This article presents solid evidence as to why the majority of Americans don't trust the big government/media Ruling Class. The media in all forms - including Big Tech social media, has a biased stranglehold on the sources of information to we the people - ever falsely publishing false propaganda that furthers their socialist agenda.
The
refrain is all too familiar: Widening income inequality is a fatal flaw in
capitalism and an “existential” threat to democracy. From 1967 to 2017, income
inequality in the U.S. spiked 21.4%, and everyone from U.S. senators to the pope
says it’s an urgent problem. Yet the data upon which claims about income
inequality are based are profoundly flawed.
We have shown
on these pages that Census Bureau income data fail to count two-thirds of all
government transfer payments—including Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and some
100 other government transfer payments—as income to the recipients.
Furthermore, census data fail to count taxes paid as income lost to the
taxpayer. When official government data are used to correct these
deficiencies—when income is defined the way people actually define it—“income
inequality” is reduced dramatically.
We can now show that if you count all government
transfers (minus administrative costs) as income to the recipient household,
reduce household income by taxes paid, and correct for two major
discontinuities in the time-series data on income inequality that were caused
solely by changes in Census Bureau data-collection methods, the claim that
income inequality is growing on a secular basis collapses. Not only is income
inequality in America not growing, it is lower today than it was 50 years ago.
While the disparity in earned income has become
more pronounced in the past 50 years, the actual inflation-adjusted income
received by the bottom quintile, counting the value of all transfer payments
received net of taxes paid, has risen by 300%. The top quintile has seen its
after-tax income rise by only 213%. As government transfer payments to
low-income households exploded, their labor-force participation collapsed and
the percentage of income in the bottom quintile coming from government payments
rose above 90%.
In 2017, federal, state and local governments redistributed $2.8 trillion, or 22% of the nation’s earned household income. More than two-thirds of those transfer payments went to households in the bottom two income quintiles. Remarkably the Census Bureau chooses to count only $900 billion of that $2.8 trillion as income for the recipients. Excluded from the measurement of household income is some $1.9 trillion of government transfers. These include the earned-income tax credit, whose beneficiaries get a check from the Treasury; food stamps, which let beneficiaries buy food with government issued debit cards; and numerous other programs in which government pays for the benefits directly.
Americans pay $4.4 trillion a year in federal, state and local taxes. Households in the top two earned-income quintiles pay 82% of the tax bill, although they never see most of this money because it is deducted directly from their paychecks. When measuring income inequality, however, the Census Bureau doesn’t reduce household income by the amount paid in taxes. Had it done so and counted all transfer payments as income, inequality from 1967 to 2017 would have increased by only 2.3% instead of the reported 21.4%. That’s a difference of almost 90%—a rather large error.
Twice over the past 50 years, the Census Bureau
has significantly changed how it collects and records income statistics. In
1993 and 2013 the Census Bureau changed its methods in an effort to collect
better information from high-income households. These changes created two major
discontinuities and distorted the time-series so that the change in measured
income inequality in those years was as much as 15 times the average annual change
found for the entire 50-year period. At the time, the Census Bureau explained
in detail what it had done. It also explained the limitations the changes
imposed on the use of its income-inequality measure to look at changes over
extended periods. In subsequent use of the data by the Census Bureau and
others, however, those warnings have been neglected.
The simple solution would have been to isolate
the distortions caused solely by the changes in data-collection techniques and
adjusted the previous years’ measures to reflect the effect of the changes. We
made these adjustments and they are shown in the nearby figure. The blue line
is the actual reported Census Bureau measurement of income inequality. The
yellow line eliminates the effects of the 1993 and 2013 discontinuities caused
solely by changes in measurement technique. The black line shows income
inequality when the value of all transfer payments received is counted as
income, income is reduced by taxes paid, and the two technical corrections are
made.
Lo and behold—income inequality is lower than it
was 50 years ago.
The raging debate over income inequality in
America calls to mind the old Will Rogers adage: “It ain’t what you don’t know
that gets you into trouble. It is what you do know that ain’t so.” We are
debating the alleged injustice of a supposedly growing social problem when—for
all the reasons outlined above—that problem isn’t growing, it’s shrinking.
Those who want to transform the greatest economic system in the history of the
world ought to get their facts straight first.
Mr. Gramm is
a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Early served twice as assistant commissioner
at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1 comment:
While anything published in the WSJ can be suspect of bias, this article does seem to justify the progressive tax system since if its conclusion is correct then it is the progressive tax system funding the transfers that has kept the inequality more or less constant. A corollary conclusion then is that as the income of the upper quintile continues to grow the tax system should become more progressive to support more transfer so as to keep constant the after transfers income inequality of the lower quintile.
The report this article is based upon offer this somewhat remarkable conclusion:
"As government transfer payments to low-income households exploded, their labor-force participation collapsed and the percentage of income in the bottom quintile coming from government payments rose above 90%."
Is is believable that the folks in the bottom quintile receive transfers equal to nine times their cash income? Feels like the Gramm and Early have greatly overstated the value of the transfer payment to make their point. But having made their point, they do seem to have justified the progressive income tax.
One last point - is little progress in fifty years the best this great nation can do?
Post a Comment