Income Distribution in the United States, 1950-53 · As can be seen from the top panel of the...

by Selma F. Goldsmith

Income Distributionin the United States, 1950-53

INCOME of American fami-lies was $272 billion in 1954,or slightly more than the ag-gregate for 1953. Its stabil-ity reflected the variousforces, reviewed in previousissues of the SURVEY, thatsupported the flow of per-sonal income during the re-cent business readjustment.Because of the reduction inFederal individual incometax rates, income after Fed-eral tax liability increased by$4 billion over 1953, reachinga total of $245X billion.

This represented an average after-tax family income of$4,820 in 1954. The term family is used to include un-attached individuals as well as multiperson families in thisarticle, except where it is necessary to distinguish these twogroups. The relative increase over 1953 in average incomewas smaller than that in total income because of a rise in the

This article brings up-to-date the size distributions of familyincome that were initiated by the Office of Business Economicsin a supplement to the Survey of Current Business, "IncomeDistribution in the United States, by Size, 1944-50." (U. S.Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C., 1953, price65 cents.) It presents revised estimates for 1950 and new esti-mates for 1951 and 1953. Their derivation is described brieflyat the end of the article. For a detailed discussion of definitionsand sources and methods, and also for back-year data, the readeris referred to the Income Distribution supplement.

number of family units from50 K million to almost 51 mil-lion. Before-tax average in-come was $5,330 in 1954,differing little from 1953.

Taking into account themoderate rise shown by avail-able price indexes for con-sumer goods and services, itappears that the real after-tax income of the averageAmerican family was aboutthe same in the 2 years.

The real purchasing powerof the average American fam-ily increased steadily over

most of the postwar period through 1953. As compared with1929, which provides a convenient prewar benchmark, theincrease in average real income after Federal income taxeswas roughly 30 percent. On a per capita basis, the increasewas higher—about 40 percent—since the size of the familywas larger 25 years ago than at the present time.

Income Distribution in 1953

The frontispiece and table 1 show the 1953 distribution ofAmerican families and of their total income by broad^ familyincome brackets. These figures are preliminary. The lastcomprehensive source material regarding the size distributionof income refers to 1951 and only sample data are availablefor 1953. Similarly, the estimates of tax liability are tenta-tive. They are extrapolated from 1951 tax return informa-tion on the basis of changes in statutory tax rates andestimates of total tax liability derived from tax collections.

1954 distribution similar

Although these estimates apply specifically to 1953, theycan be taken as representative also of the broad structureof the consumer market in 1954. This is suggested by thesimilarity of the income figures for the 2 years, both on anaggregate and average basis, and by the stability in ^therelative distribution of income throughout the postwar period,which is one of the major findings of this report. However,the impact of the Federal income tax was somewhat smaller in1954 than in 1953 because of reductions averaging about 10

NOTE.—SELMA F. GOLDSMITH IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL IN-COME DIVISION, OFFICE OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS.

percent in statutory tax rates and because of revisions intro-duced in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The bars in the bottom section of the chart show the num-ber of families in each income range. The concentration offamilies is heaviest in the middle income ranges, although aconsiderable number are to be found also in the lower incomegroups.

The largest number of families are in the $3,000 to $4,000bracket. "The $4,000 to $5,000 range included the average(median) family income, estimated at $4,410 in 1953; halfof the families had incomes below and half incomes abovethis amount. The income range between $5,000 and $6,000included the average (mean) income of $5,370.

Each of these three groups contained about 7 millionfamilies. Thus, 21 million, or over 40 percent of the Nation's50K million consumer units had incomes from $3,000 to$6,000. Almost 30 percent had incomes of $6,000 or more,and about the same proportion received incomes of less than$3,000. Certain factors that should be taken into accountin evaluating the position of low income groups, such as thepreponderance of unattached individuals, will be reviewedlater.

As can be seen from the top panel of the chart, the dis-tribution of income was pitched higher on the income scale

15Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1955

16 SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS March 1955

than the distribution of families. The largest amount ofincome per $1,000 range was received by the group withincomes between $5,000 and $6,000, and a substantial pro-portion of the income total accrued to the middle incomebrackets adjacent to this group. The chart shows concen-tration of incomes also in the upper income ranges; these, ofcourse, accounted for a much larger proportion of the totalconsumer market in terms of incomes than in terms of thenumber of families.

Impact of income tax

Because of taxation, the distribution of purchasing powerdiffered from the distribution of before-tax incomes. In thisreport allowance has been made for the impact of the Federalindividual income tax, which was the most important factorin this connection.

In 1953, total Federal individual income tax liability wasabout $30 billion, or 11 percent of before-tax income. Capitalgains taxes are excluded from this total because the gainsthemselves are not part of personal income. A larger thanproportionate share of the income tax was paid by the highincome groups. For instance, families in the $15,000 andover income bracket received approximately 15 percent ofbefore-tax income but accounted for about 35 percent of totalFederal income tax liability. Effective Federal income taxrates (tax liability expressed as a percent of total before-taxincome) increased from a negligible proportion in the lowbrackets to 25 percent in the $15,000 and over group.

In the interpretation of these rates several points shouldbe kept in mind. In the first place, the $15,000 and overgroup, which is not broken down further for 1953 because oflack of adequate information, represents the combination ofincome brackets for which the incidence of the Federal incometax is widely different. It is in these brackets that the gradu-ation of this tax is most substantial and units high up on thescale are subject to tax rates that are much heavier than the

Table 1.—Distribution of Families, Family Income, and FederalIncome Tax Liability, by Family Income Level in 1953

Family personalincome (beforeincome taxes)

Under $1,000$1,000- $1,999 -$2,000- $2,999 .$3,000- $3,999$4,000- $4,999 -

$5,000- $5,999$6,000- $6,999$7 000- $7 999$8,000- $8,999$9,000- $9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15,000 and over__-_

Total

Families andunattachedindividuals

Number(millions)

2.95.46.57.47.2

6.34.53.22.01.3

2.31.5

50.5

Percent

611131514

12

I43

43

100

Family personal income

Amount(billions

of dollars)

1.48.2

16.326.032.5

34.328.924.217.312.6

27.542.3

271.5

Percent

136

1012

1310965

1015

100

Averageincome(dollars)

5001,5202,5103.5104,490

5.4706,4707,4708, 4609,460

12, 09028, 310

5,370

Federal individualincome tax liability

Percentof familyincome 1

03.05.06.07.0

8.59.5

10.010.511.0

12.024.5

11.0

Percentof totalliability

01357

109865

1135

100

1. Rounded to nearest ^i percent.Source: Office of Business Economics, U. S. Department of Commerce.

average for the group. In 1951, for instance, families in the$50,000 and over group were subject to an effective rate of40 percent as compared with a rate of 24 percent for the$15,000 and over group as a whole.

Secondly, personal income is defined to include elementsthat are not taxable, such as certain types of income in kindand transfer payments; also for various reasons other formsof personal income are not fully reported on income tax re-

turns. Thus, the effective rates on personal income shownhere are somewhat lower than those derived directly from taxreturns. Further, these effective rates represent averages onthe incomes of families differing widely with respect tocomposition and size and hence with respect to tax liability.Finally, the rates are averages on total income before de-ductions and exemptions, and not the steeper marginal rates,implicit in these averages, to which increments of incomeare subject.

Table 2.—-Families and Their Incomes by Family Income Level,1947 and 1953


Under $] ,000$1,000-$! ,999$2.000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999_-

$5,000-$5.999$f\000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15. 000 and over

Total

Number offamilies andunattachedindividuals(millions)

1947

3.77.48.58.65.7

3.53. 12.2

1.2.8

44.7

1953

2.95.46.57.47.2

6.36.24. 8

2.31.5

50.5

Family personalincome (billions

of dollars)

1947

2.011.221.230.025.6

19.020.818.4

14.322.1

184. 6

1953

1.48.2

16.326.032.5

34.341.841.2

27.542.3

271.5

Percent distribution

Number

1947

816191913

875

32

100

1953

611131514

121210

43

100

Income

1947

16

121614

101110

812

100

1953

136

1012

131515

1015

100

Source: Office of Business Economics, U. S. Department of Commerce.

