The economics and politics of income distribution:
How society divides its wealth amongst its members is at the core of economics (and politics). It is generally taken for granted that more equal distributions are, ceteris paribus, more desirable for society. (This is also a natural corollary given dimishing marginal utility in consumption/income and if society cares about each of its members equally.) However, there is a debate on what trade-offs may exist between degrees of income distribution and other goals of society (e.g. economic growth).
Emmanuel Saez (UC Berkeley) and Thomas Piketty (Paris School of Economics) are two leading researchers of income inequality, with a focus on the United States (and France), where growing income inequality since the late 1970s (coincident with the deregulation of markets) has made that country the most highly unequal of all industrialised nations. (The Gini coefficient (see two items below) of the United States was 46.8 in 2009 (48.9 in 2007, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate); for comparison, it was 32.1 in Canada and 32.7 in France in the same year.) Aside from the Gini measure of income inequality, one of the most illutsrative indicator of growing American inequality — which is also reflected in many other industrialised nations — is the growing share of income (wealth) earned (amassed) by the top 1 percent of the population. The richest 1 percent of Americans own about half of the wealth in the United States and their share of national income exceeds 20 percent. Another common yardstick used to demonstrate the growing gap between the rich and the masses is the pay package of CEOs compared with the average worker. In the United States, CEOs of large publicly traded companies earn a multiple of about 500x that of the median worker, while a recent Canadian study (Recession-proof: Canada’s 100 best paid CEOs) pegged the ratio in Canada at 155x. Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa maintains a great blog on socio-economic matters (children, education, immigration, inequality & poverty, occupy Wall Street, and unemployment): Economics for public policy.
(Saez and Piketty, along with Facundo Alvaredo (Paris School of Economics) and Tony Atkinson (Oxford University) maintain a great website that is a database for world income distributions: The world top incomes database. For those interested in a good collection of articles and debates on the topic the New York Times has a dedicated page for the topic of inequality: The Great Divide.)
It is argued that a rise in income inequality is a natural phenomenon of economic growth for countries in the earlier stages of development. This theory says that income inequality follows a Kuznet curve — i.e. it grows as national income initially rises, then falls thereafter as national income reaches a certain level. Nevertheless, this notion of the welfare state being a “normal good” is being challenged by the growth in inequality in rich countries since the 1980s: Top incomes in the long run of history (Atkinson, Piketty, and Saez (2010)).
A polarisation of incomes comingled with populations dividing along the lines of education and ethnicity will strain social cohesion, especially in diverse societies. Although Toronto is often held up as a paragon of a diverse city that works (though such claims are now hotly contested), a phenomenon of sorting has taken place and continues to transpire in the city: Economic inequality in Toronto. How countries–and especially cities where the trend is most acute–deal with the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century for policy makers.
Economists measure the persistence of income across generations with the so-called “income beta”, i.e. the coefficient in the regression of an offspring’s income on parental income. A coefficient of 1 implies that a child’s income is perfectly predictable by its parents’ income, while a value of zero implies that parental income has no relation to a that of a child’s. It has been argued that a country like the US tolerates a higher level of inequality (vis-à-vis other industrialised countries) because it offers more opportunity for social mobility (i.e. income betas are low). However, much of the academic evidence points at a different reaility. The seminal contribution to this debate was from Nancy Stokey who wrote a paper in 1996 (Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves: The economics of social mobility) that essentiallly debunked the myth of American social mobility, showing that income mobility in the US was lower than that of many European countries (contradicting a priori beliefs), as well as that of Canada.
Relative versus absolute income mobility:
According to one recent study (Jantti et al (2006): “American exceptionalism in a new light”), 42 percent of American men born into the bottom quintile of the income distribution stay in the bottom quintile as adults; whereas 8 percent of American men born into the lowest income quintile go on to the top quintile as adults. In the UK–a country where class matters — 30 percent of men born into the bottom quintile remained in the bottom quintile as adults. A larger variation in US incomes naturally result in less relative income mobility in the US vis-à-vis more equitable countries. That is, since the absolute gap from the bottom to the top quintile is higher in the US this naturally limits the number of people moving from one quintile to another compared with countries where the income bands are more tight. Absolute income mobility, on the other hand, measures a child’s income relative to parental income, rather than a child’s position in the income distribution. By this metric The Pew Research Centre reckons that over 80 percent of Americans have higher (real) incomes than their parents (but largely because of a growing economy). There is thus a debate on which of the metrics of mobility are more relevant for policymakers.
The below chart from Miles Corak (University of Ottawa) shows the Gini coefficient on the x-axis and intergenerational earnings elasticity (i.e. income stickiness) on the y-axis. Denmark, Norway, Finland and Canada have high levels of income mobility, whereas South Africa, Peru, China and Brazil have little income mobility. Inequality can be deemed tolerable if there is significant mobility. The graph below shows that inequality is accompanied with less mobility.
One of the most widely known measures of inequality is the Gini coefficient, named after academic Corrado Gini (University of Bologna) who developed the simple (first-order) measure of distribution. It is calculated by rank-ordering a population by the distribution variable along the x-axis and the cumulative value of the distribution variable along the y-axis–for clarity let the distribution variable be income. (This then is the Lorenz Curve, named after economist Max O. Lorenz.) Both the x-axis and the y-axis are normalised to 1 so that the diagonal line from the origin (0,0) to the point (1,1) represents a perfectly equal income distribution (i.e. the nth percentile of the population accounts for n percent of total income). The Gini coefficient is thus the area between the diagonal and the cumulative income line; to express it as a measure from zero to one it is multiplied by two. (It is often also expressed as number between 0 and 100.) A Gini coefficient of zero implies that the cumulative income line is identical to the diagonal line, so that income is perfectly equally distributed. In the case where all but the top person earns zero (i.e. the top person earns all of the income) the cumulative income line would be a horizontal line along the x-axis and jumps to (1,1) at the last (and richest) person. Here the Gini is 1 and is the most unequal possible outcome of income distribution. Of the 135 countries where data is available, the nation with the lowest Gini coefficient is Sweden (23.0) while the highest level of income inequality is found in Namibia (70.7); the median country in the list is Mauritius (39.0). The per capita GDP of Sweden, Namibia and Mauritius are $61,098, $6,087 and $8,520, respectively (IMF estimates).
Income / wealth inequality in Canada the United States:
There has been some debate on the linkage between tax rates and income inequality. Namely, that a rise in the share of income earned by the upper end of the income distribution has been a result of a decrease in the top personal marginal tax rate. This supposes that higher incomes are a result of transfers of income from the corporate to personal sectors as taxes have eased on personal income. In the US the top marginal tax rate on income has steadily declined from over 80 percent in the 1960s to its current level of 35 percent, whereas the drop in the top marginal tax rate in Canada over the same period has been much more modest. Using these two different paths in the tax rate, and utilising the fact that both countries displayed sharp increases in the earnings of the top one precent, Emmanuel Saez and Michael Vaell show in a 2004 AER paper (The evolution of high incomes in North America: Lessons from the Canadian experience) that rising income inequality in the US has not been merely a consequence of a shifting of the tax base in response to a lowering of personal tax rates.
The growing polarisation of incomes in the United States (see, e.g. Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998 (Piketty and Saez (2003)) has garrered a lot of public attention; however, the phenomenon of rising income inequality has also been happening at a similar magnitude in Canada (see, e.g. The rise of Canada’s richest 1%). Nevertheless, the US remains the focal point for this line of study because inequality there is the highest amongst rich nations, and it is the highest it has been since the Gilded Ages, just before the Great Depression spawned redistributive economic policies (the New Deal). The parallels in the current economic environment are thus uncanny, with some arguing that there may be a causal relationship between inequality and economic depressions.
Wealth inequality is typically more extreme than income inequality. For example, in the United States the richest 1 percent of income earners claim a share of national income of 23%, whereas the wealthiest 1 percent own 50 percent US wealth. In Canada the top 1 percent of income earners account for 18 percent of national income, while the wealthiest 1 percent control 30 percent of national wealth.
Defining the poor and the rich:
There is no formal definition for when an individual or household is considered “poor” or “rich” (although in a 2011 survey by Gallup the median response cited by Americans as rich was an annual income of $150 thousand). Some countries define the poverty line using a marker relative to median income (e.g. the poverty line is defined as half the median income in many European countries), while an absolute measure for poverty is used in North America (which is typically specific to a given area to account for cost-of-living differences), and in some developing countries poverty is defined by caloric intake.
