Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Tax policy colloquium, week 4: Gerald Auten's Income Inequality in the United States, part 2

My prior blog post noted that, while the Auten-Splinter (AS) paper, despite its clear merits, seems in tension with the vast anecdotal evidence (and other empirical studies) suggesting that there has been a substantial rise in U.S. high-end inequality over the last three decades, there are ways of getting past the initial head-scratching. Let me start with the question of why high-end inequality might matter, which relates to how one might try to measure it for different purposes, and then turn to a few of the particular empirical issues in the debate, along with the relationship between AS and the most recent work in the same area by Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (PSZ).

AS seek a "broad and consistent income measure" for purposes of measuring high-end inequality. For the most part, they look to market measures of income earned by different households and individuals, and at taking national income and trying to allocate it to people, although this is influenced by issues of what we might reasonably infer in some circumstances about underlying utility. But why would one care about this?

An initial point, and I think closest to their purpose, is as follows. If one thinks in terms of a national "pie" of income that the people in the country divide somehow, then it is of interest what percent of it is held (or "eaten") by people at the very top. This might implicate concerns about distribution or vertical equity. It also might be a relevant input to thinking about the marginal utility that might be gained and lost by changing the distribution. So let's say the following:

Reason 1 for caring about high-end inequality is that we care about the distribution of the total.

Reason 2 is that we draw inferences from it about marginal utility. All else equal, if the rich are richer and the poor poorer, the marginal utility gain from transfering a quantum of consumption from the former to the latter might be expected to increase.

But this does not exhaust the possible reasons for concern about high-end inequality. AS mention, at the start of their paper, three further issues (developed in earlier economic literature) that might be raised: "Increased inequality could be an indicator of greater concentration of political power and increased rent-seeking ... or a result of increases in the bargaining power of top earners for compensation." Hence, they note, three particular ills might accompany rising high-end inequality.  Let's call these Reasons 3 - 5, given the two I noted above. In AS's words, they consist of:

Reason 3: "decreasing institutional accountability due to concentrated power,"

Reason 4: "decreasing economic efficiency due to rent-seeking," and

Reason 5: "stagnating middle-class wages due in part to shifts in relative bargaining power."

Let me add to the list two more possible ills from rising high-end inequality:

Reason 6: If people care about relative consumption (hint: they do), there might be what Robert Frank calls "expenditure cascades" radiating from the top down, potentially reducing subjective welfare for people at all levels.

Reason 7: Research by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett powerfully suggests that greater inequality is correlated with, and apparently causes, increases in social gradient ills, ranging from violence to drug abuse to alcoholism to suicide to other stress-related health problems. Even the rich are affected. This matters not just for its own sake (social gradient ills are bad), but as a diagnostic indicating broader negative effects on people's subjective wellbeing in more unequal societies.

This list is not necessarily exhaustive. One may wish to add other reasons, or delete those listed above that one deems not to be serious concerns. But here's the thing: If you still have several reasons on your list, they are unlikely to motivate identical measures of high-end inequality for purposes of assessing them.

Here is a simple example. AS address the question of whether we should think of, say, healthcare benefits provided through Medicare, Medicaid, and employer-provided health insurance as providing benefits that are worth their cost to the recipients. This clearly must be addressed with regard to Reason 1 - it tells us about the value of the "pieces" of the "pie" that people in different households are getting.

But how much does it affect, say, Reason 4 or Reason 6? Do we think there's less rent-seeking at the top if poor people are getting good rather than mediocre value from Medicaid? Really no, except insofar as prevalent rent-seeking might increase the likelihood that they might be handed bad healthcare. Do we think there will be less by way of "expenditure cascades" that are mainly a product of visible public Veblenesque consumption? People aren't competing over cancer and diabetes treatment in quite the same way as they might be over their homes, weddings, vacations, food consumption, and air travel.