For the broad income groups shown, the impact of theFederal income tax modifies the pattern of the before-taxincome distribution but does not change its general outline.However, if the $15,000 and over income group could bebroken down further, it would become evident that familiesin successively higher positions on the income scale experiencea marked progressive reduction in their share of total after-tax purchasing power as compared with their share of totalbefore-tax income. In 1951, for example, families in the$50,000 and over income groups received 3% percent of totalbefore-tax income but accounted for only 2% percent ofafter-tax purchasing power.

Broad income groups

Additional light is thrown on consumer income and pur-chasing power if the size distribution data are expressed in amanner that serves to summarize the income position of theNation's families relative to each other. This is done inthe accompanying chart in which families have been rankedaccording to the size of their before-tax income and dividedinto five groups of equal number. For each group, and alsofor the top 5 percent, the chart shows its percentage share oftotal before-tax income, of total Federal individual incometax liability, and of total after-tax income.

Families with incomes under $2,300 comprised the lowestfifth of consumer units in 1953 and received about 5 percentof total before-tax income. The next two groups also ac-counted for proportions of before-tax income that weresmaller than their relative numbers. The remaining twogroups received a larger than proportionate share, with thetop fifth accounting for almost 45 percent of the income total.

The graduated character of the Federal individual incometax is shown by this presentation also. The lowest fifth ofDigitized for FRASER

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1955

March 1955 SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS 17

consumer units was responsible for 1 percent of total taxliability, in sharp contrast to the top fifth which accountedfor 64 percent. The relative payments of the top groupwould be higher if the portion of the Federal income taxrelating to capital gains had been included.

The effect of the Federal income tax can be seen by com-paring the proportions of before- and after-tax incomes.For all but the top group, percentage shares of after-taxincome were somewhat larger than those of before-tax

income. In contrast the relative share of the top fifth as awhole was reduced moderately as a consequence of the tax.

Within this group the effect of the Federal income taxbecomes more marked at successively higher points on theincome scale. For instance, the proportion of the top 5percent of families comprising units with incomes over$12,100 was reduced from almost 21 to 18 percent, or byone-eighth. Even more substantial reductions are found inyet higher income ranges.

Changes in Income Distribution, 1947—53

Most of the postwar period was characterized by anupsweep of money incomes which reflected in part the ad-vance in the price level. From 1947 to 1953 total familyincome, both on a before- and after-tax basis, rose by almost50 percent. Average current dollar family income, shownin the accompanying chart, rose by about 30 percent, as thenumber of families increased one-eighth over the period.

Current dollar incomes

Table 2, which is on a before-tax basis, shows that the1947-53 increase in income was widely distributed and re-sulted in a broad shift of families from the income rangesunder $4,000 into higher income brackets, and that a similar

shift occurred also in the distribution of total income. Thusthe number of families with incomes of less than $4,000 de-creased by one-fifth. In contrast, the number with incomesover $4,000 increased by more than 70 percent and the totalamount of income in this range increased by more than 80percent. As a consequence of the general upward shift, thelargest amount of income per $1,000 range was found in the$5,000 to $6,000 bracket in 1953, as compared with the$3,000 to $4,000 bracket in the 1947 distribution.

In terms of the major types of consumer groups included inthe overall distribution, it is found that the upward shiftbetween the two terminal years of the comparison reflectedmainly the experience of the nonfarm groups. The incomeof farm operator families underwent considerable fluctuations

Distribution of Family Income, Federal Income Tax, andAfter-Tax Income in 1953

PERCENT OF TOTAL

80

60

40

20

FEDERALINCOME TAX

AFTER-TAX INCOMEBEFORE-TAX INCOME\

FLI ' xXX>r C&Sc

nif

PERCENT OF TOTAL

80

LOWEST FIFTH SECOND THIRD FOURTH HIGHEST FIFTH TOP 5%

(INCOMES UNDER$2,300)

(INCOMES OF$2,300 to 3,750)

0. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS

332950°—55 3



(INCOMES OF$7,050 and over)

(INCOMES OF$12,130 and over)

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1955


during this period, and after reaching very high levels bothin 1948 and in 1951 declined thereafter.

Real incomes

Although in part the increase in family income from 1947to 1953 reflected the rise in prices, the growth of real incomeswas also substantial over the period. In terms of aggregateamounts, real income (measured in constant dollars) in-creased by one-quarter, both on a before- and after-taxbasis, and the increase in real income per family was about10 percent.

Average Family Income

BEFORE-TAX INCOMEDOLLARS6,000 I

4,000

2,000

AFTER-TAX INCOME

4,000 -

2,000

1947 I960 1951 1953 1954U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS

It is apparent that an allowance for the changing purchas-ing power of the dollar would greatly dampen the upwardshift of family units and dollar incomes that is shown intable 2. However, the constant dollar figures indicate thatthere occurred an upward shift on the real income scale also,

although it was more moderate. This increase in the num-ber of relatively well-to-do families is significant from thestandpoint of evaluating the structure of consumer demandsince changes in patterns of spending are to a large extentdependent on changes in the size of real income.

Relative income changesThe relative extent to which different income groups have

shared in the rise of income that occurred in the postwarperiod is shown in the accompanying chart and in table 3,in which percentage shares of income received by successivefifths of consumer units are given for selected years. Theessential stability in shares of before-tax income for the pastdecade is clearly shown. Only slight shifts are apparent,such as the fractional increase in the relative share of thethree middle groups and the correspondingly small reductionin the share of the top fifth. Seen against the background ofthe major changes in the economy that have occurred since1944, including demobilization and reconversion, the postwarinflation, and the Korean conflict, the stability of the relativeincome distribution in this period is a finding of majorinterest.1

It should be emphasized that the stability in relative in-come distribution shown by these figures does not mean thatall individual families kept their same relative position onthe income scale as incomes increased. New family unitswere formed and older ones disappeared, and many familiesthat continued throughout the decade shifted their positionin relation to one another at the same time as the distribu-tion as a whole shifted upward along with the rise in averageincomes.

After-tax relative income shares, shown in the right sec-tion of table 3, were also essentially stable from 1950 to1953. (Corresponding after-tax estimates have not beenprepared for earlier years.) Rates of individual income taxhave changed over this period, and have resulted in changesin its graduation. These changes, however, have not beenlarge enough to modify significantly the relative impact ofthe tax on the broad income groups shown in the table, anda more detailed analysis would be necessary to bring outtheir differential effects.

The relative size distribution of income during the post-war period differs from the patterns observed for the 1930'sand 1920?s. Comprehensive data for these earlier periodscovering all years and all income ranges are not available,but such information as exists indicates that the relativeshare of the upper income groups has been significantlylower in recent years than in the prewar period.

The reduction has apparently reflected two factors: First,a decrease in the relative importance in the income total oftypes of income—such as dividends—which accrue in largeproportions to the upper income groups; and second, a re-duction in dispersion within major income types, particularlywages and salaries. The postwar data show considerablestability in the proportions of the major income types andalso in the dispersion of wages and salaries, and are in har-mony, therefore, with the stability in the relative size distri-bution of total family income in this period.

1. The pattern of stability holds also for the nonfarm multiperson family group taken byitself. This distribution differs from the overall distribution mainly in level. The incomedistribution of nonfarm families is pitched higher on the income scale than that of farmoperator families and unattached individuals; the two lowest fifths of nonfarm families re-ceive somewhat higher proportions of the total income accruing to nonfarm families than thecorresponding percentages shown in table 3. The two top groups account for somewhat lowershares.


March 1955


Family Groups and IndividualsThe great bulk of the 50% million consumer units in 1953

consisted of nonfarm families. Comprising all units of twoor more persons other than the farm group, they numberedmore than 35% million. Farm operator families—all fam-ilies operating farms whether tenant- or owner-operators—totaled about 5% million. This group includes full-timefarmers as well as families whose farming operations repre-sented only secondary pursuits. Unattached individuals,consisting of persons not living with relatives, numbered 9%million. About three-fifths of them lived in their own dwel-ling units, and the remainder as lodgers or servants inprivate homes or in boarding houses and hotels.

Summary data relating to these three broad groups areshown in table 4. The nonfarm family group received 84percent of total income. Its average income was by far thehighest—$6,390 as compared with $3,460 for farm operatorfamilies, and $2,630 for unattached individuals.

