Posts tagged with: Income distribution

fairshare-taxesDuring her presidential campaign, Sec. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said she’d implement a tax system in which the wealthy “pay their fair share in taxes.” Expecting the rich to pay what is “fair” is not asking to much of them. But one question that is rarely considered is, “What if they already do pay their fair share?”

Before we can determine whether the rich pay enough we have to first ask what would be “fair.” How much of total tax revenues should, say, the top one percent of households pay? Five percent? 10 percent? 20 percent?

According to new IRS statistics from 2014 tax returns, the top one percent of households paid almost 40 percent of all income taxes collected by the federal government.

In 2014, 139,562,034 filed an income tax return, putting just under 1.4 million people into the category of “one percenters.” They earned 20.58 percent of all income and paid 39.48 percent of the taxes. The average adjusted gross income (AGI) for the group was $465,626 (the “poorest” people in the group had an AGI of $257,110).

This chart by the Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin highlights that the top 25 percent (avg. AGI: $77, 714) paid nearly 86.78 percent of all income taxes.
(more…)

Every year, the U.S. Census comes out with its report on incomes and poverty. And every year the same finding repeatedly surprises me.

As economist David Henderson says, the report “always shows that there is mobility between income categories, even in the short run, and that poverty is temporary for most people in America who experience it. Virtually all reporters ignore it.”

First, the bad news. The report reveals that during the 4-year period from 2009 to 2012, more than one out of three Americans (34.5 percent) had at least one spell of poverty lasting 2 or more months.

But the good news is that few people stayed in poverty all four years. Chronic poverty from 2009 to 2012 was relatively uncommon, with 2.7 percent of the population living in poverty all 48 months.
(more…)

Blog author: jcarter
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
By

7figuresYesterday the U.S. Census Bureau released its latest report on income and poverty in the United States. Here are seven figures from the report you should know about:

1. Real median household income increased 5.2 percent between 2014 and 2015—from $53,700 to $56,500. (This is the first annual increase in median household income since 2007.)

2. In 2015 the median income of a married-couple household was $84,626. For a female head of household (no husband present) the median income was $37,797. For a male head of household (no wife present) the median income was $55,861.

3. The official poverty rate decreased by 1.2 percentage points between 2014 and 2015. The number of people in poverty fell by 3.5 million between 2014 and 2015.
(more…)

Leighblackall-76202405Andrew Biggs of AEI has a piece up today at Forbes addressing the gender pay gap and provides a neat solution: “forbid women from staying at home with their children.” As Biggs points out, such a policy would address perhaps the greatest root cause of gender pay inequality: varied work experience attributable to choices women make. “Most mothers who stay at home or work only part-time are doing what they wish to do and what they view as best for their kids,” writes Biggs. This results in gaps in pay when those women re-enter the work force or increase their labor participation.

Biggs’ proposal to “make staying at home with kids illegal, just like child labor is illegal” would have another benefit favored by many: it would be a boon to GDP. As I point out in a review essay in the latest issue of Christian Scholar’s Review, the work that stay-at-home parents do is not counted toward GDP. When those parents pay someone to take care of their children as part of a business transaction, however, as in the case of day care centers, then that exchange does count towards GDP.

My piece, “Affluence Agonistes–A Review Essay,” takes a look at the book The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus, in addition to a couple of other recent publications. The CSR essay expands upon a review of the Grudem/Asmus book I wrote for Public Discourse, “Life to the Full: The Dangers of Material Wealth and Spiritual Poverty.” As Grudem and Asmus put it simply, to combat poverty “the goal must be to increase a nation’s GDP.”

So not only are stay-at-home moms a major source of wage inequality, they are also “a drag on GDP.” As one press report put it, “With female participation stagnating, potential growth isn’t rising as quickly.”

Biggs’ proposal to ban stay-at-home mothers should logically be embraced by both anti-gender inequality progressives as well as GDP growth fundamentalists. As I argue in the essay, “If a nation were to pursue GDP growth as its highest goal, it would probably institute policies and incentives to induce women to work outside the home and professionalize child care. GDP incentivizes specialization and the division of labor, since such transactions are the only things taken into account.”

But the Grove City College economist Shawn Ritenour rightly concludes, “We ought not give into the temptation that all of human welfare is encapsulated in GDP.” Another way of putting it is that men, women, and children do not “live on GDP per capita alone.”

Update: For those readers who might not bother to read Biggs’ piece, he does not (and neither do I, for that matter) actually advocate for this policy.

outofworkIn almost every long-term clash over a cultural or political policy, there comes a point that I’d call the “comfort-level concession.” If the agenda of one side has been won — or has at least moved sufficiently toward achieving victory — the winning side often feels comfortable making concessions about claims that they may have previously denied.

Initially, they will firmly state, “The claims of our opponents are overblown; the detrimental effect they predict will never happen.” Once they’ve won the public over to their side, though, they become comfortable enough to admit the truth: “Well, maybe our critics were about the detrimental effect. But so what?”

This is where we are in the debate over a $15 minimum wage. For years, critics of wage floors have complained that raising the minimum wage to that level would increase unemployment. And for years supporters of the minimum wage claimed that wouldn’t happen. However, now that the $15 wage has been approved in two of the largest states in the union — California and New York — the advocates are willing to admit, “Yeah, it will lead to increased unemployment. But so what?”

If you think I’m exaggerating, consider a recent headline at the Washington Post: “The $15 minimum wage sweeping the nation might kill jobs — and that’s okay

In the article Lydia DePillis notes the very shift in response I outlined. Step #1: Critics complain about the detrimental impact, and are assured it will not happen:
(more…)

Why do some countries grow richer faster than others? How can we explain wealth disparities between countries? The answer: Growth rates.

Economist Alex Tabarrok explains how even small changes to growth rates can have a big effect on the economy of a country—and on the flourishing of its citizens.

the-new-york-times-website-is-back-after-two-hour-outageWhile it may be difficult to imagine, there was once an era when the New York Times was concerned about the poor.

Consider, for example, a 1987 editorial they ran with the headline, “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.” As the editors noted at the time,

[Raising the minimum wage] would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.

If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the minority who became unemployable. The argument isn’t convincing. Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs. Indeed, President Reagan has proposed a lower minimum wage just to improve their chances of finding work.

Back then the federal minimum wage was $3.35 ($7 in 2015 dollars) and the editors of the Times had a basic understanding of economics. Today, their editorial board is apparently comprised solely of those completely ignorant about economics, for they published an editorial last week calling for wage to be raised to $15 a hour.

Their reasoning? No real justification is given other than that the government must do something. In their conclusion they write:
(more…)