Top
Review:  Stratificaton
Chapter 2:   Dimenstions of Inequality in the US
Return to UVaWise Webpage                              Link
Return to Dr. W's Webpage                                 Link
Return to Stratification Syllabus, Fall 2001            Link
Return to Course Resource List                            Link
Return to Stratification Review List                       Link
Sociological Stratification
Chapter 2: Dimensions of Inequality in the US
Link Income Inequality in the US Link
Link Comparative Income Inequality among the Industrialized Nations Link
Link Wealth Inequality in the US Link
Link Inequality of Basic Necessities in the US Link
Link Inequalities in Governmental Services Link
                  Return to UVW's Webpage Link
                  Return to Dr. Withen's UVW Webpage Link
                  Return to Dr. Withen's Course Information Webpage  Link
                  Return to Dr. Withen's Social Stratification Syllabus Link
                  Return to Course Schedule Link
Outline on
Income Inequality in the US
Link
Income: amount of money a person or family receives over some define period of time 
Wealth: value of everything that a person or family owns minus any debts owed
Link Table 2 - 1    % of Distribution of Families by Race & Income
        The distribution of income by race has a regular pattern
        In 1997 as a  % of the total of each race:
        In the lower class, there are less whites compared to more blacks & Hispanics
                   there are about half the % of poor whites
        In the middle range, there are equal numbers of whites, blacks, & Hispanics
        In the upper class, there are more whites compared to blacks & Hispanics
                  there are about 3 times the % of rich whites
Link Table 2 - 2    % of Aggregate Household Income by Fifth's of the Population
        On average the top fifth of the population earns as much as the rest of the population
        The bottom fifth earn about 4 % of total income
Link Table 2 - 3.a   Hourly wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 1997
An analysis of the hourly wages for men & women by occupational category,
      shows that women earn less in every category, 
      but in general they have risen to 74 % of mens' wages from 66 %
Link Table 2 - 3.b   Hourly Wages by Educational Level by Gender in 1997
An analysis of the hourly wages for men & women by ed category 
      shows that women earn less in every category, 
      but in general they have risen to 74 % of mens' wages from 66 %
Link Figure 2-1   % of Agg Household Income by Fifths, 1947 - 1997
Link Table 2 - 4    % of Agg Family Income by Fifths,  1947 to 1997
     An analysis of the  % of Agg Family Income by Fifths from 1947 to 1997 shows
             great regularity, ie only slow historic change
Link Table 2 - 5.3   Dist of Families by Income, 1970 - 1992
An analysis of household income over the last 30 yrs indicates that
        the dist of income remains approx the same
        the income gap is increasing
Looking at the highest level of class achievement demonstrates that 
      as the highest/lowest class improves,
      then the lowest/highest class does worse
Link Figure 2 - 2   The Gini Index
The Gini Index demonstrates, graphically,
         that income inequality has steadily increased in the US since the late 1960s
Income inequality was reduced in the 30s & early 40s due to depression reforms
There was a slight decrease in income inequality btwn 47 & 75
This was do to the War on Poverty & other social programs to help the poor in the 70s
Since 1980 there has been a significant increase in inequality
     due to tax reform, welfare reform, & decrease of govt. regs.
Link Figure 2-3    Income Gains & Losses, 1980-1989 
An analysis of the Income Gains & Losses from  1980-1989 demonstrates that 
      the very rich have gained enormously
      while the very poor have lost enormously
Link Figure 2-3.3   Change in Employment by Wage Category, 1963-86     Kerbo0302
An analysis of the Change in Employment by Wage Category from 1963 to 1986 demonstrates that
       in the 60s the number of low paid jobs shrank
       while high paid jobs grew
       In the early 80s, low paid jobs grew
       faster than high paid jobs
The regularity or consistency in income distribution demonstrates that social forces are at work
     & that there is little or no vertical social mobility
     & that income distribution among the classes is relatively fixed
The causes of income inequality in the US are linked to two social changes:
         1.  Changes in Political Policies caused an increase in income inequality
         2.  Changes in the the US & World economies caused an increase in income inequality
Outline on
Comparative Income Inequality
Link
Link Figure 2 - 4   Comparative Income Inequality of Leading Industrial Nations:
                    Shares of Pretax Household Income
Link Figure 2 - 4   Comparative Income Inequality of Leading Industrial Nations:
                    Ratio btwn the Highest & Lowest 20 % of the Population
As can be seen on the Income Inequality Webpage,
      during the 1960s the U.S. had average income inequality; 
      now we are ranked the highest of industrial  nations		 Link
During the 1960s the US was ranked midway in income inequality compared to other industrial nations
Link Table 2 - 5   Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s
        Since the 1980s the US has had the highest level of income inequality
        The US has attained its highest level  income inequality in the 1990s
Link Table 2 - 6   Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992
         Am wkrs are paid less than all wkrs except British wkrs
         Am CEOs are paid at the highest rate in the G 7
         The gap btwn the Top & Bottom wkrs is the highest in Am
                & lowest in Germany
Link Table  2 - 7  Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997
         US corp executives earn almost double that of other industrial nation's executive
         US executives earn almost 3 times that of Japanese executives
  Top
Outline on
Wealth Inequality
Link
Wealth value of everything that a person or family owns minus any debts owed
The fundamental point of this analysis is that wealth is more unequally distributed. than income
        In the 00s, the top 20 % of all families hold 79% of wealth & earn 43 % of the  income 
        GDP is roughly $ 10 tt in 2001
Wealth is saved income
    thus families, individuals & accumulate wealth over yrs, generations, even centuries
Wealth brings income, power, status, independence
          Wealth can be used to purchase means of production... which produces income
          Owning or managing the means of production gives one authority & power in society
               because you control property & jobs & development....
          Wealth can be transferred from generation to generation
          Wealth can be increased, lost, decreased, eroded
The rationalization of finance has created an equation for the creation of wealth
     that takes into account many factors such as
     rate of return, risk, inflation, liquidity, etc.
    ROR = Risk X Inflation x Liquidity
         ROR: % of earnings from an investment 
         Risk: safety or security of the investment; how likely is it to profit or loss 
         Inflation: % rise in the general price level (devalues wealth)
Link Table   2 - 8    Distribution of Wealth & Income by Family Fifths:  1989, 1995
         An analysis of wealth & income shows that 
              - Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income
              - The top fifth earns 49 % of the income & owns 85 % of the wealth
              - The bottom fifth earns 3.7 % of the income & owns -1.5 % of the wealth, i.e. they are in debt
Link Table 2 - 9 Distribution of Household Net Worth by Race
      An analysis of the distribution  of Household  Net Worth by Race/Ethnicity shows that
             the income gap btwn races is greater than btwn classes
      This is largely a function of the enormous wealth of the Top 20 % of the population
Link Chart of the Numbers of Billionaires:  1986, 1988, 1992, 1996
      An analysis of the numbers of the super rich shows they are growing rapidly
Link Table 2 - 10      % of Wealth held by top 1 % & .5 % from 1958 to 1995
      An analysis of the % of wealth held by the Top 1 & .5 % from 1958 to 1995 shows that
           their share decrease from the 60s to the seventies   ( because of social reforms )
           & then increased in the 80s & 90s ( tax reform, welfare limits, etc. )
Link Table 2 - 11   Top Wealth Holders by Type of Wealth
      An analysis of the Wealth Holders ownership of the Types of Wealth shows that
               the wealthiest 10 % own 90 % of all stocks, bonds & trusts
      Thus the next richest 40 % of the population owns 12 % of all stock
               & 50 % of the population owns no stock
Stock ownership yields both economic & political power
Link Table 2 - 12    % of total wealth held by top 1 % of population Link
Historic trends in wealth inequality show that 
       the wealthiest of top 1 % now controls 39 % of the wealth
      which is more concentration of wealth than preceded the Great Depression of 1929
An analysis of the % of Total Wealth of Top 1% from 1922 - 1995 shows that the
     - Wealthy’s share did not change much between 1810 & 1945
     - Wealthy’s share declined from 1945 to 1972
     - Wealthy’s share increased after 1980
Link Figure 2-5  Lorenz Curves on Wealth & Income Inequality
         The Lorenz curve shows the % of income or wealth held by various percentages of the population
         A straight line would show total equality
Outline on
Inequality in Basic Necessities in the US
Link
Medical care & its output, health is unequally distributed because
     1.  health care costs $$, which is unequally distributed &
     2.  conditions conducive to health cost $$, which is unequally distributed
The U.S health care system is a three tier system
       1.  Govt health insurance for the poor & the elderly
       2.  Private insurance for those w/ the ability to pay 
       3.  The pay-as-you-go system for the uninsured
The poor use emergency room care
Many analysts believe it would be cheaper to offer them health insurance
The rich can afford more advanced & hi-tech care than any nation in the world
A Brief History of Health care in the US
       In the 1870s Civil War veterans earned pensions, health care, & survivor benefits 
       In 1935 the Social Security Act was passed
       The 1965 Medicare and Medicaid Act expanded health care
       During the 1980s, Reagan cuts Medicaid benefits to the working poor
       In 1993 Bill & Hillary Clinton fails to pass national health care system 
       In 2000 Clinton passes Prescription Drug Benefits for the elderly
       In 2001, Bush Jr. needs to review the cost of the program
       In 2001, 20 % of Americans lack health care coverage
       In 2001, private hospitals “dump” patients on public & “charity” hospitals
       This process is efficient for those paying for private insurance,
              but it is inefficient as a whole
Living conditions cost $$ & are therefore unequally distributed
Inadequate living contribute to poor health, crime, & poor environments
Link Table  2 - 12.3  Comparative Infant Mortality Rates, 1987
       The richest country in the world ranks 19th in terms of Infant Mortality
       In inner cities & on some Reservations, infant mortality is as high as anywhere on Earth
Link Table 12 - 13  Class, Gender, Race & Death
     An analysis of Class, Gender & Race demonstrates that 
           the biggest inequalities are based on Class, then Gender, then Race
Outline on
Inequalities in Governmental Services
Link
The focus here is on differences in the outcomes of differing amounts of political power,
     NOT on the inequalities in political power per se
While everyday  logic holds that welfare is a handout for the poor,
      this analysis demonstrates that those at the top of the stratification system
      receive the most benefits
One role of government is to redistribute income & wealth
The redistribution of income & wealth is framed in the struggle of class conflict
The Incidence of taxes has 3 categories
       Incidence indicates who pays the tax
       1. Progressive designed so that proportion of income paid in taxes increases as income increases
       2. Flat designed so that the proportion of income paid in taxes is same regardless of income
       3. Regressive designed so that proportion of income paid in taxes decreases as income increases
Link Chart on the Types of Taxes & their Incidence
In 1986 Reagan simplified & reduced the Am Fed income tax
When Bush Sr ran for President against Dukaucas in 1988,
     his campaign motto was:  "Read my lips, no new taxes!"
1996 tax reform passed by Clinton: lowered all taxes, indexed them  to inflation
          & reduced cap gains from 28 to 20%
In 2001 Bush Jr. reduced taxes at all levels, but mostly for the rich
Link Chart on Reagan & Bush Tax Brackets
       Tax brackets are ideally progressive
Link Table 2 - 14   IRS Collections by Selected Sources 1960 - 1997
Deductions are legal subtractions from total income, to determine taxable income
         aka exemptions
Link Table 2 - 15.3  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1992
       An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income
            after the Reagan & Bush Tax Reforms of 1986 & 1990 demonstrates that
           the bottom 4/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
           while the top 1/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
Link Table 2 - 15  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1997
       An analysis of the effects of taxes & welfare on the distribution of income 
            after the Clinton Tax Reforms of 1996 demonstrates that
            the bottom 3/5's benefit from tax & welfare policies
            while the top 2/5's pay for these benefits, thus incurring a cost
       And the bottom 1/5 benefits the most
Govt Services are distributed on the basis of political power, 
         which is determined by $$ & social/organizing power
         therefore govt services are distributed unequally
Trickle down corporate welfare holds that govt transfers to the wealthy 
      help them w/ econ development & other investments
      & thus help the general public & the poor
The final question is, who is really helped the most, & by how much?

Inequalities in Income Tables
Top
 Table 2 - 1    % of Distribution of Families by Race & Income
Annual Income ( K's of $)
% of all families
% white families
% black families
% Hispanic families
under 5
3
3
7
6
5 to 10
8
7
14
11
10 to 15
8
8
11
11
15 to 25
 15
15 
18 
20 
 25 to 35
 13
13 
14 
15 
 35 to 50
 16
17 
15 
17 
 50 to 75
 18
19 
13 
12 
 75 to 100
 9
10 
5 
5 
100 & over
9
10
3
4
Top
Table 2 - 2    % of Aggregate Household Income by Fifth's of the Population
blankblank
% of Total Income
Mean Income
% of Total Income
 blank
1992
1992
1997
Highest 5 %
18.6%
 NA
21.7 %
Top 20 %
46.9%
$ 91,494 
49.4 %
Fourth 20%
24.2%
47,235
23.2 %
Middle 20 %
15.8%
30,794 
15.0 %
Second 20 %
9.4%
18,281
8.9 %
Lowest 20 %
3.8 %
7,328
3.6 %
blank
blank
96 mm households
Mean income $39,020
96 mm households
Top
Table 2 - 3.a   Hourly wages by Occupational Category by Gender in 1997
blank
Median Income
blank
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Exec, admin & mgr
$ 22
16
72 %
Professional
23
17
77
Tech, sales, admin support
18
14
75
Sales
15
10
63
Admin support & clerical
13
10
81
Precision production & craft
14
11
75
Operators & laborers
11
8
75
Laborers
9
NA
NA
blank
blank
Total
74
Top
Table 2 - 3.b   Hourly Wages by Educational Level by Gender in 1997
blank
Median Income
blank
Male
Female
Female's 
% of Male
Advanced degree
$ 27
$ 21
78 %
Bachelors
21
16
74
Some college
14
11
78
High school grad
12
9
76
Less than high school grad
9
7
77
blank
blank
Total
77
Top
Table 2 - 4    % of Agg Family Income by Fifths,  1947 to 1997
Kerbo0302
% of Agg Income
Year
Lowest 5th
Second 5th
Middle 5th
Fourth 5th
Highest 5th
Top 5 %
1997
3.6
8.9
15.0
23.2
49.4
21.7
1992
4.4
10.5
16.5
24.0
44.6
17.6
1990
4.6
10.8
16.6
23.8
44.3
17.4
1985
4.7
10.9
16.8
24.1
43.6
16.7
1980
5.1
11.6
17.5
24.3
41.6
15.3
1975
5.4
11.8
17.6
24.1
41.1
15.5
1970
5.4
12.2
17.6
23.8
40.9
15.6
1965
5.2
12.2
17.8
23.9
40.9
15.5
1960
4.8
12.2
17.8
24.0
41.3
15.9
1955
4.8
12.3
17.8
23.7
41.3
16.4
1950
4.5
12.0
17.4
23.4
42.7
17.3
1947
5.0
11.9
17.0
23.1
43.0
17.5
Red represents the highest level achieved by a class
Top
Table 2 - 5.3   Distribution of Families by Income, 1970 - 1992
Kerbo0302
blank
% Distribution
Median Income
Mean Income
all races
Number of Families 
in the 1,000s
Under
$5
5
to
xx10xx
10 
to
xx15xx
15
to
xx25xx
25 
to
xx35xx
35
to
xx50xx
50
to
xx75xx
75
to
x100x
x100x
&
over
    