One reason AS find that high-end inequality hasn't risen as much as one might otherwise have thought is that people lower in the distribution, due to advances in medical technology, are getting far more expensive - but also better - healthcare than previously. PSZ note in their work that wage increases among the bottom 50% have been substantially eaten up by rising healthcare costs. These are two different ways of saying the same thing. The AS way of putting it might be better in relation to Reason 1, but it's conceivable that all of Reasons 2 through 7 (to the extent affected at all) are better aligned with PSZ's framing.

Here's another tough measurement issue that both AS and PSZ have had to wrestle with. Say I save during my working years for my retirement years, perhaps through tax-favored retirement saving that I accumulate upfront and withdraw/use at the back end. How should we measure this?

Measuring it on an accrual basis rightly captures that the individual who accumulates retirement saving during her working years is better off than one who consumes the same amount that year but doesn't have anything left over for retirement saving. The saver preferred to save - why should she be treated as worse-off than if she had spent more on current consumption in lieu of saving for retirement.

But if you measure consistently on an accrual basis, then the person who is living off her savings once she retires appears, in the measure, to be poor, even though she isn't. And double-counting it for both periods leads to a falsely high measure of lifetime income.

To add in a factor that both AS and PSZ leave out for methodological reasons (since they are doing annual snapshots), what about life expectancy differences? If I have $X (and let's suppose it's a tidy sum) at retirement, perfectly self-annuitize, and spend it all before I die, was I better-off in the scenario where (a) I correctly forecast that I would live a very short time and hence blew through it rapidly, than (b) in that where I correctly forecast that I have many years left, and prudently spread it over a longer period?

Annual scenarios make me look worse-off in (b) than (a), whereas the truth is the other way around. Even under a pure accrual method, which misclassifies me as poor in my retirement years because the retirement savings have already been counted during the build-up years, I appear to be poor for more periods, by reason of my living longer, so I make high-end inequality look worse even if in fact I'm at the top throughout in any real sense.

It certainly matters to the assessment of high-end inequality that the life expectancy gap between rich and poor has been growing in the United States. But if we go back to Reasons 1 through 7, it doesn't matter identically for all of them! It clearly makes #1 look worse, as assessed from a longer than merely annual perspective, it has ambiguous effects on #2 (we could really benefit poorer people if we enable them to live longer, but if we take the discrepancy as given then having a longer lifespan increases the marginal utility of a dollar of lifetime income), and, as to the rest, who knows (or at least, it would require more analysis).

So we have complex and ambiguous issues, not reducible to being assessed via a single-bullet measure of current annual shares of the pie. Plus, you could have exactly the same such measure in Society 1 as opposed to Society 2 - thus equalizing them in terms of Reason 1 - yet the two societies might differ substantially with regard to Reasons 2 through 7. Hence the point, for example, that even if high-end income concentration in 1960 was closer than we thought to being similar to that today, its adverse effects may have been less, e.g., because people were less inclined to use their wealth aggressively in either politics or Veblenesque status competition through conspicuous consumption.

One last point before I close: How does the AS versus PSZ standoff look today? The latter have shifted from Piketty-Saez approach of starting from taxable income and moving up (effectively critiqued by AS in various respects) to an approach of starting with a measure of national income and allocating it down.

AS find that the top 1% have a national income share of 10.2%, whereas PSZ come out at 15.7%. This is still a sizeable different - albeit, not necessarily large enough to motivate fundamentally different bottom line viewpoints about whether we have a problem from rising high-end inequality.

PSZ report that their finding 5.5% more of national income concentrated at the top arises as follows:

1) 1% comes from PSZ's including retirement savings as it accrues, rather than when it is later spent. As noted above, there is clearly some merit to this position (although its upside of more properly measuring the income of workers who save comes with a downside of overestimating the poverty of retirees who have saved).

2) 0.4% comes from assuming that deficits will be funded half through tax increases and half through spending cuts, rather than all through tax increases as AS assume. I find the PSZ scenario more plausible, although either alternative raises the question of how we should think about the current distributional implications of future policy changes that have not been adopted yet and that remain deeply unpredictable.

