4 0.3 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  7. 7. Shares of Market Income, by SourcePercent 90 80 Labor Income 70 60 50 40 30 Capital Gains Business Income 20 Capital Income 10 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  8. 8. Changing Progressivity of Transfers and Federal Taxes ■ Taxes and transfers both equalize the income distribution – Transfers provide bigger boosts to income at the bottom of the distribution, taxes claim a larger portion of household income as income rises – Amount of equalization depends on: • The size of the tax/transfer system relative to market income • The distribution of transfers and taxes across the income distribution ■ Transfers – Have fluctuated from 10 percent to 13 percent of market income in the 1979–2007 period, generally rising in recessions but falling in expansions – Jumped to 18 percent in 2009, as transfers rose and market income fell – Have steadily become less concentrated in the bottom of the income distribution ■ Taxes – As shares of before-tax income earned by the top income groups have grown, shares of taxes those households pay have grown even more rapidly – Overall average tax rates fell from 22.0 percent in 1979 to 19.9 percent in 2007 and to 17.4 percent in 2009 – Differences between before- and after-tax income inequality are little changed since the mid-1990s CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  9. 9. Share of Total Transfers, by Market Income Group Percent 60 50 Lowest Quintile 40 30 Second Quintile 20 Middle Quintile 10 Highest Quintile Fourth Quintile 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  10. 10. Federal Taxes as a Percentage of Household Income, byIncome Group Percent 40 Top 1 Percent 35 30 81st to 99th Percentiles 25 20 Middle Three Quintiles 15 10 Lowest Quintile 5 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  11. 11. Progressivity Measures: All Federal Taxes Percent 19 Difference Between Tax Concentration 16 Index and Before-Tax Gini 13 10 23 21 Average Tax Rate 19 5 17 4 Difference Between 3 Before-and After-Tax Gini 2 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  12. 12. Methodology Overview ■ Statistically combined data from a sample of income tax returns and household survey data – Statistics of Income (SOI) individual income tax file • Provides core income data used in the estimates – March Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS) • Provides transfers and other nontaxable income, income for people who do not file a tax return ■ Used a broader measure of income than AGI or money income, though not as broad as personal income ■ Adjusted income for household size by dividing by the square root of household size ■ Incidence of federal taxes – Individual income taxes borne by households that pay the tax – Employer’s and employee’s shares of payroll tax borne by employees – Corporate income tax allocated in proportion to income from capital (75%) and labor (25%) – Excise tax in proportion to consumption of goods subject to tax CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  13. 13. Statistical Match Procedure ■ Construct tax filing units from CPS families and subfamilies ■ Create demographic “partitions” – Based on marital status, age, number of dependents – Records are generally only matched within a partition ■ Estimate the variable to match on – In the SOI, regression of total income on all income items common to both files – Coefficients then applied to both files to create a predicted income score ■ Match the records – Records in each cell sorted in descending order by the predicted income values – Corresponding records from the SOI and the CPS are then matched – The record with the higher weight is “split” and matched with the next record in the other file – For each matched record, income from taxable sources comes from the SOI; transfer and other nontaxable income from the CPS – Once all SOI records are used, residual CPS records are considered to be nonfilers, and their income comes directly from the CPS ■ Reconstruct households from tax-filing units CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  14. 14. Income Definition Used for the CBO Study Market Income Transfers ■ Labor Income – Cash wages ■ Social Security – Employer’s contributions for health insurance ■ Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP – Employer’s payroll taxes – Share of the corporate income tax borne by ■ SNAP/Food Stamps workers ■ Unemployment insurance ■ Business Income ■ TANF/AFDC – Sole proprietorship, farm, partnership, ■ Everything else in CPS (SSI, housing, S corporation – Realized capital gains LIHEAP, etc.) ■ Capital income Federal Taxes – Taxable and tax-exempt interest – Dividends ■ Individual income (including refundable – Positive rental income credits) Share of corporate income tax borne by – owners of capital ■ Social insurance (payroll) ■ Corporate income ■ Other Income – Pension distributions ■ Excise CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  15. 15. Corresponding Income Measures in the National Incomeand Product Accounts Market Income ■ Personal income minus personal transfer receipts plus contributions for government social insurance Transfers ■ Government social benefits minus refundable tax credits Federal Taxes ■ Federal government current tax receipts plus contributions for government social insurance minus refundable tax credits CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
  16. 16. Income Measures Used in the Study as a Share ofCorresponding NIPA Income Measures Percent 100 Federal Taxes 90 Market Income 80 70 Transfers 60 50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE