Welfare Spending: Most Goes to Seniors

More elderly people receive social assistance, and their social assistance is far more generous.

What is interesting is that a core constituency of these anti-welfare initiatives are in fact society’s biggest welfare recipients: the elderly. We can illustrate that fact by digging into data from the Survey of Consumer Finances.1

Varieties of Welfare

Our first step involves asking, what is welfare? Here, it includes economic transfers from taxpayers to households that qualify for government programs designed to help families who do not earn enough money on their own. There are three major types of social payments programs in the US:

The Distribution of Social Spending, from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The Distribution of Social Spending, from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Many readers might object to the inclusion of Social Security as a type of welfare program, on the grounds that it is a system into which its recipients have paid. In fact, Social Security is a PAYGO system, in which today’s seniors’ checks are principally funded by the payroll deductions taken from the working populations’ paychecks. Today’s recipients’ payroll deductions were used to pay for the Social Security checks of those who were elderly during their working years. These are current transfers from the working to (largely) non-working population.

Program Costs

One way to gauge how much people are getting from these programs is to look at their costs. The figure to the left was taken from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Social Security is by far the most expensive, absorbing nearly one-quarter of the federal budget, along with a substantial part of state budgets. It roughly costs as much as all health care spending (post-Affordable Care Act) and more than double the amount of all remaining social safety net programs combined.

Number of Recipients

The figure below describes the percentage of households receiving any money from these three social payments programs:

g1

The number of people receiving all three types of assistance fell in numbers over the 1990s. In part, this was a byproduct of an extraordinarily long prosperity and strong labor markets. When jobs are bountiful and better paid, fewer people need public assistance.

Since 2001, America’s welfare system – at least the part of it that provides money to poor people – expanded considerably. Social Security recipients grew as a group since the mid-1990s. The proportion of households receiving welfare as cash payments (e.g., TANF, SNAP, traditional welfare checks) has grown steadily since 2001. Workers’ benefits have grown since the 2008 crisis.

Program Generosity

The figure below describes the median take from each of these three program types. This is the median receipts from each program type among all households receiving any money.

g2

The median take from Social Security is by far the biggest and fastest-rising. In 1992, it was just over $8100. By 2013, it stood at $16,740. Payments more than doubled, and did so at a time when incomes stagnated.

The take from workers’ programs also doubled, from $2,480 to $5,120.  This growth has been fueled by largely temporary expansions after the 2008 financial crisis (e.g., extending eligibility for Unemployment Insurance). Many of these program extensions have since expired, and they will probably be lower when the 2016 survey’s results are released.

Welfare, on the other hand, has not grown. In 1992, median welfare take stood at $2940. By 2013, it was $2,660.

Poor Young People Aren’t Major Social Assistance Recipients

America has a large welfare state, but it primarily serves the elderly. Social payments to the working age population and the poor are far less generous. Payments to the poor are low and have been shrinking, probably as a result of the political demonization of these programs.

In contrast, senior-targeted social programs have been generous. This generosity has been growing at a time when the government has been trying to cut other assistance programs.


  1. These analyses were aided by the excellent R resources made available by Anthony Damico

Does Crime Prevail in Big Liberal Cities?

Do liberal policies promote crime? Crime rates appear to be highest in America’s South, a conservative stronghold.

Rising crime is a theme that often emerges in this election.  Of course, this argument runs contrary to FBI crime statistics, which show that it has been declining for decades.  This fall is depicted in the below figure, taken from Gallup:

pewcrime
From Lydia Saad (2011)

Still, this line is used often in this election’s political discourse.

Portraying Democratic Strongholds as Plagued by Crime

Take this CNN interview of Newt Gingrich during the Republican National Convention.  It is an excerpt from a segment form John Oliver, which is certainly worth watching in its entirety:

Note that Gingrich cites large urban areas in regions that have proportionally more non-whites and tend to lean Democrat: Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, DC.  Presumably, the underlying message is that these problems fester in there because liberal policies allow it to fester.  One might infer, by extension, that the solution is to implement conservative policies, which are taken to be the opposite of liberal policies.  Assume liberal policies promote crime, then conclude that their opposite discourages it.

Rates Are Often Higher in Smaller Metro Areas in Republican Strongholds

The problem is that most of the country’s areas that are most severely plagued are in America’s South, which is also the country’s conservative stronghold.  Moreover, crime appears to be a bigger problem in smaller metro areas, rather than the country’s biggest ones.