In the light of these averages, it is not surprising to findmarked differences in the distribution by income size bracketsamong the three groups. Table 5 shows the predominancein the lower income ranges of unattached individuals andfarm operator families. Of the 8 million consumer unitswith incomes under $2,000, 4 million were individuals and 2million were farm families. Nonfarm families predominatedin the middle and upper income ranges. For example, theycomprised more than 17 million of the 20 million consumerunits in the brackets between $4,000 and $7,500, and 8million of the 8% million in the range above $7,500.

The disparity in the three income distributions is shownalso by the percentage calculations in table 5. Among non-farm families only 6 percent are estimated to have hadpersonal incomes under $2,000, and fewer than 30 percentreceived incomes under $4,000. For farm families, the cor-responding percentages were 37 and 72, and for individuals

Percent Distribution of Before-Tax Family Income

IncomeGroups

HIGHEST FIFTH

FOURTH

THIRD

SECOND

LOWEST FIFTH

TOP5%

-100

-80

-60

ki

-40ki

I-20

1944 19460. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF BUSINESS ECONOMICS

1947 1950 1951 195355-16 - 10


March 1955


46 and 83. In contrast, the proportions of nonfarm familiesin the middle and upper income brackets were much higherthan those for farm families and individuals.

Low income groups

These differences among the three component income dis-tributions throw additional light on the significance of theoverall data. In particular, they permit a partial evaluationof the economic position of consumer units in the low bracketsof the income scale.

Table 3.—Distribution of Before- and After-Tax Family Income,1944-53[Percent]

Quintile

Lowest.-23 .4Highest- .

Total

Top 5 percent


1944

4.910.916.222.245.8

100.0

20.7

1946

5.011.116.021.846.1

100.0

21.3

1947

5.011.016.022.046.0

100.0

20.9

1950

4.810.916.122.146.1

100.0

21.4

1951

5.011.316.522.344.9

100.0

20.7

1953

5.011.316.522.344.9

100.0

20.7

Income after Federalindividual income taxliability

1950

5.111.416.822.744.0

100.0

19.2

1951

5.411.917.222.842.7

100.0

18.4

1953

5.412.017.222.842.6

100.0

18.2


While these brackets include large numbers whose livingstandards are inadequate, the total number in these bracketsmay give an exaggerated view of the extent to which this isthe case. It is necessary to take account of special charac-teristics which make the income of many low income recip-ients an imperfect measure of their actual economic status.

The requirements of individuals, for instance, are smallerthan those of typical multiperson families because income isnot usually shared with other household members. Also,individuals include large numbers—mostly young persons—who were not in active economic life for all of the year andwhose part-year earnings, which are reflected in the statis-tics, are not an adequate measure of their actual commandover goods and services during the year.

The following figures are suggestive of the nature of thecorrection necessary to allow for differential requirements.In 1953, when income per family (farm and nonfarm) aver-aged $6,000, the per capita income of these families was$1,680 as compared with an average of $2,630 for individ-

Table 4.—Major Groups of Consumer Units in 1953, . , — .__

Major group

Nonfarm families

Farm operator families

All families

Unattached individuals

Total

Consumer units

Number(mil-lions)

35.6

5.5

41. 1

9.4

50.5

Percent

70

11

81

19

100


Amount(bil-

lions ofdollars)

227. 7

19.0

246. 7

24.8

271.5

Percent

84

7

91

9

100

Averageincome

(dollars)

6,390

3,460

6,000

2,630

5,370

uals. Thus, on a per capita basis, the relative position offamilies and individuals is actually reversed. Undoubtedlythe per capita figures give too favorable an impression of,the relative position of individuals since they do not takeinto account economies of family living, differences in theadult-versus-child composition between the two groups, andthe higher rates of taxation to which many individuals aresubject. Nevertheless, they indicate that a substantialallowance for differential needs and responsibilities is in orderin evaluating the income distribution of this group.

Table 5.—Major Groups of Consumer Units by Family IncomeLevel in 1953


Under $1,000$1,000-$! ,999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999 _

$5,000-$5,999 _ -$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15 000 and over

Total

Number

Total(mil-lions)

2.95.46.57.47.2

6.36.24.8

2.31.5

50.5

Non-farm

families(mil-lions)

0.21.73.35.15.9

5.65.84.5

2.11.4

35.6

Farmopera-

torfamilies

(mil-lions)

0.71.31.1.8.6

.3

.3

.2

.1

.1

5.5

Unat-tached

individ-uals(mil-lions)

2.02.32.11.4.7

.4

.2

.1

.1

.1

9.4


Total

611131514

121210

43

100

Non-farm

families

159

1417

151613

64

100

Farmopera-

torfamilies

1225201510

654

21

100

Unat-tachedindivid-

uals

212522158

421

11

100


In connection with farm operator families, it should benoted that the 1953 distribution reflects the fact that theaverage income of the group in that year was below its 1951peak, although higher than in most others years of the post-war period. (Off-the-farm income is included along with netincome from farming in determining family personal incomefor farm operator families.) Thus relatively more of thefarm families were concentrated in the lower income rangesin 1953 than in the peak year 1951. For instance, about 37percent are estimated to have received incomes below $2,000in 1953 as compared with 31 percent in 1951.

More basically, in determining farm family income foodand fuel produced and consumed on farms is valued at farmprices, in conformity with the design of the national incomeaccounts. An alternative valuation at retail prices wouldhave added to farm operators' incomes and removed some ofthe farm units from the low income range.

Table 6.—Family Composition in 1952

Quintile l

Lowest234Highest .

Average number of —

Personsper

family

3.193.553.633.633.72

Earners14 yearsold andover perfamily

.02

.34

.44

.63

.96

Children under 18years

Perfamily

1.111.351.401.311.07

Per fam-ily with1 or morechildren

2.422.312.212.061.97

Percent of families

Withoutchildrenunder 18

years

54.341.436.636.445.6

Withonly 2

persons

51.935.629.126.524.6

Withheads

aged 65years oldand over

30.012.97.96.57.9

Medianage offamilyhead

5443414246


1. Families of two or more persons ranked by size of family money income (before incometaxes).

Source: Office of Business Economics, U. S. Department of Commerce, based on CensusBureau data.


March 1955


Furthermore, it is generally agreed that price levels aresomewhat lower for rural than for urban families mainlybecause of differences in the regional distribution of the twogroups. If allowance could be made for this factor, theresult would also be some reduction in the number of lowincome farm families relative to that of nonfarm units.

An additional specific factor which should be taken intoaccount is that, on the average, farm families are probablysubject to lower effective rates of taxation than the nonfarmgroups. More generally, there are such substantial differ-ences between rural and urban modes of living that it is verydifficult to make meaningful comparisons of economic statusbetween these groups.

Some of the factors which have been reviewed affect thedistribution of nonfarm families also, but their quantitativeimportance is much smaller. For instance, the presence ofpart-year earnings affects the interpretation of the nonfarmfamily distribution, since some young couples that are in-cluded in the low ranges of that distribution did not haveindependent economic status throughout the year. Also,differential needs and responsibilities that have been men-tioned in connection with individuals, must be taken intoaccount in the case of multiperson families as well. Infor-mation contained in table 6 throws some light on this point.

This table summarizes information on the composition offamilies in each quintile, derived from sample data collectedby the Bureau of the Census in a field survey of 1952 familyincomes. Although based on a somewhat different definitionof income, broad inferences may be drawn with regard tocorresponding fifths of families shown in this study.

Particularly relevant in the present connection are thedata relating to the average size of family, the proportion offamilies without children, and the age of the family head. Itcan be seen that the average family size is substantiallysmaller in the lowest fifth than higher on the income scale;that the proportion of families without any children is largestin the bottom group; and that the average age of the family

head is also largest in that fifth. All these facts make itreasonable to infer that family needs and responsibilities weresmaller on the average among the low income groups than inthe higher income ranges, and that the distribution of multi-person family incomes, as w^ell as that of unattached indi-viduals, should be interpreted with this in mind.

The prevalence of aged couples in the bottom group drawsattention to another factor which is relevant in the case ofindividuals as well. The economic status of retired people isnot always measured comprehensively by their current in-come because they plan as a matter of course to supplementsuch income by accumulated savings.

Furthermore, there is considerable turnover in the low in-come groups, both among multiperson families and individ-uals. This turnover reflects on the one hand such factors astemporary sickness, unemployment and business loss, and,on the other hand, the passing up and down the income scalethat is part of the normal economic life-cycle of the typicalf amity unit.

Top income groupsIn general, turnover of this type causes a wider dispersion

of incomes measured on an annual basis than would be shownby an income distribution in which income receipts weresummed over a number of consecutive years. Thus, thenumber of families in the higher, as well as in the lower, in-come ranges in any given year is composed partly of unitsthat are located there only temporarily.

In the interpretation of the statistics for upper incomegroups other characteristics of the income definition shouldbe kept in mind as well. Most important, perhaps, is thefact that capital gains and losses are not counted as part ofpersonal income, and that the earnings of stockholders aremeasured by their dividend receipts, without taking intoaccount changes in their share of undistributed corporateearnings.

Technical Note

The main source materials on which the estimates of in-come size distribution are based are the statistics fromFederal individual income tax returns prepared in summaryform by the Internal Revenue Service, and the sample dataon family incomes collected in annual field surveys of theBureau of the Census and the Federal Reserve Board. Theincome size distribution series presented here for the periodthrough 1951 were derived by a systematic combination ofthese two sets of statistics. As part of the integration pro-cedure the basic data were adjusted so that the totals for thevarious types of income—wages and salaries, noncorporatebusiness income, dividends, etc.—would agree with the inde-pendently estimated totals included in the Office of BusinessEconomics aggregate personal income series.

A detailed description of the methods of combining andadjusting the tax return and sample survey statistics toderive the income distribution estimates for 1944-47 is in-cluded in "Income Distribution in the United States, bySize, 1944-50" (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washing-ton 25, D. C., 1953, price 65 cents.)2 The following descrip-

2. It may be noted that revisions have not been made in the 1944-47 size distribution series> incorporate the revised estimates for these years of aggregate personal income and its com-ponent income types that have been prepared subsequent to the Income Distribution supple-ment. Most of these revisions were small and in view of the detailed statistical proceduresin constructing size distributions and the minor changes that could be anticipated, it did notseem worthwhile to revise the distribution series for this period. The largest revisions appliedto the net farm income totals for 1946 and 1947 which were reduced by about $1 billion. Thusthe size distribution series overstates somewhat the economic status of farmers in these twoyears. For other types of income the revisions were much smaller, and for total family per-sonal income they did not exceed $500 million or less than 0.3 percent of the total.

tion relates to the estimates of income size distribution forlater years.

Before-tax distributions for 1950 and 1951

As described in the Income Distribution supplement, thebasic procedure used to derive income size distribution esti-mates for nonfarm families and unattached individuals for1944-47 involved the following main steps: (1) The deriva-tion from consolidated Federal individual income tax returnsof a distribution of individual earners by size of their wage-salar}^ or nonfarm entrepreneurial earnings; (2) the combina-tion of these individual earners into family units classified bysize of family earnings, based on relationships between indi-vidual and family earnings determined from the CensusBureau sample survey data; and (3) the addition of othertypes of income to family earnings to obtain the distributionof nonfarm families by family personal income level.

For 1950 and 1951, a somewhat different integration of thesource material was suggested by two considerations. Inthe first place, the split-income provision introduced forFederal income tax returns in 1948 led to a sizable increasein the number of two-income joint returns of husbands andwives which would require separation under step (1); manycouples formerly filing two separate returns reported theircombined income on a joint return once the split-income


March 1955


provision went into effect. In view of the lack of adequateup-to-date information for separating these returns a method-ology which would omit this step seemed in order.

A second reason for amending the earlier procedure wasthe lack of current sample survey data on the relationshipsbetween individual earner distributions and family earningsdistributions, such as were used in step (2) of the 1944-47procedure. The latest Census Bureau sample data thatincluded the necessary cross-classification of these earningsstatistics referred to 1946. However, more nearly currentdata providing a bridge between tax returns and familiesclassified by levels of total income (i. e., including dividends,interest, rents and other types of income in addition toearnings) were available from the Census Bureau samples.This suggested a methodology in which tax returns wouldbe converted into family units at a stage where the formerwere classified not by levels of earnings as in the earliermethodology, but by levels of total income.

The following is a summary of the major steps for derivingthe nonfarm family income distributions for 1950 and 1951.

First, Federal individual income tax returns in each year,classified by adjusted gross income brackets in the tabulationsavailable from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), wereshifted to brackets representing income exclusive of netcapital gains. The shifting of returns reporting such gains(and of their incomes exclusive of such gains) was based onIRS tabulations for the two years which showed thesereturns cross-classified by adjusted gross income bracketsand by net capital gain brackets.3 In the shifting procedurefour major groups of returns distinguished in the IRStabulations were treated separately: joint returns of husbandsand wives, separate returns of husbands, separate returns ofwives, and single returns.

Second, the returns were combined into family units.Incomes reported on separate returns of husbands andwives—a relatively small group in this period—were com-bined on the basis of an estimated cross-distribution inwhich the husbands were classified by size of their ownincome and cross-classified by size of the wife's income. Themain combination step, however, was the addition of theincome of supplementary family income recipients (otherthan wives) to that of heads (including husband-wifecombinations).

The combination was accomplished mainly on the basis ofan unpublished Census Bureau study in which the 1949Federal individual income tax returns filed by a sample offamily members that were included in the Census Bureau'sfield survey of family incomes for that year were tabulated.These tabulations (a) provided distributions of family heads(or husband-wife combinations), and of supplementaryincome recipients, by size classes of income reported on theirincome tax returns, with each group further classified bythe number of income recipients in the family of which theywere a part, and (6) cross-classified the supplementaryincome recipients in each income bracket by size of the in-come of the family head (or husband-wife combination)reported on tax returns. On the basis of (a), returns in eachbracket of adjusted gross income less capital gain were sub-divided into the following eight groups: heads of families (orhusband-wife combinationsJ with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or moresupplementary income recipients; supplementary incomerecipients in families with 1, 2, or 3 or more such recipients;and unattached individuals.

For families with no supplementary income recipients —by far the largest group—and for unattached individuals, thedistributions required no combination. For families with

3. The statistical procedures for cross-subtraction (and also for cross-addition mentionedin the following paragraphs) are described in footnote 9, page 36 of the Income Distributionsupplement.

one supplementary income recipient, the incomes of familyheads (or husband-wife combinations) were combined withthe incomes of supplementary recipients on the basis of theinformation under (6). For the relatively small groups oifamilies with two or more supplementary income recipient:*,where the sample data were too scanty to provide adequatecross-tabulations, the individual income recipients werecombined into family units by procedures similar to thoseusecl in earlier years for combining individual earners intofamilies, as described on page 51 of the Income Distributionsupplement. A combined all-family distribution was thenobtained by adding the distributions for the various number-of-income-recipient groups.

The third step was to subtract farm operator familiesincluded in the tax-return-based all-family distribution.Estimates of the numbers and amounts of income to be sub-tracted in each income bracket (including amounts fromnonfarm sources as well as reported net farm income)were derived from IRS tabulations of tax returns reportingproprietorship income in the farming industry and samplestatistics giving source patterns of income for farm operatorsin various income brackets. As described in the IncomeDistribution supplement, the size distribution series for thefarm group, unlike that for nonfarm families, is not basedon tax return data.

Finally, the nonfarm family distribution in each year wasadjusted to add families riot filing tax returns and types oJincome not covered on returns, and also to adjust reportedamounts of income so as to agree with the control totalsincluded in the personal income series of the Office of Busi-ness Economics. Control totals of the aggregate amountsof income, by type of income, and of the total number oifamilies were derived as explained on pages 53 and 78 of theIncome Distribution supplement. Families not filing re-turns were included initially by substituting the number oifamilies with incomes under $1,000 shown in the inflatedsample surveys of the Census Bureau for the correspondingnumber derived in preceding steps. The total number oinonfarm families in the distribution at this point agreedvery closely with the control total number of such familiesthat had been established.