3) 0.2% comes from differences in how they treat married couples. This is a very interesting and intricate subject - we spent a lot of time on it at yesterday's AM and PM colloquium sessions, but I lack the time and space to cover it properly here.

4) 0.3% comes from only AS's removing young and dependent filers from the lists, on the view that their low income measures may be wholly uninformative if, say, they are living with affluent parents.

5) 2.6% comes from PSZ's treating unreported income as concentrated at the top, whereas AS allocate it ratably to reported income. I see a number of strong reasons (although, again, no time or room to run through them here) for leaning heavily towards PSZ on this issue.

6) 1% comes from other methodological and data source differences between AS and PSZ.

Suppose one were to run a totally back-of-the-envelope scoresheet on this. For example, say we gave PSZ half of #1, all of #2, half of #3, none of #4, and all of #5. Then, even if we gave them none of #6, we would still have raised the AS estimate of a top 1% income share of 10.2% by 3.6%, to 13.8% - almost two-thirds of the total difference. Plus, I've suggested that some of the reasons why the top 1% income share isn't higher - e.g., because people at the bottom do at least get some medical treatment that is not only costly but also valuable - might not matter so much for Reasons 2-7, even if quite relevant to Reason 1.

I think this plausibly puts us in a scenario where concern about high-end income inequality that we believe to be both high and rising is by no means rebutted or shown to be an "illusion" by AS's nonetheless valuable and admirable contribution to the debate.


'G said...

Regarding Item #5 – unreported income: AS allocate it ratably to reported income, but the source they cite (Johns & Slemrod, 63 NTJ 397 (2010)) says:
“Table 3 also shows how misleading it can be to draw conclusions about the distribution of tax noncompliance based on reported AGI.”
In particular, that table shows that top 1%’s share of total unreported income jumps from 5% (the figure AS use) to 27% when one looks at “true” AGI instead of AGI as reported on returns.

Such misuse of evidence renders the entire paper suspect.

Unknown said...

Attention! Attention!! Attention!!!,

What is your situation?

Are you in need of Urgent Loan.. All problem regarding Loans are solved between a short period of time with a low interest rate of 2% and duration more than 20 years what are you waiting for apply now and solve your problem or start a business with Loan, paying of various bills.

We offer a wide range of financial services which includes: Personal Loans, Debt consolidation loans, Business Loans, Education Loans, Mortgage Secured Loan, Unsecured loan, Mortgage Loans, Payday off Loans, Student Loans, Commercial Loans, Car Loans,Investments Loans,DevelopmentLoans, Acquisition Loans, Construction Loans, with low interest rate at 2% per annul for individuals, companies and corporate bodies. Get the best for your family and own your dream home as well with our General Loan scheme.For more details email us today via email.
call/Text us now (803) 373-2162
Chester Brian

Karen Brown said...


Good day everyone,I can’t hide this great testimony that took place in my life I will love everyone to know it and be a partaker of this, that is why I want to share it to the whole world by placing this advert on classifieds, I am Mrs Karen Brown by name, I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee United State, I want to thank ROBBINSON MOORE for his kindness upon my family life, I never knew that there is still a sincere and trustworthy lender like this on the internet and on earth. Just some days I was in search for a loan of $ 100,000.00, As I was running out of money for feeding, School fees, My business was really going out of capital and my rent. I was scammed about $15,000.00 dollars and I decided not to involve my self in such business again. But a Friend of mine introduced me to a loan firm due to my appearance and doings and also my complains to her. And I told her that I am not interested in any loan deal anymore but she told me that there is still a sincere lender who she will recommend me to, And she gave me the details of this man who is called MOORE ROBBINSON. And I really put a trial and I am most greatful and lucky today, I was given a loan amount of $95,000,00 Dollars by this great firm MOORE LOAN COMPANY. If you are in need of a genuine, Sincere, durable and a truth worthy loan lender or financial assistance and also you know you can be reliable and trusted, capable of paying back at the due / duration time of the funds I will advice you to send your contact to them via email @[] OR Test (414) 454-9493 . And you will be free from scams on the internet. Please I am begging everyone on earth to help me thank Mr ROBBINSON MOORE. And I will always being sharing this great surprise and testimony that happened in my life everyday to all that need loans. Contact them now if you are in need of a loan: AS THEY ARE EFFICIENT,DYNAMIC AND RELAIBLE.....Again there contact email [ OR Text (414) 454-9493.

