By Kevin D.
Williamson
Monday, April 11, 2011
Are the rich really getting richer? That’s a pretty
standard line from the Left, a lament usually cited in the course of calling
for higher tax rates. Robert Reich is particularly fond of this mode of attack:
A recent post of his was headlined, “For 70 years, the wealthy have grown
wealthier.” Professor Reich probably doesn’t write his own headlines, but it’s
a common enough sentiment for him, and his prose is rich with phrases such as
“the super-rich got even wealthier this year.”
He isn’t alone in employing this mode. Take this from an
April 7 Salon article: “And surely the rich don’t need that 25 percent top rate
in the way poor folks need programs like TANF and seniors need Medicare — about
90 percent of all American income gains since the 1970s have gone to the top 10
percent of earners.”
This is not true.
The numbers generally cited in support of this argument
do not actually tell us much about what has happened to the incomes of wealthy
households over time. That’s because the people who are in the top bracket
today are not the people who were in the top bracket last year. There’s a good
deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States — more than you’d think.
Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they
ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them.
For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group
isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent — 75 percent were in a lower income
group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not
up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally
more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began
in high-income groups.
That wasn’t even an unusually good decade in terms of
mobility. During the horrible, horrible Reagan years, as National Review noted
back in 1991, the average income growth for actual households in the lowest
income bracket was 77 percent over the course of a decade; income growth for
actual households in the top group was only 5 percent during those same years.
Of those who were in the poorest fifth in 1979, 85.8 percent had moved to a
higher bracket by 1988, and 14.7 percent of them moved to the top bracket —
which is to say, the poor of 1979 were more likely to be the rich of 1988 than
to be the poor of 1988. The poor got richer, and some of them got a lot richer.
Reagan’s record has not been matched — Ronald Reagan was the champion of the
poor, as it turns out — but economic mobility has been pretty stable for the
past 20 years: About 50 percent of U.S. households move from one income group
to a different one every decade, and actual households initially in the
low-income groups see proportionally more income growth than do actual
households initially in the high-income groups.
When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income
go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened
to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how
much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really
means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than
did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000, the 100,000 highest-paid
Americans this year made more money than did the 100,000 highest-paid Americans
made in 2000, that the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made more money this year
than did the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 1,000
highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 1,000
highest-paid Americans made in 2000, etc., which is not shocking. But, as the
Treasury data show: They are not the same people.
When Robert Reich writes that “super-rich got even
wealthier this year,” he is making a statement that is not true in most cases —
75 percent of the Clinton-era super rich were not members of the Obama-era
super rich. In fact, Treasury found:
• Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within ten years.• About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within ten years.• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 — the top 1/100 of one percent — only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.
Or, as the authors of the study put it: “While the share
of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in prior years, it is not a fixed
group of households receiving this larger share of income.” (Incidentally,
Treasury underestimates mobility by excluding the most mobile population from
its study: those under 25. It does this in order to avoid including
school-to-work transitions in the data, though presumably it’s catching a fair
number of law-school graduates and freshly minted MBAs.)
Progressives ignore this income mobility when denouncing
the wicked, wicked rich and their income-hogging ways. This leads to a lot of
bad analysis and stupid rhetoric. From Robert Reich, for example: “[The poor]
see people at the very top getting away with, well, the equivalent of murder.”
Does he really mean the equivalent of murder? Yes, and he writes wistfully of
the lynching to come: “An angry population and an angry populace could just as
easily turn their anger toward the very rich. Again, it is in the interest of
the people at the top to actually call for a more equitable distribution of the
gains of economic growth and a better tax system.” Listen up, Thurston Howell
III: It’s Reichonomics — or else. But the income-mobility figures suggest that
those gains already have been more widely distributed than most people think.
(In no small part, incomes are distributed over time: Most people earn more
money as they get older.)
So, about those rich, and about that Reich: You’d think a
guy who used to be secretary of labor would know better. And I think he does.
No comments:
Post a Comment