To add the income not accounted for, a comparison wasfirst made between the amounts of each major type oiincome—wages and salaries, business and partnershipincome, dividends, interest, rent, etc.—covered in the tax-return-based distribution for nonfarm families and thecorresponding control totals for that group developed fromthe personal income series.

Detailed information was available for earlier years, asdescribed in the Income Distribution supplement, on thedistribution by income brackets of certain major elementsof income that had to be added (nonmoney income, socialsecurity benefits, and other transfer payments.) A distri-bution by family income brackets of the total amount oiincome not covered in the tax-return-based nonfarm familydistribution was estimated, taking into account this informa-tion, the distribution of reported taxable incomes, and theresults of the IRS audit studies for 1948 and 1949. Theamount of additional income in each income bracket wasadded to the reported amount, and the families were shiftedup the income scale by using the interpolation proceduresdescribed on page 61 of the Income Distribution supplement.

The several steps described above were also carried throughfor the year 1947 in order to determine whether the changein methodology had introduced any basic differences in theincome distribution series for nonfarm families. Theresulting distribution was found to be closely similar to thatpresented for 1947 in the Income Distribution supplement.Since the split-income provision for tax returns was not inoperation in 1947 and since the sample data used in the


March 1955

March 1955 SURVEY OF CUEEENT BUSINESS 23

Income Distribution supplement for combining earnersinto families applied to the adjacent year 1946, the 1947income distribution for nonfarm families in the supplementprovided more reliable figures for that year than the pro-cedure described above.

For farm operator families, the income distributions for1950 and 1951 were derived by essentially the same pro-cedures that are described in the Income Distributionsupplement and are subject to the same limitations. Theestimates for unattached individuals were obtained by extrapo-lating the 1947 figures derived in the supplement on thebasis of the increase in the average income of the group,on the assumption that relative income differences amongthese individuals had not changed.4 It may be noted thatdetailed income-tax-based estimates for unattached indi-viduals showed practically no change in relative income dis-tribution during the 1944-47 period.

Before-lax distributions for 1953

Tabulations of Federal individual income tax returns arenot yet available for 1953 so that the estimates for that yearare of a preliminary character. Sample data on the sizedistribution of consumer units were available from theFederal Reserve Board's annual Survey of Consumer Fi-nances which indicated that for multiperson families and forunattached individuals, relative differences in incomes wereessentially the same in 1953 as in 1951. Accordingly, theincome distribution for each group was estimated here byextrapolating the corresponding 1951 distribution on theassumption of unchanged relative income differences.4 Asimilar assumption was made in the case of the farm oper-ator family group, and the distribution for nonfarm familieswas obtained by subtracting the farm distribution from theall-family estimates. Control totals for 1953 for totalfamily income and the total number of consumer units wereobtained for the three consumer groups by the proceduresoutlined in the Income Distribution supplement.

Federal individual income tax liabilitiesFederal individual income tax liability is defined here as

the liability reported on individual income tax returns plusan allowance for taxes collected through subsequent audit,minus liabilities of military personnel not living with theirfamilies, minus liabilities on net capital gains.

4. The statistical procedures used were similar to those described in footnote 12, page 38jof the Income Distribution supplement.

For 1950 and 1951, Federal individual income tax lia-bilities of families classified by family personal incomebrackets represent essentially a rearrangement of theliabilities reported on individual income tax returns astabulated by the IRS. In broad outline, the procedure forderiving the family liability figures was to shift the reportedliabilities (after subtracting estimated liabilities on capitalgains) along with the returns as the latter were combinedinto family units and shifted from adjusted gross income intofamily personal income brackets by the procedures outlinedabove. Amounts of tax liabilities on capital gains that weresubtracted were estimated on the basis of IRS tabulationsshowing for each adjusted gross income bracket the amountsof statutory net capital gains segregated for alternative tax,and the amounts taxed at ordinary rates. The tax on theformer was derived by multiplying segregated gains by thealternative tax rate and that on the latter by multiplyingother gains by the average effective tax rate in each bracket.For unattached individuals, 1950 liabilities were estimatedfrom statutory tax rates as described on pages 74-76 of theIncome Distribution supplement, and those for 1951 byextrapolating the 1950 figures by changes in statutory ratesfor single persons with no dependents.

For 1953, for which comparable information from taxreturns was not available, the estimates of liabilities werebased on changes in statutory tax rates. Ratios of 1953to 1951 average tax liabilities for given amounts of netincome, based on data supplied by the Treasury Department,were applied to the 1951 liability averages for families andunattached individuals at corresponding points on the familyincome scale.

The averages for 1950, 1951, and 1953 were then adjustedproportionately so that when multiplied by the numbers ofconsumer units in the various family income brackets theywould account for the estimated total of Federal individualincome tax liability (as defined for the purposes of thisreport) for those years. Although based in part on taxcollection data, the estimate of total tax liability for 1953 ispreliminary.

Distributions of families and unattached individuals bylevel of after-tax income were derived for 1950, 1951 and 1953by subtracting Federal individual income tax liabilities fromfamily personal income in each family income bracket, andshifting the families down the income scale by using theinterpolation procedures described on page 61 of the IncomeDistribution supplement.

Table 7.—Number of Consumer Units and Persons, and Aggregate and Average Family Personal Income, Selected Years, 1944-53

[Continuation of table 1 of Income Distribution supplement]

19441946 .-1947195019511953

Families and unattached individuals

Numberof con-sumerunits !(mil-lions)

40.943.344.748.949.550.5

Number ofpersons *

Total(mil-lions)

125.4139.4142.6149. 1151.2156.6

Averagenumberper con-sumerunit

3.073.223.193.053.063.10

Family personalincome

Amount(billionsof dol-lars)

147.7170.7184.6217.3242.7271.5

Average income

Per con-sumerunit

(dollars)

3, 6143,9404,1264,4444,9045,372

Percapita

(dollars)

1,1781,2251,2951,4571,6041,733

Families

Numberof fami-

lies i(mil-lions)

33.335.937.039.840.441.1

Number ofpersons *

Total(mil-lions)

117.8131.9134.9140.0142.2147.2

Averagenumber

perfamily

3.543.683.643.523.523.58



134.1156.7169.3197.7221.4246.7

Average income

Perfamily

(dollars)

4,0274,3694,5744,9695,4776,002

Percapita

(dollars)

1,1381,1881, 2561,4131,5571,676

Unattached individuals

Numberof unat-tached

individ-uals J(mil-lions)

7.67.57.79.19.19.4



13.614.015.319.521.324.8

Percapita

(dollars)

1,7971,8791,9782, 1472,3482,629

1. As of end of calendar year.


March 1955

24 SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS March 11 CM

Table 8.—Distribution of Consumer Units and of Family Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, Selected Years, 1944-53

[Continuation of Table 2 of Income Distribution supplement]

Family personal income(before income taxes)

Under $1,000$1,000-$!, 999$2,000-$2,999 -$3,000-$3,999 _ _$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499_ _ _$7,500-$9,999 ___

$10,000-$14,999$15,000-$! 9,999$20,000-$24,999 .

$25 000-$49,999$50,000 and over

Total

Under $1,000 _ __$1,000-$! ,999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999 .

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499 . _.$7,500-$9,999

$10 000-$1 4, 999$15,000-$! 9,999$20,000-$24,999 -

$25 000-$49,999$50 000 and over

Total

Number of families and unattached individuals (thousands)

1944

4,3528,1088,7627,7234,535

2,5152,2591,385

707246108

14040

40, 880

1946

3,8267,6068,7918,5905,364

3,0652,5471,751

1,070332143

19154

43, 330

1947

3,7487,3708,4598,6285,725

3,4743, 1512,170

1,199386167

20855

44, 740

1950 1951 1953i

3,8617,4648,0918,5867,054

4,6943,8362,758

1.536414218

29484

48, 890

3,2276.0227,1648,1927,455

5, 5805, 3233,390

1.899523274

33695

49, 480

2,8665,4336, 4887,3997,247

6,2766,2404.834

2.273

1.494

50, 550

Aggregate family personal income (millions of dollars)

1944

2,39012, 33821, 93826, 96020, 261

13, 73914, 94211,802

8,4834,2152,395

4,6513, 607

147,721

1946 1947

2,01711,57022, 00729, 90623, 956

16, 72516,83314, 905

12, 7845, 6923, 165

6,3084,837

170, 705

1,97311,23121, 17630, 04525, 583

18, 95720,81218, 454

14, 3006,5863.700

6.8794.902

184, 598

1950

1,94311,33320, 27329, 98331, 533

25, 60325, 57823, 364

18, 3107,0834,826

9.7437,690

217,262

1951

1,680 ;9,084 !