The interactive map below is constructed from the FBI’s UCR database. It shows the distribution of different crimes’ rates, the cities in which they are most common, and a map that describes how the incidence varies across the country’s metro areas.

Note that much of the Northeast has generally low rates, despite the region’s very large metro areas and their penchant for liberal policies.  If conservative policies  — like aggressive policing and highly punitive sentencing — were effective means to control crime, then wouldn’t conservative strongholds have lower rates?

Of course, all of this is simplistic.  A variety of factors shape these rates.  Many of high-crime areas have high poverty rates, for example.  However, if the causes of aggressive policing and sentencing do not determine crime rates, then why address the crime problem with them?

Household Income Sources: Who Gets Welfare?

Conservative politicians and pundits often imply that massive parts of the country are dependent on government assistance (e.g., Mitt Romney’s famous 47% claim).  Many imply that much of this assistance goes to hoardes of people live lives of luxuries while doing little to no work.  These depictions are often racialized to imply that non-whites are the chief recipients of assistance.  It is often implied that this money is taken by young drug-users, or women who cannot or do not want to control their fertility.

Racialized depiction of social assistance recipients, from The Gender Press

How accurate are these depictions?  We can probe the question by examining data from the Survey of Consumer Finances.

Household Income Sources

When we think about where people get money, we generally think about wages, payments in exchange for labor. Wages are the most prevalent form of income, but it is not the only way that people earn money. People also earn money through financial investments, business income, government payments, payments from personal relations, royalties, rents, and a range of other sources. People do not just differ in terms of how much income they earn, but also in the composition of their income portfolio.

Income Type % Receiving Any % Receiving >$10k
Any Income >99% 96%
Wages 72% 66%
Social Security & Pensions 36% 30%
Interest & Dividends 22% 4%
Business / Farm 16% 10%
Welfare1 14% 1%
Capital Gains 6% 2%
Alimony & Child Support 5% 1%

The table shows six prominent forms of household income. Most households are sustained by wages, but over one-quarter of households earn no wages. Many of these households earn some, but not much, in wages – only two-thirds earn more than $10,000 in wages.

The second most prevalent form of income is Social Security and retirement pension payments. Most of this is Social Security, which is received by 30% of the country’s households. Keep in mind, this does not mean that 30% of households are entirely sustained by Social Security, but rather that someone in 30% of households receives a check from the program. About 23% of households get more than $10 thousand from this program.

Social Security represents the biggest source of government payments to households by far. By contrast, only 14% of households receive some form of welfare payment, including food stamps, TNAF or some other welfare. Usually, this is a meager source of inceom. Only 1% of households get more than $10 thousand in welfare. When people are bemoaning the fact that many households are receiving large payments from the government, they are referring to programs for the elderly, not programs for the poor.

Aside from wages and government payments, most other forms of income are not very common. Just over one-fifth receive money from interest or dividends, but most of this involves very small interest income from deposit accounts. Only 4% of households receive more than $10 thousand from this form of income. Very few households received much in capital gains either. About 10% of households receive more than $10,000 from a business or farm.

The Takeaway.  The vast majority of government assistance recipients are elderly people.  Comparatively few households receive “welfare” that is directed towards indigent members of the working age population.  Moreover, the latter form of welfare is much less than that the social assistance directed towards elderly people.

Market versus Government-Sustained Income

About 89% of households receive any income kind of income from wages, business/farm income, interest, dividends, and private pensions. Just of ten percent of society’s households earns no money through markets. In contrast, 39% receive money from government payments.

Which demographics more or less often sustained by government payments, as opposed to markets? Older households almost universally receive government payments, though most households receive market earnings throughout their life cycle.

Age Group % Receiving Market Earnings % Receiving Government Payments
< 35 94% 21%
35 – 44 95% 18%
45 – 54 93% 18%
55 – 64 88% 33%
65 – 74 81% 91%
Age 75+ 76% 99%

Education also differentiates earnings compositions. College graduates overwhelmingly receive market earnings, but one-quarter still receive government payments. A majority of high school dropouts receive government payments.

Education % Receiving Market Earnings % Receiving Government Payments
< High School 72% 61%
High School 86% 50%
Some College 91% 38%
College 95% 25%

Race and enthnicity also distinguish the composition of household earnings. Hispanics and “Others” are least likely to receive government payments.