1997
                        
1992
68,144
3.7
5.8
7.3
15.5
15.0
19.2
19.6
7.7
6.2
36,812
44,483
1991
 67,173
3.5 
5.9 
7.0 
15.6 
15.2 
19.6 
19.2 
7.8 
6.2 
37,021 
44,539 
1990
66,322 
3.2 
5.4 
6.7 
15.4 
15.2 
20.0 
19.4 
8.2 
6.6 
37,950 
45,785 
1989
66,090 
3.0 
5.3 
7.1 
14.8 
14.6 
19.7 
20.1 
8.4 
7.0 
38,710 
46,962 
1988
 65,837
 3.2
 5.5
 6.8
15.4 
14.7 
 19.9
 20.0
8.1 
6.5
 38,177
45,788 
1987
 65,204
3.1 
5.7 
6.7 
15.3 
14.8 
20.0 
20.3 
8.0 
6.3 
38,249 
45,553 
1986
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1985
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1984
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1983
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1982
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1981
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1980
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1979
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1978
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1977
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1976
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1975
 56,245
2.3 
5.9 
8.3 
17.4 
17.8 
23.1 
17.5 
4.7 
2.9 
34,249 
38,810 
1974
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1973
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1972
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1971
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1970
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1969
51,586 
2.6 
6.0 
7.5 
17.0 
20.0 
24.4 
16.1 
4.0 
2.4 
33,590 
37,664 
1968
50,823 
2.9 
5.9 
8.1 
18.2 
21.3 
23.6 
14.6 
3.4 
2.0 
32,124 
35,987 
1967
50,111
3.1
7.2
7.9
19.4
22.6
21.8
12.8
3.3
2.0
30,661
34,016
Top
Figure 2-3    Income Gains & Losses, 1980-1989 
Lowest 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 10 %
Top 5 %
Top 1 %
- 4.6 %
- 4.1 %
- 0.8 %
+ 4.6 %
+ 9.1 %
+ 15.6 %
+ 62.9 %
Top
Figure 2-3.3          Change in Employment by Wage Category, 1963-86
Kerbo0302
Low Wage Wkrs
11,103 & under
Middle Wage Wkrs
$11,104 - 44, 412
High Wage Wkrs
$ 44, 413 & above
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
   1963 - 
1973
   1973 - 
1979
   1979 - 
1986
- 10 %
85
22
20 
77
6
38
50
15