17,94528,696 133, 552

i30,502 !35,596 !28,531 !

22,617 '8,933 i6,063 |

11,097 I8 356 |

242,652 i

1953

1.4278,242

16, 30425, 98832, 521

34,31541, 78141,196

27, 492

42, 279

271,545


10.719.821.418.911.1

6.25.53.4

1.7.6.3

.3

.1

100.0

8.817.620.319.812.4

7.15.94.0

2.5.8.3

.4

.1

100.0

8.416.518.919.312.8

7.87.04.8

2.7.8.4

.5

.1

100.0

7.915.316.617.614.4

9.67.95.6

3.1.8.4

.6

.2

100.0

6.512.214.516.515.1

11.310.76.8

3.81.1.6

100. 0

5.710.812.814.614.3

12.412.39.6

4.5

1 „J

100.0

1.68.4

14.918.313.7

9.310.18.0

5.7

{ 2 . 91.6

3.12.4

100.0

1.26.8

12.917.514.0

9.89.98.7

7.53.31.9

3.72.8

100.0

1.16.1

11.516.313.8

10.211.310.0

3^62.0

3.72.7

100.0

0.95.29.3

13.814.5

11.811.810.8

8.43.32.2

4.53.5

100.0I

0.73.77.4

11.813.8

12.614.711.8

9.33.72.5

4.63.4

100.0

0.53.06.09.6

12.0

12.615.415.2

10,1

i 15.6

100. Q

Table 9.— Distribution of Family Personal Income and Federal Individual Income Tax Liability Among Quintiles and Top 5 Percent ofConsumer Units, 1950, 1951, and 1953

[Continuation of Table 3 of Income Distribution supplement; data for 1950 replace those in Tables 3, 21, and 22 of the supplement]

Quintile

1950Lowest234 . - _ _._ -Highest

Total

Top 5 percent

1951Lowest

3 . _ _ . . . _ .4Highest

Total

Top 5 percent

1953Lowest2 _34 . . _ _ . _Highest

Total

Tou 5 percent

Percent distribution of —

Family per-sonal income

4.810.916.122.146.1

100.0

21.4

5.011.316.522.344.9

100.0

20.7

5.011.316.522.344.9

100.0

20.7

Tax liability

0.94.78.7

15.969.8

100.0

45.8

1.25.69.7

18.265.3

100.0

41.6

1.45.9

10.518.763.5

100.0

40.4

Mean amount of —

AftOT-tax ^nmi^m; Tax liability

income ; ̂ ^f16 j (dollars)

5. 111.416.822.744.0

100.0

19.2

5.411.917.222.842.7

100.0

18.4

5.412.017.222.842.6

100.0

18.2

1,0562,4183, 5794.911

10,254

4,444

19,066

1,2212, 7754,0345. 473

11.016

4,904

20,287

1,3413,0454.4205, 993

12, 060

5,372

22,206

1689

163297

1,308

375

3,432

30136236442

1, 591

487

4,053

41175311555

1,884

593

4,800

After-tax in-come

(dollars)

1,0402,3293,4164, 6148,946

4,069

15, 634

1,1912,6393,7985, 0319,425

4,417

16, 234

1,3002.8704; 1095, 438

10, 176

4,778

17, 406

Tax rate(percent)

1.63.74.66.0

12.8

8.4

18.0

2.44.95.88.1

14.4

9.9

20.0

3.15.87.09.3

15. G

11.0

21.6

Lower income limit ofquint ile i

Bef ore-taxbasis

(dollars)

1,8103,0204,1605,850

10, 200

2,0903,4204,6806,450

11,110

2,3003,7505,1307,050

12, 130

After-taxbasis

(dollars)

1,7602. 8903.9605, 450

9,160

2,0003,2304, 3705,880

9,840

2,1803, 5104,7206, 350

10, 730

1. Rounded to nearest $10.


March 1955


Table 10.—All Consumer Units: Distribution of Number, Family Personal Income, and Federal Individual Income Tax Liability byFamily Personal Income Level, 1950

[Replaces Table 19 of Income Distribution supplement]


Under $1,000$1,000-$! ,999$2,000-$2,999$3.000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999.__$t),000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999 - _ _ - -

$10,000-$14,999 . ...$lo,000-$19,999$20,000-$24,999

$2o.OOO-$49,999_$50,000 arid over

Total -

Number offamilies

and unat-tached in-dividuals

(thousands)

3,8617,4648,0918,5867,054

4,6943.8362.758

1.536414218

294.84

48,890


Aggregate(millions

of dollars)

1,94311, 33320, 27329, 98331, 533

25, 60325, 57823, 364

18, 3107,0834,826

9,7437,690

217,262

Average(dollars)

5031,5182, 5063,4924,470

5, 4556, 6688,471

11,91917, 07822, 130

33, 08791. 079

4,444

Federal individual income taxliability

Aggregate(millions

of dollars)

1247765

1,3411. 684

1, 7812, 0391,977

1, 780931702

2, 0592, 953

18, 320

Average(dollars)

03395

156239

379532717

1,1592, 2443,495

6, 99234, 974

375

Tax rate(percent)

02.23.84.55.3

7.08.08.5

9.713.115.8

21.138.4

8.4


Simple

Number

7.915.316.617.614.4

9.67.95.6

3.1.8.4

.6

.2

100.0

Income

0.95.29.3

13.814.5

11.811.810.8

8.43.32.2

4.53.5

100.0

Tax liabil-ity

01.34.27.39.2

9.711.210.8

9.75.14.2

11.216.1

100.0

Cumulative

Number

7.923.239.857.471.8

81.489.394.9

98.098.899 2

99.8100.0

Income

0.96.1

15.429.243.7

55. 567.378.1

86.589.892.0

96.5100. 0

Tax liabil-ity

01.35 5

12.822.0

31.742.953.7

63.468.572.7

83.9100.0

I '

Table 11.—All Families: Distribution of Number and of FamilyPersonal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1950


Under $1,000$1,000-$1,999 _$2 000-$2,999 - - -$3,000-$3,999$4 000-$4,999

$5 000-$5,999 - -$6 000-$7 499$7 500-$9,999 -- -

$10,000-$14,999 --$15 000-$19 999$20,000-$24,999

$25 000-$49 999$50 000 and over

Total _

Num-ber

of fam-ilies

(thou-sands)

1,4624,7306,0017,5466,628

4, 5313,7212, 693

1,501401211

28481

39, 790


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdol-lars)

7487,261

15, 13526, 41529, 655

24, 71824, 81122, 807

17, 8876,8584,662

9,4087,359

197, 724

Aver-age

(dol-lars)

5121,5352,5223,5004,474

5, 4566,6688,470

11,91717, 06922, 118

33, 08190, 883

4,969


Simple

Num-ber

3.711.915.119.016.6

11.39.46.8

3.81.0.5

.7

.2

100.0

In-come

0.43.77.6

13.415.0

12.512.511.5

9.03.52.4

4.83.7

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

3.715.630.749.766.3

77.687.093.8

97.698.699.1

99.8100. 0

In-come

0.44. 1

11,725.140.1

52.665.176.6

85.689.191.5

96.3100.0

Table 13.—Farm Operator Families: Distribution of Number andof Family Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1950


Under $1,000 ..$1,000-$1,999$2,000-$2 999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499_ _$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15,000-$19,999_$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999$50,000 and over

Total _ _

Num-ber of

families(thou-sands)

7341,4091,141

820559

345263193

1183414

164

5,650


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

4212,1042,8302,8402,494

1,8841,7511,643

1,404587303

528321

19,110

Aver-age

(dol-lars)

5741,4932,4813,4624,460

5,4556,6618,531

11, 87917, 05722, 091

32, 51885, 247

3,382


Simple

Num-ber

13.024.920.214.59.9

6.14.73.4

2.1.6.2

.3

.1

100.0

Income

2.211.014.814.913.0

9.89.28.6

7.33.11.6

2.81.7

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

13.037.958.172.682.5

88.693.396.7

98.899.499.6

99.9100.0

Income

2.213.228.042.955.9

65.774.983.5

90.893.995.5

98.3100.0

Table 12.—Nonfarm Families: Distribution of Number and ofFamily Personal Income by Family Personal Income level, 1950

Table 14.—Unattached Individuals: Distribution of Number andof Family Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1950


Under $1,000$1,000-$ 1,999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999___

$o 000-$5 999$»),()00-$7,499$7,500-$9,999 _.