Race/Ethnicity % Receiving Market Earnings % Receiving Government Payments
White 91% 39%
Black 81% 50%
Hispanic 88% 32%
Other 86% 27%

The Takeaway.  A considerable proportion of virtually all racial, ethnic, and educational groups receive government assistance.  Among different age groups, younger people receive considerably less assistance than the elderly.

Unfair Characterizations

The imagery that the working population is being taxed heavily to support lazy young minorities is inaccurate and unfair.  Government assistance mainly goes to supporting the elderly, while payments to poorer members of the working age population are less common and much smaller.  Moreover, a wide variety of demographic groups receive social assistance.


  1. Includes SNAP, TANF, and other welfare payments

Financial Income: Not Important for Most Households

Over the past several decades, America’s financial sector has boomed. Financial assets have appreciated rapidly  The range financial investment options available to consumers has multiplied. One might assume that this has led to a boom in financial income for households. It has not. Today, households receive less money from financial investments than they did thirty years ago.  The typical US family earns much less in financial income than twenty years ago.

The Financial Boom, and Rising Incentives to Invest

The myRA is a government program intended to promote financial investment among lower-income households
The myRA is a government program intended to promote financial investment among lower-income households

America’s financial sector is much larger than it was forty years ago.  There is much more money flowing through financial markets.  Financial markets now make up a greater proportion of overall economic activity.  Financial enterprises now employ far more people.  The rising stature of financial markets is widely known as financialization.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not financialization benefits the average American household.  Some argue that expanding financial markets have created new opportunities to borrow or invest, which theoretically leads to more businesses and jobs.  Moreover, it is though to have provided US households with great opportunities to accumulate wealth.  From the 1980s until the 2008 crisis, financial markets were very prosperous, and those who were invested in it reaped the benefits.  Those with the resources and foresight to invest in financial markets enjoyed excellent returns.

In the midst of this financial boom, many government programs sought to encourage households to invest more in financial markets.  Programs like the IRA, 529s, 401k’s, or the more recent myRA give people financial incentives to invest.  To those who see financial investment as a boon to households, such programs help people help themselves.

What is interesting is that, although financial markets have grown considerably, financial returns have been high, and government incentives to invest have grown, the typical family makes much less off of financial investments than 25 years ago.

Financial Income is Widely Falling

The table below compares the size and composition of financial earnings among US households in 1992 versus 2013. Data are from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.1 It describes the percentage of US households receiving various forms of income, and the median take of each investment type.  The median take is the median value of this income among all households receiving any financial income of the sort in question.  Note that these figures are in constant dollars.

Year 1992 2013
Median Income (all households) $43,314 $46,669
% Receiving Financial Income 44% 23%
Median Total Financial Take $928 $958
% Receiving Interest Income 40% 17%
Median Interest Income Take $564 $250
% Receiving Dividend Income 17% 13%
Median Dividend Income Take $538 $1,220
% Receiving Capital Gains 6% 6%
Median Capital Gain Income Take $2,700 $5,000
% Receiving Tax Exempt Bond Income 5% 2%
Median Tax Exempt Bond Income Take $2,140 $3,800

The table suggest that fewer people receive financial income, but those who have been able to invest in stocks are taking in more money.

Fewer Households Receive Any Kind of Financial Income

The table shows that the proportion of households receiving any kind of income has fallen considerably. In 1993, 44% of US households received any kind of financial income. By 2013, about half as many households received anything. Even though far fewer households receive any kind of income, the median take hasn’t moved. In effect, the typical person who sits in the top 25% of society in terms of financial income now receives as much from their investments than someone in the top 50% person twenty years ago.

The fall in household incomes from finance is mainly the result of low interest rates. Most of the households receiving financial income did so through the interest that they received on deposit accounts or certificates of deposit. Today, those accounts yield next to nothing in the present investment environment. In other words, less than half as many people receive interest income today as twenty years ago, and those who are fortunate enough to keep getting this kind of income are receiving far less than in the past.

Similarly, the prevalence of holdings in other financial income categories has fallen, though less dramatically. For those who continue to earn income from these sources, the typical take has risen. Capital gains were buoyed by spectacular gains in the stock market by 2013. Dividends have also risen. For tax-exempt bonds (like munis), the typical take has risen, but it is probably a byproduct of fewer, bigger investors being left in those markets.

This fall is one source of consternation among wealthier older people, who were relying on their accumulated wealth to yield low-risk income through these kinds of investments.

