1. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page GWARTNEY – STROUP – SOBEL – MACPHERSON To Accompany: “Economics: Private and Public Choice, 15th ed.” James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, Russell Sobel, & David Macpherson Slides authored and animated by: James Gwartney & Charles Skipton Full Length Text — Micro Only Text — Part: 5 Part: 3 Chapter: 28 Chapter: 15 Income Inequality and Poverty

2. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson How Much Income Inequality Exists in the United States?

3. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Share of Money Income by Quintile, 1970-2009/2010 During the last four decades, the share of income earned by the top quintile has steadily risen, whereas that earned by the lowest has fallen. In 2010, the top quintile of families earned approximately 12 times as much before tax money income as the bottom quintile of families. Taxes and transfers increase the income share of the bottom three quintiles and, thereby, reduce income inequality. Second Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quartile 12.2 23.8 40.9 Before Taxes (1970 & 2010) Third Quintile 17.6 Lowest Quintile 5.4 9.5 23.5 47.8 15.4 3.8 19702010 –––– Share of Money Income, by Quintile –––– After Taxes & Transfers (2009) Second Quintile Fourth Quintile Highest Quartile Third Quintile Lowest Quintile 8.6 23.9 49.5 14.5 3.5 10.8 23.9 44.4 16.3 4.6 BeforeAfter

4. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Factors that Influence Distribution of Income A high portion of annual income inequality is due to differences in: age, education, family size, marital status, number of earners in the family, and, time worked. Young, inexperienced workers, students, single-parent families, and retirees are over-represented among those with low incomes.

5. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson High and Low Income Families, 2011 Bottom 20% of income recipients 11 33 48 19 27 63 12 78 10 2 Percent with less than high school Percent with college degree or more under 35 35 - 64 65 and over Education of householder 56 44 8 92 Married-couple family (% of total) Single-parent family (% of total) 3 3.4 Source: http://www.census.gov and author calculations from the March 2012 Current Population Survey. Top 20% of income recipients Age of householder (percent distribution) Family status Persons per family 0.7 2.1 Earners per family 6 33 Share of total work hours supplied by group 1162 % of married-couple families in which wife works full-time

6. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Why Has Income Inequality Increased? Income inequality in the U.S. has increased due to the growth of: both single-parent and dual-earner families (as a share of the total), earnings differentials on the basis of skill and education, the number of “winner-take-all” markets, and, lower marginal income tax rates inducing high earners to report more income.

7. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Mobility and Inequality in Economic Status

8. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Mobility Annual income data hide the movement of people up and down the income distribution over time. Tracking of household income over time shows there is considerable movement both up and down the income spectrum.

9. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Mobility: 1987-2007 This table allows us to see how families in each income bracket in the U.S. fared 20 years later. 51.6% of those in the top quintile had fallen to a lower quintile by 2007. Similarly, 57.7% of those in the bottom quintile in 1987 had moved up the income ladder by 2007. Do you think there is substantial income mobility in the U.S.? Highest quintile Next highest quintile Middle quintile Next lowest quintile Lowest quintile % Distribution by Income Status of Family in 2007 % Distribution by Income Status of Family in 1987 Highest quintile Next highest quintile Middle quintile Next lowest quintile Lowest quintile 48.4 24.4 29.2 15.0 10.7 14.025.2 19.8 15.0 7.815.5 24.7 42.3 23.3 7.5 7.3 13.5 29.120.7 26.0 28.5 23.4 5.46.916.4

10. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Questions for Thought: 1.Do you think the current distribution of income in the United States is too unequal? 2.Indicate three factors that have contributed to an increase in income inequality in the United States since the mid-1970s. 3. (Which of the following is true?) Data on income inequality in the U.S. indicate (a) The “rich” stay rich and the “poor” stay poor. (b) there is substantial movement among income groupings in the United States.

11. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Poverty in the United States

12. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Changing Composition of the Poor Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Line: 1982, Table 5; and http://www.census.gov. 5.3 9.5 Female Black 8.3 1959 1976 2011 Number of poor families (millions) 4852 23 Percent of poor families headed by a: Person who worked at least some during the year Elderly person (aged 65+) 3026 147 22 5544 70 All families Married-couple families 10.111.8 18.5 Poverty rate (%) Whites Female-headed families 7.2 6.2 15.8 32.531.2 42.6 9.112.8 18.1 Children (under age 18) Blacks 31.1 27.6 55.1 16.021.9 27.3 All individuals 11.715.0 22.4

13. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Transfer Payments and the Poverty Rate Income transfers have expanded substantially since the mid-1960s. These transfers have been largely ineffective at reducing the poverty rate. Though real per capita income has increased substantially over time (more than 120% since 1965), the poverty rate of working-age Americans has stayed about the same.

14. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Level: 1982, Table 5; and http://www.census.gov. The official poverty rate of U.S. families declined sharply during the 1950’s and 1960’s … Poverty Rate, 1947-2011 but has been relatively constant at about 10% since 1968. U.S. Poverty Rate (%) (all families) 32.0 18.5 13.9 10.0 9.7 10.3 10.7 8.7 11.8 19471959196519681975198019902000 2011

15. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson The orange shaded part of the bars indicate the drop in the poverty rate when non-cash benefits are counted as income. With non-cash benefits added, the poverty rate during most of the period since 1968 has ranged from 7% to 8%. Poverty Rate, 1947-2011 32.0 18.5 13.9 10.0 9.7 10.3 10.7 8.7 11.8 19471959196519681975198019902000 2011 Non-cash benefitsIncome U.S. Poverty Rate (%) (all families) Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Characteristics of the Population Below the Poverty Level: 1982, Table 5; and http://www.census.gov.

16. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Transfer Effects Income supplements large enough to significantly increase the economic status of poor people will: encourage behavior that increases the risk of poverty create high implicit marginal tax rates that reduce the recipient’s incentive to earn. Samaritan’s dilemma: Income transfers to the poor tend to reduce the opportunity cost of choices that lead to poverty. Thus, the goals of increasing the income of the poor through transfers and discouraging behavior that leads to poverty are in conflict.

17. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Implicit Marginal Tax Rates and the Incentive to Earn Source: Based on Anthony C. Gregory and J. Sebastian Leguizamon, “Quit Punishing the Working Poor: Reduce Work Disincentives in the Welfare System,” in Unleashing Capitalism: Why Prosperity Stops at the West Virginia Border and How to Fix It, ed. Russel Sobel (Morgantown, WV: Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia, 2007). $ 8,976 Income and Employment Taxes Spendable Income Implicit Marginal Tax Rate (%) Transfer Benefits Earned Income From Work $ 0 12,842 22.7% 8,2253835,000 15,738 42.1 6,503 76510,000 18,535 44.1 4,955 1,42015,000 19,842 73.9 1,9142,072 20,000 23,419 28.51,115 2,69725,000 Effect of Transfer Benefits and Taxes on a West Virginia Mother with One Child to Earn Income (July 2007) Here you see the implicit marginal tax rates facing a low-income mother with one child in West Virginia. As her work earnings go up, her income & employment taxes increase and transfer benefits are reduced. The combination of taxes and reduction in benefits takes more than 40% of the increase in earnings in the $5,000 – $15,000 range. The implicit marginal tax rate peaks in the $15,000 to $20,000 interval at 74%.

18. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Inequality: Some Concluding Thoughts

19. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Income Inequality Positive economics cannot determine how much inequality should be present. Income inequality reflects differences between individuals and influences their incentive to develop resources and engage in productive activities. The nature of the process, as well as the pattern of income distribution, is relevant to the issue of fairness.

20. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Questions for Thought: 1.What is the poverty threshold income level? How is it measured? Is the threshold adjusted for family size? Is it adjusted for inflation? 2.What impact did the expansion in government income transfers during the 1960s have on the poverty rate? Was the War on Poverty successful? Why or why not? 3.Do individuals have a property right to income they acquire from market transactions? Is it a proper function of government to tax some people in order to provide benefits to others? Why or why not?

21. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page 15 th edition Gwartney-Stroup Sobel-Macpherson Questions for Thought: 4. What determines whether a distribution of income is fair? Do you think that the major income transfer programs of the U.S. are fair? 5. The outcome of a state lottery game is certainly a very unequal distribution of the prize. Some players are made very rich while other lose their money. Is this outcome fair? Is the process fair? Discuss.

22. Copyright ©2015 Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible web site, in whole or in part. First page End of Chapter 28