$10,000-$14,999_ --$15 000-$ 19 999$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999 . .$50 000 and over

Total

Num-ber of


7283,3214, 8606,7266,069

4,1863,4582,500

1,383367197

26877

34,140


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

3275,157

12, 30523, 57527, 161

22, 83423, 06021, 164

16, 4836,2714,359

8,8807,038

178,614

Average(dollars)

4501,5532,5323,5054,475

5, 4566,6688,465

11, 92017, 07022, 120

33, 11591,158

5,232


Simple

Num-ber

2.19.7

14.219.717.8

12.310.17.3

4.11.1.6

.8

.2

100.0

Income

0.22.96.9

13.215.2

12.812.911.9

9.23.52.4

5.03.9

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

2.111.826.045.763.5

75.885.993 2

97.398.499.0

99.8100.0

Income

0.23. 1

10.023.238.4

51.264.176.0

85.288.791.1

96.1100.0


Under $1,000$1,000-$!, 999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999 . .. .

$o,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15,000-$19,999 ..$20,000-$24,999. . „

$25,000-$49,999$50,000 and over

Total

Num-ber ofunat-

tachedindi-

viduals(thou-sands)

2,3992,7342,0901,040

426

16311565

35137

103

9,100


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

1,1954,0725,1383, 5681,878

885767557

423225164

335331

19,538

Aver-age

(dol-lars)

4981,4892,4593,4304,415

5,4456,6778,539

12,00617, 36922,468

33,26695, 674

2,147


Simple

Num-ber

26.430.023.011.44.7

1.81.3.7

.4

.1

.1

.1

.0

100.0

In-come

6.120.826.318.39.6

4.63.92.8

2.21.2.8

1.71.7

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

26.456.479.490 895.5

97.398.699.3

99.799.899.9

100.0

In-come

6.126.953.271.581.1

85.789.692.4

94.695.896.6

98.3100.0

332950°—55-Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

March 1955


Table 15.—'All Consumer Units: Distribution of Number, Family Personal Income, and Federal Individual Income Tax Liability byFamily Personal Income Level, 1951


Under $1,000$1,000-$!, 999 ._$2,000-$2,999$3,OOG-$3,999 - -$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999 _$15,000~$19,999$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999$50,000 and over. _ _ _ „

Total .

Number offamiliesand un-attached

individuals(thou-sands)

3, 2276,0227, 1648,1927,455

5,5805,3233,390

1,899523274

33695

49, 480


Aggregate(millions of

dollars)

1,6809,084

17, 94528, 69633, 552

30, 50235, 59628, 531

22, 6178,9336,063

11,0978,356

242, 652

Average(dollars)

5201,5082,5053, 5034,501

5, 4666,6878,415

11,90717,10522, 110

32, 97988, 555

4,904


Aggregate(millions of

dollars)

0241834

1, 5602,154

2, 4603, 2812,810

2,5211,3001,036

2, 5693. 334

24, 100

Average(dollars)

040

116190289

441616829

1,3272,4903,779

7,63335, 335

487

Tax rate(percent)

02.74.65. 46.4

8.19.29.8

11.114.617.1

23.239.9

9.9


Simple

Number

6.512.214.516.515.1

11.310.76.8

3.81.1.6

.7

.2

100.0

Income liability

0.73.77.4

11.813.8

12.614.711.8

9.33.72.5

4.63.4

100.0

01.03.56.58.9

10.213.611.7

10.55.44.3

10.613.8

100.0

Cumulative

Number Income ^f^

6.518.733.249.764.8

76.186.893.6

97.498.599.1

99.8100.0

0. 7 ! 04.4 1 1.0

11.8 4.523.6 11.037.4 19.9

50. 0 30. 164. 7 43. 776. 5 55. 4

85. 8 65. 989.5 71.392. 0 75. 6

96.6 ! 86.2100.0 100.0

i



Under $1,000$1,000-$1,999$2,000-$2 999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6 000-$7 499$7 500-$9 999

$10 000-$14 999$15 000-$19,999$20,000-$24,999

$25 000-$49 999$50 000 and over

Total

Num-ber of


1,0843,4955,0796,9896,894

5,3585,1783,300

1,854508266

32491

40, 420


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

6365,316

12, 79524, 56531,072

29, 30134, 63227, 768

22, 0788,6815,885

10, 6927,958

221,379

Average(dollars)

5861, 5212,5193,5154,507

5,4686,6888,414

11, 90717, 10022, 105

32, 98188, 240

5,477


Simple

Num-ber

2.78.6

12.517.317.0

13.312.88.2

4.61.3. 7

.8

.2

100.0

Income

0.32.45.8

11.114.0

13.315.612.5

10.03.92.7

4.83.6

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

2.711.323.841.158.1

71.484.292.4

97.098.399.0

99.8100.0

Income

0.32 78^5

19.633.6

46.962.575.0

85.088.991.6

96.4100.0



Under $1,000$1,000-$!, 999$2,000-$2,999$3, 000-^3,909$4,000-$4.\W)

$5 000~#5 !W$6 000--* 7 49'-)$7,500-$9,999

$10, 000-$ 14, 999$15,000-$19,999$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999$50,000 and over

Total

Num-ber of


5401,1911,067

848603

429379273

1734820

218

5,600


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

3741,7342,6452,9492,699

2,3442,5262,337

2,078822449

679532

22, 168

Average(dollars)

6921, 4552.4793.4784,478

5,4646,6568,567

11,97217,11922, 163

32, 70070, 421

3,959


Simple

Num-ber

9.621.319.015.110.8

7.66.84.9

3.1.9.4

.4

.1

100.0

Income

1.77.8

11.913.312.2

10.611.410.5

9.43.72.0

3.12.4

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

9.630.949.965.075.8

83.490.295.1

98.299.199.5

99.9100.0

Income

1.79.5

21.434.746.9

57.568.979.4

88.892.594.5

97.6100.0

Table 17.—Nonfarm Families: Distribution of Number and ofFamily Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1951

Table 19.—Unattached Individuals: Distribution of Number and ofFamily Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1951


Under $1,000$1,000-$!, 999 _ . _ -_$2 000-$2 999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6 000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999 ...$15 000-$! 9,999$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999 _ ._ .__$50 000 and over

Total

Num-ber of


5442,3044,0126,1416,291

4,9294,7993,027

1,681460246

30383

34,820


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

2623,582

10, 15021,61628, 373

26, 95732, 10625, 431

20, 0007,8595,436

10,0137,426

199,211

Average(dollars)

4811,5552,5303,5204,510

5, 4696, 6908, 400

11,90117, 09822, 100

33, 00089, 870

5,721


Simple

Num-ber

1.66.6

11.517.718.1

14. 113.88.7

4.81.3. 7

.9

.2

100.0

Cumulative

income N™'

0. 11.85.1

10.914.3

13.516.112.8

10.04.02.7

5.03.7

100.0

1.68.2

19.737.455.5

69.683.492.1

96.998.298.9

99.8100.0

Income

0.11.97.0

17.932.2

45.761.874.6

84.688.691.3

96.3100.0


Under $1,000 . ._$l,000-$l,999$2,000-$2,999$3 000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15,000-$19,999$20,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999$50,000 and over

Total

Num-ber ofunat-

tachedindivid-

uals(thou-sands)

2,1432,5272,0851,203

561

22214590

45158

124

9,060


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

1 , 0443, 7685, 1504,1312,480

1,201964763

539252178

405398

21,273

Average(dollars)