The Median Take from Stock Market Investments 

Those who have managed to maintain an investment in stock markets have seen their takes rise.  The typical take on capital gains has roughly doubled in the past quarter-century.  Dividends’ take has more than doubled.

What is interesting, however, is that the franchise of these investments has not expanded much.  Despite the massive development in private financial markets, and multiple government programs designed to encourage financial investment, the proportion of households receiving financial income has more or less stayed the same, if it has not fallen.  Moreover, it is not as if this exponential growth has created a massive stream of income for those who are invested in financial markets.  Households who are invested in financial markets are generally wealthier, such that these typical takes are not huge.  An elite 6% of US society is receiving any kind of dividend, but that dividend amounts to about $100 a month – far less than what Social Security delivers.

Investment Markets are Not Critical to the Vast Majority of US Households

While we may be impressed by the massive growth in financial markets, the historical returns that have accrued to shareholders, and the government’s policy of aggressively encouraging financial investment, financial income accrues to a very small proportion of US households.  Moreover, most of those who receive financial income are not receiving much, relative to other common income sources like labor or government payments.  The franchise of financial investment is simply not expanding.  Financial income is much more critical to very wealthy households, and its role in shaping income is marginal to zero for the vast majority of Americans.

 

  1. With help from Anthony Damico’s excellent resources, see http://www.asdfree.com

Income Growth across the Income Scale

Median incomes have been stagnating for a long time, but what about those closer to the top and bottom of the income scale?

On one hand, we might expect those with lower incomes to experience faster income gains, because their incomes have more “room to grow.” Presumably, it is easier for someone to double their income by moving from a $15,000 to $30,000 a year job than it is for someone who earns $150,000 to find a $300,000 a year job.

On the other, most of us have some sense that those with more money tend to prosper more. Those with higher paying jobs tend to be better trained, their work is less likely to be outsourced to low-income foreign countries, and their overall income is probably supplemented by the investment opportunities aforded by their higher incomes (e.g., stock dividends, capital gains, business income)

The figure below uses Census Bureau data1 to depict changes in household incomes at different points of the country’s income scale. The lines depict changes in the lines that divide income quartiles. Those who earn less than the 20th percentile income are earning less than 80% of the population. Those whose earnings surpass the 95th percentile are in the top 5% of earners. And so on.

Income Growth Across Classes

The graph shows how high income earners have seen their incomes grow faster over the 46 years depicted. In 1967, an income of at least $60,813 would have put you in the top 5% of earners. This translates into an income of $115,863 in 2013 dollars. By 2013, 95th percentile incomes grew by nearly 69%, to $196,000. By comparison, 80th percentile income thresholds rose by about 47% during this period, 60th by 29%, 40th by 12%, and 20th by 14%.

These differences were produced by minor differences in year-on-year income growth. Incomes at the top of the pyramid enjoyed growth rates that were less than one percentage point higher than those at the bottom, but the cumulative effect of these different growth rates are large. The table below describes how mean annual real income growth rates varied across the income scale.

Mean Annual Growth Rates of Real Household Income, US, 1967 – 2013

Percentile 1967 – 2013 1967 – 2000 2000 – 2013
95th +1.1% +1.6% -0.0%
80th +0.8% +1.3% -0.0%
60th +0.5% +1.0% -0.6%
40th +0.3% +0.7% -0.8%
20th +0.3% +0.8% -1.1%

In addition to the observation that higher income people tend to earn more money, the data also suggest that incomes have been stagnating to falling across the income scale since 2000. Mean income growth rates were negative across the board, although the upper 20 percent’s negative rates are barely distinguishable from zero. Still, no one seems to be getting a raise in the 21st century economy, except perhaps those at the very, very top of the income scale. One possibility, which I will discuss at a later date, is that those closer to the top of the income scale are getting richer, but they are accumulating wealth through the appreciation of assets they own, as opposed to earning higher incomes.


  1. Census Bureau (2014) “Table H-1: Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of All Households: 1967 to 2013” Data table.http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Download the raw data and R Markup file

Household Income Stagnation

A look at household income growth in the United States, 1947 to 2012

Over the past fifteen or so years, median real household incomes have stagnated. This observation is widely evoked in arguments that America’s middle class is faring poorly. It is used as a basis for asserting that the US economy does not serve regular Americans’ economic interests well.