Anonymous said...


I feel so blessed and fulfilled. I've been reluctant in applying for a loan i heard about online because everything seems too good to be true, but i was convinced & shocked when my friend at my place of work got a loan from Progresive Loan INC. & we both confirmed it and i also went ahead to apply, today am a proud owner of my company and making money for my family and a happy mom. Well i'm Annie Joe by name from Pauls Valley, Oklahoma. As a single mom with three kids it was hard to get a job that could take care of me and my kids and I had so much bills to pay and to make it worst I had bad credit so i couldn't obtain a loan from any bank. I had an ideal to start a business as an hair stylist but had no capital to start, Tried all type of banks but didn't work out until I was referred by my co-worker to a godsent lender advertising to give a loan at 2% interest rate. I sent them a mail using their official email address ( and I got a reply immediately and my loan was approved, and I was directed to the Bank site where I withdrawed my loan directly to my account. To cut the story short am proud of my hair stylist company and promise to testify to the world how my life was transformed.. If you are in need of any kind of loan, i advise you contact Progresive Loan INC and be financially lifted Email: OR Call/Text +1(603) 786-7565

Jon Sigurdsson said...

Thanks for the informative argument. Hope you keep posting like this
Tax Specialist

Wendy Ryan said...

Hello Beneficiary,

Your mail was received and we must say we are deeply sorry for what you have past through in the hands of those blood sucking demons who disguise as lender and extort hard earn money from individual. Some of our debtor today has once encountered scam online before they finally met us and since they met us they have got to know that we are different in the Loan industry because our client welfare is our utmost priority, We give out loans at cheap rate of 2%, There is no penalty for default of payment when it comes to the repayment of your loan amount.

Well, There is no loan company who doesn't request for upfront most of the time what the loan company does is deduct from your original loan amount. We have been doing that for years but was changed few years ago. We are certified and legalized lender and we are very straight forward in our dealings because we only do business with serious minded individual and companies so we don't like wasting each other time. When it comes to upfront you won't be requested to pay for any fee like insurance, Loan documentation fee, bank transfer charges as all that will be taken care of by the company but when it comes to the Origination of your loan amount you will be responsible according to stipulated laws and it is usually very affordable. Note this is the only fee as far as this transaction is concern.

Do get back to us if you are in agreement with this so we can put a smile on your face and end your financial struggles.

Best Regards,
George Mason,
Upstox Funding Inc

Anonymous said...

Very well written and informative blog!! I am sure that people who want to expand their knowledge usually are used to cards for earning money. What happens in this method is you create a credit cards. Moving forward, if you want to gain more knowledge about cards for earning money, this link will help you for Business loans online the process is easy and simple

Unknown said...

Kids like to play with the cards that the great activity for them to make their mind sharp. People should know about the monks law firm that the important for the society.

Rebecca Michaelson said...


I have been in financial mess for the past months, I’m a single mum with kids to look after. My name is REBECCA MICHAELSON, and am from Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. A couple of weeks ago My friend visited me and along our discussion she told me about DR BENJAMIN OWEN FINANCE of that he can help me out of my financial situation, I never believed cause I have spend so much money on different loan lenders who did nothing other than running away with my money. She advised, I gave it a try because she and some of her colleagues were rescued too by this Godsent lender with loans to revive their dying businesses and paying off bills. so I mailed him and explain all about my financial situation and therefore took me through the loan process which was very brief and easy. After that my loan application worth $278,000.00USD was granted, all i did was to follow the processing and be cooperative and today I am a proud business owner sharing the testimony of God-sent Lender. You can as well reach him through the Company Email