4871,4912,4703,4334,426

5,4196,6428,464

11,90717, 28922, 286

32, 92395, 370

2,348


Simple

Num-ber

23.627.923.013.36.2

2.41.61.0

.5

.2

.1

.1

.1

100.0

Income

4.917.724.219.411.7

5.74.53.6

2.51.2.8

1.91.9

100.0

Cumulative

Nbu™- Income

23.651.574.587.894.0

96.498.099.0

99.599.799.8

99.9100.0

4.922.646.866.277.9

83.688.191.7

94.295.496.2

98.1100.0


March 1955

March 1955 SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS 27Table 20.—All Consumer Units: Distribution of Number, Family Personal Income, and Federal Individual Income Tax Liability by

Family Personal Income Level, 1953


Under $1,000$1,000-$1,999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999

$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999$15,000 and over

Total

Number offamilies andunattachedindividuals(thousands)

2,8665,4336,4887,3997,247

6,2766,2404,834

2,2731,494

50, 550


Aggregate(millions

of dollars)

1,4278,242

16,30425, 98832, 521

34, 31541, 78141, 196

27, 49242, 279

271, 545

Average(dollars)

4981,5172,5133,5134,488

5,4686,6968,521

12, 09228, 306

5,372


Aggregate(millions

of dollars)

0239850

1,5942,285

2,9754,0904,275

3,23510, 457

30, 000

Average(dollars)

044

131215315

474655884

1,4227,001

593

Tax rate(percent)

02.95.26.17.0

8.79.8

10.4

11.824.7

11.0


Simple

Number

5.710.812.814.614.3

12.412.39.6

4.53.0

100.0

Income

0.53.06.09.6

12.0

12.615.415.2

10.115.6

100. 0

Tax lia-bility

0.8

2.85.37.6

9.913.714.2

10.834.9

100.0

Cumulative•

Number

5.716.529.343.958.2

70.682.992.5

97.0100.0

Income

0.53.59.5

19.131.1

43.759.174.3

84.4100.0

Tax lia-bility

0.8

3.68.9

16.5

26.440.154.3

65.1100.0




Under $1,000$1,000-$1,999__ .$2,000-$2,999$3,000- $3,999$4,000-$4,999$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9,999$10,000-$14,999$15,000 and over ._

Total

Num-ber of


9053,0664,3835,9456,5065,9196,0304,7042,2091,443

41,110


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

5014,693

11, 07720, 96229, 21632, 37840, 38940, 08526, 73340, 693

246, 727

Average(dollars)

5541,5312,5273,5264,4915,4706,6988,521

12, 10028, 1876,002


Simple

Num-ber

2.27.5

10.714.415.814.414.711.45.43.5

100.0

Income

0.21.94.58.5

11.813.116.416.3

• 10.816.5

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

2.29.7

20.434.850.665.079.791.196.5

100.0

Income

0.22.16.6

15.126.940.056.472.783.5

100.0


Under $1 000$1,000-$!, 999$2 000-$2 999$3 000-$3 999$4,000-$4,999$5000-$5999$6,000-$7,499$7500-$9999$10 000-$14 999$15 000 and over

Total

Num-ber of

families(thous-sands)

6831,3421,096

80255634926719812069

5,482


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

3942,0092,7192,7762,4791,9071,7761,6931,4311,777

18,961

Average(dollars)

5771,4972,4813,4604,4625,4626,6608,539

11,90325, 5453,459


Simple

Num-ber

12.524.520.014.610.16.34.93.62.21.3

100.0

Income

2.110.614.314.613.110.09.48.97.69.4

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

12.537.057:071.681.788.092.996.598.7

100.0

Income

2.112.727.041.654.764.774.183.090.6

100.0

Table 22.—Nonfarm Families: Distribution of Number and ofFamily Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1953

Table 24.—Unattached Individuals: Distribution of Number andof Family Personal Income by Family Personal Income Level, 1953


Under $1,000 - _ _$1,000-$!, 999$2,000-$2,999$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999$5,000-$5,999$6,000-$7,499$7,500-$9 999$10,000-$14,999$15,000 and over

Total

Num-ber of

families(thous-sands)

2221,7243,2875, 1435,9505,5705,7634, 5062,0891,374

35,628


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

1072,6848,358

18. 18626, 73730, 47138, 61338, 39225, 30238, 916

227, 766

Average(dollars)

4811,5562,5433,5364,4945,4716,7008,520

12, 11128, 3216, 393


Simple

Num-ber

0.64.89.2

14.416.715.616.212.75.93.9

100.0

Income

0.11.23.78.0

11.713.416.916.811.117.1

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

0.65.4

14.629.045.761.377.590.296.1

100.0

Income

0.11.35.0

13.024.738.155.071.882.9

100.0


Under $1,000$1 000-$1 999$2000-$2,999$3 000-$3 999$4000-$4,999$5 000-$5 999$6 000-$7,499$7 500-$9 999$10,000-$14,999$15 000 and over _ -

Total

Num-ber ofunat-

tachedindivid-

uals(thou-sands)

1,9622,3672,1051,454

7423562101306450

9,440


Aggre-gate(mil-

lions ofdollars)

9263,5495,2275,0263,3051,9371,3921,111

7591,586

24,818

Average(dollars)

4721,4992,4833,4584,4565,4296,6398,519

11, 83431, 7322,629


Simple

Num-ber

20.825.122.315.47.83.82.21.4.7.5

100.0

Income

3.714.321.120.213.37.85.64.53.16.4

100.0

Cumulative

Num-ber

20.845.968.283.691.495.297.498.899.5

100.0

Income

3.718.039.159.372.680.486.090.593.6

100.0

Table 25.—Distribution of Consumer Units and of Family Personal Income After Federal Individual Income Tax Liability, by Level ofAfter-Tax Income, 1950, 1951, and 1953

[Data for 1950 replace those in Table 20 of the Income Distribution supplement]

Family personal income after Federal^individual income tax liability

Under $1,000 _$1,000-$!, 999$2,000-$2,999•$3,000-$3,999$4,000-$4,999$5,000-$5,999 __$6,000-87,499$7,500-$9,999$10 000-$14,999$15,000-$19,999 _$20,000 and over

Total

1950

Num-ber of

familiesand un-attachedindivid-

uals(thou-sands)

3,9787,9408,6649,1097,2264,4873,2972,1311,278

375405

48,890

After-tax familypersonal income

Aggre-gate

(millionsof dol-lars)

2,05812, 12221, 76231, 80932, 28524, 44521, 92118, 03415, 1136,409

12, 984198, 942

Average(dollars)

5171,5272,5123,4924,4685,4486,6508,462

11, 82617, 08132, 0264,069

Percent distri-bution

Num-ber

8.116.317.718.614.89.26.74.42.6.8.8

100.0

After-tax in-come

1.06.1

11.016.016.212.311.09.17.63.26.5

100.0

1951

Num-ber of

familiesand un-

attachedindivid-

uals(thou-sands)

3,3506,5417, 8498,7638,1425,5594,4592,3971,525

453442

49, 480


Aggre-gate


1,8009,961

19, 71430, 63236, 50230, 31629, 70920, 28918, 0477,800

13, 782218,552

Average(dollars)

5371,5232,5123,4964,4835,4536,6638,463

11, 83417, 21831, 1954,417


Num-ber

6.813.215.917.716.511.29.04.83.1.9.9

100.0

After-tax in-come

0.84.69.0

14.016.713.813.69.38.33. 66.3

100.0

1953

Num-ber of

familiesand un-

attachedindivid-

uals(thou-sands)

2,9805,9507,1738,2578,2076,2675,3733,3591,921

} 1,06350, 550


Aggre-gate


1,5389,104

18, 02828, 98636, 88434, 21135, 84728, 24322, 84125, 863

241,545

Average(dollars)

5161,5302,5133,5104,4945,4596,6728,409

11, 89224, 3274,778


Num-ber

5.911.814.216.416.212.410.66.63.82.1

100.0

After-tax in-come

0.63.87.4

12.015.314.214:811.79.5

10.7100.0


March 1955

Income Distribution in the United States, 1950-53 · As can be seen from the top panel of the...

Documents

Transcript of Income Distribution in the United States, 1950-53 · As can be seen from the top panel of the...