Real income means inflation-adjusted income, a metric that is used in an attempt to differentiate genuine raises from those that merely reflect changes in general prices. For example, the median household in 1947 received about $3 thousand in income, but that money could purchase more then because prices were generally lower. At current prices, the Census Bureau estimates that this $3,000 (the prevailing nominal income at that time) is equivalent to (a real income of) about $27,000 today.1 This implies that the median household, whose income was about $60 thousand in 2012, has somewhere between twice and three times (rather than twenty or so times) the purchasing power of its post-WWII counterpart.

The figure below depicts canges in median US real household income from 1949 to 2012. Data are drawn from the Census Bureau.2

Median Income Stagnation

 

Between 1950 and about 1970, median household incomes rose quicky and steadily. Median real incomes grew at an average annual rate of about 3.5% per year, compared to an average rate of 0.9% from 1970 to 2000 and -0.1% from 2001 onwards.

These seemingly modest differences in growth rates amount to big income differences over time. For example, had real income continued to growth at its mid-century pace, real median income in 2012 would have been somewhere around $236 thousand, instead of $64 thousand. Had it maintained its 0.9% annual growth rate from 2000 onward, median incomes would have been somewhere around $75,320 by 2012. Had incomes not fallen since 2000, the median household would have about $5000 income in inflation-adjusted terms.

Over time, median wages have slowed. Their decline over the past 15 years makes the slow, steady growth of the 1970s through 1990s look like the “good old days.” However, the middle class prosperity of the past 40 years was far inferior to what was experienced in the 1950s and 1960s, at least insofar as real incomes are concerned.

Over the past several decades, the US economy has largely failed to secure rising incomes for its middle class. Policy has failed to create an environment in which regular Americans have been able to earn more money relative to prices. Of course, discerning how it has failed is a much more complicated (and different) topic.


  1. Census Bureau (2014) “Table F-5: Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder – Families by Median and Mean Income: 1947 to 2012” Data table. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/
  2. Ibid.

Download the R Markdown file and raw data here

Am I Rich? Musing about Income and Wealth Differences across Economic Class Lines

How much money does it take to be part of the upper class? The lower class? These types of questions are troublesome. There are undeniably wealthy people who think that they are middle class, and some patently poor people who self-identify as part of the middle class. Drawing economic class lines is complicated.

Still, it is interesting to draw hypothetical lines. The exercise gives us some indication of what different classes’ personal finances might look like, and where someone seems likely to lie on the country’s economic hierarchy.

According to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center,1 about 32% of US society self-identifies with the lower or lower-middle class. Another 49% identify with the middle class proper. A further 15% identify with the upper-middle class, and 2% with the upper-class. Without data on these respondents’ personal finances, we cannot create a profile of how households’ finances differ across (self-identified) economic classes.

Drawing Class Lines with Data

Perhaps another solution is to ask how household finances differ across classes if people were to correctly identify their own economic class. For example, if the 2% of respondents were correct that they were at or above the 98th percentile of income or wealth, then how much would they earn or possess? We can answer this question using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances2. The table gives the implied income and net worth ranges:

Class Income Range Net Worth Range
Lower Class
(min to 7th pctl.)
below $11,565 below -$9,018
Lower-Middle Class
(7th to 32nd pctl.)
$11,566 – $30,435 -$9,019 – $18,210
Middle Class
(32nd to 82nd pctl.)
$30,436 – $109,914 $18,211 – $483,420
Upper-Middle Class
(82nd to 98th pctl.)
$109,915 – $417,175 $483,421 – $4.4 million
Upper Class
(above 98th pctl.)
above $417,176 above $4.4 million

I would imagine that the income figures make sense to readers, but not the wealth figures. In general, people seem to draw economic class lines based on income, and they often fail to appreciate how wealth varies and the impact of wealth on a household’s overall economic situation. Conretely speaking, the middle class has wide ranges in wealth, which sit between the rough equivalent of a year’s worth of poverty line income and nearly a half million dollars.