Inequalities in Comparative Income Tables
Top
Table 2 - 5   Comparative Income Inequality in the 1990s
Country
% of median 
of bottom 10 %
% of median 
of top 10 %
Ratio of top 10 % 
to bottom 10 %
Gini coefficient
US
36 %
208 %
5.78
.343
UK
44
206
4.67
.335
Japan
46
192
4.17
.315
Australia
45
187
4.3
.308
Canada
47
183
3.90
.285
Austria
56
187
3.34
NA
Germany
54
172
3.21
.261
Italy
56
176
3.14
.255
Netherlands
57
173
3.05
.249
Sweden
57
159
2.78
.229
Red numbers signify the highest level of the category
Top
Table 2 - 6   Comparative Employee & Executive Incomes, 1992
Manufacturing 
Employees
White-Collar
Employees
Managers
CEOs
Germany
$ 36,857
Britain
74,761
Italy
219,573
US
717,237
Canada
34,939
France
62,279
France
190,354
France
479,772
Japan
34,263
Germany
59,916
Japan
185,437
Italy
439,441
Italy
31,537
Italy
58,263
Britain
162,190
Britain
439,441
France
30,019
US
57,675
US
159,575
Canada
416,066
US
27,606
Canada
47,231
Germany
145,627
Germany
390,933
Britain
26,084
Japan
40,990
Canada
132,877
Japan
390,723
Top
Table  2 - 7  Comparative Top Corp Exec Salaries, 1997
Country
Salary
% of US Salary
US
901,200
100 %
Australia
476,700
52.9 
Belgium
470,700
52.2
Canada
440,900
48.9
France
523,500
58.1
Germany
423,900
47.0
Italy
450,300
50.0
Japan
397,700
44.1
Netherlands
442,900
49.1
Spain
333,600
37.0
Sweden
340,700
37.8
Switzerland
465,200
51.6
UK
489,700
54.3

Inequalities in Wealth Tables
Top
Table   2 - 8    Distribution of Wealth & Income by Family Fifths:  1989, 1995
blank
% of Wealth
% of Income
Family Share
1989
1995
1989
1995
Top 1 %
38 %
39  %
15 %
14 %
Top 10 %
71
72
39
39
Top 20 %
79
85
43
49
Fourth 20%
15
12
24
23
Middle 20 %
6.2
4.5
17.1
15.2
Second 20 %
1.1
0.9
11.1
9.1
Bottom 20 %
-0.4
-1.5
4.7
3.7
Top
Table 2 - 9   Distribution of Household Net Worth by Race
1991  Median net worth blankk
White households
$ 44,408
Black households
   4,604
Hispanic households
   5,345
Chart of the Numbers of Billionaires:  1986, 1988, 1992, 1996
1986 26 billionaires
1988 53
1992 71
1996 137
Top
Table 2 - 10      % of Wealth held by top 1 % & .5 % from 1958 to 1995
blank
% of wealth held by
Year
Top 1 %
Top .5 %
1995
39
NA
1989
38
NA
1972
24
19
1969
24
19
1962
26
21
1958
26
20
Top
Table 2 - 11   Top Wealth Holders by Type of Wealth
blank
% of all stock
% of all bonds
% of all trusts
% of Population
1983
1989
1995
1989
1995
1989
1995
Top 1 %
NA
47
51
73
66
53
50
Top 10 %
72
84
88
94
90
90
89
Next 40 % blk blk
12
 blk blk blk blk
Bottom 50 % blk blk
0.0
 blk blk blk blk
Table 2 - 12    % of total wealth held by top 1 % of population
Year
% wealth
held by top 1 %
1922
32
1929
36
1933
28
1939
31
1945
23
1949
21
1953
24
1954
24
1956
26
1958
24
1962
22
1965
23
1969
20
1972
21
1989
38
1995
39

