HOME
ABOUT US
OUR ISSUES
Federal Budget
Appropriations / Spending
Budget Process
Federal Tax Policy
Estate Tax
Government Performance
Income/Wealth Inequality
Long Range Initiative
Archives
Charts
Economic Indicators
Information & Access
Nonprofit Advocacy
Regulatory Policy
PRESS ROOM
ACTION CENTER
PUBLICATIONS
THE WATCHER
OUR BLOGS
SIGN UP
Receive news, updates, and alerts!
DONATE
Help support our work
OTHER SITES
FedSpending.org
RTK NET
NPAction
Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
Citizens for Sensible Safeguards
Open the Government
Demanding a federal budget that is fair, responsible, and meets our nation's priorities
Friday, March 30, 2007
David Cay Johnston, writing in the New York Times about the latest available data from the IRS, says things are going well for a few Americans, but not as well for many, many more:
The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
The Bush administration is not so troubled, however, claiming:
...its tax policies, despite cuts that benefited those at the top more than others, had not added to the widening gap but "made the tax code more progressive, not less." Brookly McLaughlin, the chief Treasury Department spokeswoman...
Good point. Our (nominally) progressive tax code is designed to reduce these disparities in income. The Bush administration argues that the 2001-2003 tax cuts did exactly that. A closer look at the data, however, reveals that this simply isn't the case. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities dispatches that diversion in a report released this week:
In sum, [the] new study shows that the federal tax system has become much less progressive over the past several decades, and the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have continued this trend. Over much the same several decades, pre-tax income inequality has grown as well. Thus, during a period in which economic forces have been generating increased pre-tax inequality, changes in the tax system have exacerbated rather than mitigated the widening of the income gap.
So there you have it. Pre-tax income inequality is growing, and thanks to the Bush tax cuts, post-tax income inequality is growing.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Via Brad DeLong, this from income trend expert and Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez
The IRS has released yesterday the preliminary stats for year 2005 which I have used to extend my [and Thomas Piketty's] series [on the top income share by tax return unit] to 2005, posted at: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2005prel.xls 2005 shows a very large increase in income concentration: the top 1% gains 14% in real terms from 2004 while the bottom 99% gains less than 1% (when including capital gains). The [previous] record peak of 2000 is surpassed even though 2005 is less of a high capital gains, high stock option year than 2000. By 2005, it looks like top incomes are showing strongly along all components: wages, business income, dividends, and capital gains. The striking thing about 2003-2005 is the huge increase at the top with quasi-stagnation below the top 1%. In the late Clinton years, the top gained enormously but at least the bottom was also making progress...
The IRS has released yesterday the preliminary stats for year 2005 which I have used to extend my [and Thomas Piketty's] series [on the top income share by tax return unit] to 2005, posted at: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2005prel.xls
2005 shows a very large increase in income concentration: the top 1% gains 14% in real terms from 2004 while the bottom 99% gains less than 1% (when including capital gains). The [previous] record peak of 2000 is surpassed even though 2005 is less of a high capital gains, high stock option year than 2000. By 2005, it looks like top incomes are showing strongly along all components: wages, business income, dividends, and capital gains.
The striking thing about 2003-2005 is the huge increase at the top with quasi-stagnation below the top 1%. In the late Clinton years, the top gained enormously but at least the bottom was also making progress...
I downloaded the data and combined it with the Census Bureau's and put together this illustration. While the bottom 80% of income earners in the U.S. saw their shares of income decline, the top 0.01% saw their share quadruple.
Latest Entries by Theme
All Themes
Appropriations & Spending
Budget Projections
State Fiscal Policy
Watcher
Entitlements
Debt & Deficit
Oversight & Enforcement
Transparency
Privatization
Contact Us
Most Recent Entries for Federal Budget & Tax
Approps Update: Senate Back to Work
OMB Releases FY 2008 Earmarks Data
DPC Hearing on Iraq Contracting This Week
Monthly Budget Review: June, 2008
Congress to End White House Forest Conservation Program
Fiscal Policy Agenda Returns to Washington
Bush Signs War Supplemental
BudgetBlog on Hiatus for Holiday: Happy Fourth Everyone!
The Heat Must Be Getting to Them
GAO Report Finds Private Medicare Providers Prefer Profits Over Providing Better Service
Archived Entries for Income/Wealth Inequality
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
July, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
December, 2006
November, 2006
October, 2006
September, 2006
August, 2006
July, 2006
June, 2006
May, 2006
April, 2006
March, 2006
February, 2006
January, 2006
December, 2005
November, 2005
October, 2005
September, 2005
August, 2005
July, 2005
June, 2005
May, 2005
April, 2005
March, 2005
February, 2005
January, 2005
December, 2004
October, 2004
September, 2004
August, 2004
July, 2004
June, 2004
May, 2004
March, 2004
December, 2003
October, 2003
September, 2003
July, 2003