An alternative, ad hoc division might look like this. The typology captures how a very large proportion of society has next to no wealth. While 7% of society’s households are “poor” in income terms, nearly a quarter of them are “wealth” poor. The middle 50% has some wealth, but not enough to cover a few years at the poverty line. Like income, wealth is concentrated in the top quarter, and most of this is concentrated in the higher ranks of this top quartile:

Wealth Class Net Worth Range
Bottom 25%
(min to 25th pctl.)
below $8,784
Middle 50%
(25th and 75th pctl.)
$8,785 – $81,456
Upper-Middle
(75th to 90th pctl.)
$81,457 – $315,712
Lower Top 10%
(90th to 95th pctl.)
$315,713 – $943,656
Top 5%
(95th to 99th pctl.)
$943,657 – $1.9 million
Top 1%
(99th to 99.9th pctl.)
$1.9 million – $7.9 million
Top 0.1%
(above 99.9th pctl.)
above $7.9 million

 


  1. Rich Morin and Seth Motel (2012) “A Third of Americans Now Say They Are in the Lower Classes” Research report from Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/10/a-third-of-americans-now-say-they-are-in-the-lower-classes/
  2. Federal Reserve Board (2014) Survey of Consumer Finances Database at http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/scf/scfindex.htm. Data were analyzed in R using scripts that were adapted from prior work of Anthony Damico, at http://www.asdfree.org

Studying the Rich: Wealth More Important than Income

 

Over the past several years, discussions about the rich have focused on the top 1% — those who have more than 99 out of 100 Americans.  But the top 1% of what?

To most people, the most obvious answer is income.  We tend to understand people’s economic situation with reference to their incomes. Income is the money that flows into people’s bank accounts in a given time period (e.g., a month, a year).  People are classified as poor when their incomes fall below the poverty line. We also tend to think that incomes distinguish the rich.  Most Americans think that a $150,000 a year in income is enough to make someone rich.1  

This focus is natural because income is what distinguishes people’s economic situations over the bottom, middle, and even upper-middle reaches of the economic pyramid.  From this presumption, the press began to pin the dividing line between the “rich” and non-rich at around $390,000 a year, the 99th percentile of adjusted gross income reported in 2011 returns.  Who is in this group?

They were executives at non-financial companies, financial professionals, doctors, lawyers and an occupational category that lumps together computer, math, engineering and technical jobs in non-financial firms.

This made the one percent look like the hard-working professionals who operate in your local community.  They are almost regular Joes, but with good jobs.

The Importance of Wealth

Social scientists who study inequality often use wealth (or net worth) to distinguish the wealthy from the rest of society. In many ways, someone with a high net worth is in a much better position that someone who has a high income. Imagine how the economic situations of two hypothetical households would differ. Household A has a median income and a 99th percentile net worth, and the Household B has a median net worth and a 99th percentile income. In all other respects, these households are the same. Their situations would look like this:

A Household with a Median Income and Top Percentile Net Worth versus One with Median Net Worth and a Top Percentile Income

Household Income Net Worth
A $47 thousand $7.9 million
B $696 thousand $81 thousand

Note that these are real estimates.  They represent the top 1% of households (not tax returns), and they are based on survey reports of households’ gross incomes, rather than their adjusted gross income (i.e., it includes income that is exempted or deducted from tax forms’ reported adjusted gross income).  Figures are based on data from the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances.

Obviously, it would be nice to be either. But who is better off? The household that earns a high income could eventually get to an $8 million net worth, but it would take some good fortune and a long time. A person would have keep that high-paying job or maintain that highly-profitable business for decades to accumulate $8 million in wealth. Meanwhile, a 5% return on that $7.9 million in assets would deliver an income of $395,000. The only reason a high net worth person would report a $47,000 income is (a) spectacularly bad decision-making or (b) accounting tricks to avoid paying taxes.

Income and Wealth are Different

Income and wealth can be quite different. For example, among the 9% of US households worth $1 million or more, about 5% earn less than $36,000 and 10% earn less than $60,500. These are often retirees whose wealth is largely comprised of their home, which is generally a non-performing asset. Although these people show up in the data as being of modest means in terms of income, the truth is that they have access to quite a bit of money if they needed it.

The main reason to distinguish wealth from income is that the wealthy can manage their assets in a way that do not result in income.  When a person’s home values rise or their stock portfolios appreciate, accountants do not count that as income.  It is a capital gain, or asset appreciation.  The wealthy can accumulate wealth with very little income, as long as their assets are rising in value.

Although we focus on income when judging people’s economic situations, their wealth is usually a better gauge of whether or not they are in an economically strong position. High incomes can be fleeting, but it takes some very bad financial decision-making to go bankrupt from a position of high wealth.


  1. Jeffrey M. Jones (2011) “Americans Set”Rich” Threshold at $150,000 in Annual Income” Report. Gallup. December 8.http://www.gallup.com/poll/151427/Americans-Set-Rich-Threshold-150-000-Annual-Income.aspx