Inequalities in Basic Necessities Tables
  Top
Table  2 - 12.3  Comparative Infant Mortality Rates, 1987
Kerbo0302
Country
Infant mortality rate
( rate per 1000 live births )
1. Japan
5.0
2. Sweden
5.7
3. Finland
5.8
4. Switzerland
6.8
5.  Canada
7.3
6.  Ireland
7.4
7.  Netherlands
7.6
8.  France
7.6
9.  Denmark
8.3
10. West Germany
8.3
11. Norway
8.4
12. East Germany
8.5
13. Australia
8.8
14. UK
9.1
15. Belgium
9.7
16. Italy
9.8
17. Austria
9.9
18. New Zealand
10.0
19. US
10.1
20. Israel
11.4
21. Greece
12.6
  Top
Table 12 - 13  Class, Gender, Race & Death
Death rates per 1000 people 25 to 64 yrs. old
Income
Gender
Whites
Blacks
Less than $9,000
males
16.0
19.5
females
6.5
7.6
9,000 - 15,000
males
10.2
10.8
females
3.4
4.5
15,000 - 19,000
males
5.7
9.8
females
3.3
3.7
19,000 - 25,000
males
4.6
4.7
females
3.0
2.8
25,000 & above
males
2.4
3.6
females
1.6
2.3

Inequalities in Govt Services Tables
Top
Chart on the Types of Taxes & their Incidence
pww
Type of tax Type of Govt Description Incidence
Income tax Federal, many states, no local % of income
Allows for deduction
5 brackets		 Ideal:       Progressive
Practice:  Flat to Regressive
Social Security Federal only 7.5 % of 1st %  55,000
Matched by employer		 Ideal:       Regressive
Practice:  Regressive
Unemployment Federal, many states, few local % of income
Match by employer		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Regressive
Property (real estate) All counties & few cities % of value of real estate Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Property (personal) some local % of value of personal property
e.g. VA car tax		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Sales Many states, few local % of purchases
May exclude some products		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Regressive
Inheritance Federal, many states % of value over $1mm Ideal:       Progressive
Practice:  Progressive
Corporate Federal % of corp income Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Capital Gains Federal % of appreciation of stock
& real estate		 Ideal:       Flat
Practice:  Progressive
Top
Chart on Reagan & Bush Tax Brackets
pww
Income Level
1986- 2000
Income Level
2001 -
33 %
  
32%
  
27
  
23
  
17
  
  & under
no taxes
  & under
no taxes
Top
Table 2 - 14   IRS Collections by Selected Sources 1960 - 1997
blank
% of total tax load
Source of Revenue
 1960 
 1970 
 1980 
 1993 
 1997 
Income taxes
49 
53
47
45
44
Payroll taxes:  unemployment, disability, SSI
12
19
31
37
38
Corp income taxes
24
18
13
9
12
Estate & gift taxes
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
Excise taxes
12.9
8.1
4.7
4.2
4.5
All other taxes (property, sales, etc.)
Less than 1.0
Top
Table 2 - 15.3  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1992
Kerbo0302
Definition of income
Bottom 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 20 %
Share of income
0.9
7.6
15.4
24.8
51.3
Share of income w/ welfare
3.8
9.4
15.9
24.1
46.8
Share of income after taxes
1.1
8.1
16.0
25.6
49.1
Share of income w/ welfare after taxes
1.1
8.4
16.3
25.5
48.6
Top
Table 2 - 15  The Effects of Taxes & Welfare on the Distribution of Income, 1997
Definition of income
Bottom 20 %
Second 20 %
Middle 20 %
Fourth 20 %
Top 20 %
Share of income
0.9
7.1
14.4
23.6
54.0
Share of income w/ welfare
3.6
8.9
15.1
23.0
49.3
Share of income after taxes
1.2
8.3
15.5
24.4
50.6
Share of income w/ welfare after taxes
4.8
10.6
16.0
23.0
45.6
  Top
Return to UVaWise Webpage                              Link
Return to Dr. W's Webpage                                 Link
Return to Stratification Syllabus, Fall 2001            Link
Return to Course Resource List                            Link
Return to Stratification Review List                       Link
The End