saez-UStopincomes-2008.pdf (application/pdf Object).
Just a few days ago, I posted some comments about the 2007 data on income concentration. Now I see that Emmanuel Saez, of UC-Berkeley, has updated the spreadsheets to account for the 2008 data, and written a 9-page summary, titled "Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2008 estimates)"
Here are some highlights, drawn mostly from my exploration of the spreadsheets (available at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2008.xls):
"Capital," as distinct from "land" and "labor," does not appreciate. What rises in value is land and scarce or finite natural resources. And those ought to be treated as our common treasure rather than subject to privatization by anyone who claims title. Secure title is vital, but it must be subject to the prior and rightful claims of the entire community, satisfied by compensating the community for the value taken.
We'd be far better off it we placed our tax burden onto value which is rightly common treasure, value which can't be hidden or moved off-shore, or otherwise spirited away: that which the classical economists recognized as land -- the value of urban and other well-located, well-served land, of natural resources, and the myriad other things of similar characteristics. (See "land includes" in the tag list at left.)
I'll reprise the table in the prior post below, and add to it the corresponding 2008 data. Aggregate income excluding capital gains rose slightly (far less than has been the pattern in recent years), while capital gains dropped by 48%, to 6% of other income. Not surprisingly, the effect is most pronounced in the top 1%, and particularly the top .01%:
Just a few days ago, I posted some comments about the 2007 data on income concentration. Now I see that Emmanuel Saez, of UC-Berkeley, has updated the spreadsheets to account for the 2008 data, and written a 9-page summary, titled "Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Updated with 2008 estimates)"
Here are some highlights, drawn mostly from my exploration of the spreadsheets (available at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2008.xls):
- while the number of households has risen, the number of tax returns has fallen slightly -- about half a million. Something similar happened in 2002. [Table A0]
- Average income (excluding capital gains) per taxpayer fell from $54,080 in 2007 to $51,255
- Average income including capital gains fell from $60,285 to $54,315.
- Capital gains represented 6.0% of income other than capital gains in 2008, down from 11.5% in 2007and 10.6% in 2006 [Table A0]
- Looking at income excluding capital gains:
- The top 10% showed a slight increase in share of income from 45.61% to 45.60%. This represents a new high.
- Within that top 10%, something new occurred: The share of the 90th to 95th percentiles hit a new high, and the share of the next 4% (95th to 99th) came close to a high. The next.9% rose slightly. The shares of the top .01% and next .04% fell somewhat, bringing their shares back to levels of 2005. [Table A1]
- Looking at income including capital gains:
- The top 10% shows a slight descrease in share of income, from 49.74% to 48.23%. This is the lowest percentage since 2004, but higher than any year before 2004.
- The shares accruing to the 90th to 95th and 95th to 99th percentiles rose significantly. The shares accruing to the top 1% came down somewhat, particularly in the top .1%. The top .01%shows the largest drop, from 6.24% to 5.37% of total income. [Table A3]
- Capital gains represent a significant share of the income at the very top of the income spectrum.
- In 2007, capital gains represented 55.9% of the income of those in the top .01% and 36.7% of income of those in the next .09%. These figures dropped to 44.8% and 24.0% in 2008.
- In 2008, capital gains represented only 1.4% of the income of those in the 90th to 95th percentiles, and 3.3% of the income of those in the 95th to 99th percentiles. But if we look at the top 10% in total, capital gains represent 10.9% of income. This reflects both the high incomes in the top income group (10.4% of income to the top .1% of us -- Table A3), and the large percentage of that income which comes from capital gains (for the top .1%, 34.1% of income is is capital gains; for the top .01%, 44.8% is capital gains).
"Capital," as distinct from "land" and "labor," does not appreciate. What rises in value is land and scarce or finite natural resources. And those ought to be treated as our common treasure rather than subject to privatization by anyone who claims title. Secure title is vital, but it must be subject to the prior and rightful claims of the entire community, satisfied by compensating the community for the value taken.
We'd be far better off it we placed our tax burden onto value which is rightly common treasure, value which can't be hidden or moved off-shore, or otherwise spirited away: that which the classical economists recognized as land -- the value of urban and other well-located, well-served land, of natural resources, and the myriad other things of similar characteristics. (See "land includes" in the tag list at left.)
I'll reprise the table in the prior post below, and add to it the corresponding 2008 data. Aggregate income excluding capital gains rose slightly (far less than has been the pattern in recent years), while capital gains dropped by 48%, to 6% of other income. Not surprisingly, the effect is most pronounced in the top 1%, and particularly the top .01%:
| Income Concentration, selected years 1913-2008 |
||||||||
| Year |
Top .01% |
Next .09% |
Next .4% |
Next .5% |
Next 4% |
Next 5% |
Bottom 90% |
|
| distribution per 10,000 population |
1 |
9 |
40 |
50 |
400 |
500 |
9,000 |
|
| 1913 |
2.76% |
5.86% |
6.11% |
3.23% |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
| 1917 |
3.37% |
5.04% |
5.94% |
3.39% |
12.90% |
9.87% |
59.49% |
|
| 1920 |
1.66% |
3.69% |
5.79% |
3.69% |
13.49% |
10.69% |
60.99% |
|
| 1935 |
2.19% |
4.20% |
6.24% |
4.04% |
15.61% |
12.21% |
55.51% |
|
| 1944 |
1.16% |
2.59% |
4.50% |
3.02% |
11.48% |
9.75% |
67.49% |
|
| 1953 |
0.97% |
2.09% |
3.97% |
2.88% |
12.11% |
10.29% |
67.69% |
|
| 1960 |
1.17% |
2.07% |
3.88% |
2.91% |
12.54% |
10.90% |
66.52% |
|
| 1970 |
1.00% |
1.78% |
3.48% |
2.77% |
12.64% |
10.96% |
67.37% |
|
| 1981 |
1.37% |
2.20% |
3.67% |
2.78% |
13.02% |
11.51% |
65.46% |
|
| 1991 |
1.96% |
3.17% |
4.86% |
4.48% |
14.36% |
11.82% |
60.45% |
|
| 2002 |
3.14% |
4.20% |
5.70% |
3.83% |
15.20% |
11.75% |
56.18% |
|
| 2007 |
6.04% |
6.24% |
7.04% |
4.19% |
15.17% |
11.07% |
50.26% |
|
| 2008 |
5.03% |
5.37% |
6.47% |
4.08% |
15.57% |
11.71% |
51.77% |
|
| Source: Piketty and Saez 2008 spreadsheet, Table A3 (includes capital gains in both income and fractile definitions) and LVTfan calculations |
||||||||
Comments