An analogue to the European view of poverty would be to define the rich as those with earnings exceeding a certain multiple of median income–a marker on the order of 5x or 10x median income might thus be appropriate. Using US data (median household income of about $50 thousand) this suggests that, at a ratio of 5x, the rich are those households with incomes in excess of $250 thousand, or $500 thousand if the 10x multiple is used instead. On the other hand, an absolute cut-off to define rich depends on the perspective of who you ask, as the Gallup poll mentioned in the preceding paragraph shows that the number varies according to the respondents own level (i.e. reference point) of income. (In any case, the absolute figure of $150 thousand is a multiple of 3x of median income, and $1 million would be a multiple of 20x of median income.) One can also define the rich (in terms of income) as those in the top x-percentile of the income distribution, where x in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has become 1 (i.e. the rich are those in the top 1 percentile of the income distribution). Using US data this would imply a household income threshold (gross, before tax) of US$ 350 thousand in the US (a 7x multiple of median income) using IRS data from 2011 — other data suggests that the top 1 percent threshold is much higher (on the order or $500 thousand). In Canada, where taxpayers file as individuals, the cut-off to the top 1 percentile of the income distribution would require an annual income of C$170 thousand.
Defining the rich would have interesting policy implications because of the political push to “tax the rich” to help countries restore their financial position, and the because of the growing concern that high levels of inequality may be deleterious to the greater society. Data also show that it has been the already-rich who have captured most of the economic gains since the 1980s. Defining the top marginal tax rates — i.e. those that would apply only to the “rich” — relative to median income is one possible step in the right direction to deal with the growing gap while being incentive compatible. That is, if the top tax rates are a (positive) function of the median income of a country (e.g. the top tax rate kicks in at 5x of median income), then the rich (the 1 percent or so) — who are the ones with the political power to make meaningful policy changes – can increase their after-tax income by either raising their own pre-tax income and/or by raisig the national median income. Similarly, a CEO’s pay could be set as function of the median income of the country, in addition to the company’s financial performance (e.g. compensation is capped at 50x of national median income or 50x a weighted average of the national and firm median incomes). Under this scheme, CEOs — who can sway not just the direction of their companies, but also of national policies — are incentivised to work for the betterment of the company, workers, and society as a whole. (See: “A fairer pay system?“)
Non-linearity of income/wealth distribution (in progress):
A point that has caught the public’s attention in the debate on income distribution is the gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of society. Often the richest 1 percent (either measured by income or wealth) is taken synonomously with the “rich”, yet even within this group there are large variations in their composition (occupation, power, etc.) and their outcomes (i.e. level of income). Those that belong to the top 99.0 to 99.5 percentile have very different characteristics than those in the top 99.9 percentile. Indeed, the lion’s share of the growth in the income and wealth of the top 1 percent of the population in Canada and the USA have accrued to the top 0.1 percent.
Social welfare function:
Economists use so-called social welfare functions (SWF) to rank the outcomes of social states. More precisely, it is a function that assigns a real number to a set of possible states of the world (i.e. a distribution of consumption and leisure possibilities), where higher numbers are associated with higher (ordinal) levels of social utility. A SWF can thus be used to assess the desirability of alternative social states. Whence the SWF is derived is contentious as there are many ways to aggregate individual utilities into a social utility, whose merits depend on one’s political beliefs. A few examples of SWFs include: (i) a utilitarian SWF (maximises the sum of the utilities); (ii) a maxi-min SWF (maximises the utility of the lowest person); (iii) a maxi-max SWF (maximises the utility of the highest person); (iv) a maxi-med SWF (maximises the utility of the median person). In more concrete terms, economics Nobel laureate (1998) Amartya Sen proposed that policy makers try to maximise a utility function of the form: (per capita GDP) × (1 − Gini coefficient).
Pareto efficiency / optimality:
An economic distribution / outcome is said to be Pareto efficient (or Pareto optimal) if any redistribution necessarily makes at least one person worse off. Said another way, a change in an outcome is said to be Pareto improving if it makes at least one person better off without making anyone worse off. If people’s utility’s are purely determined by their own consumption patterns, then a change in income distribution whereby the incomes of the richest one percent grows by 275 percent, while the incomes of the 81st through 99th, 21st through 80th, and bottom 20th percentiles grow by 65, 40 and 18 percent, respectively, is Pareto improving. In this case, the richest one percent claims 60 percent of all income growth while the bottom 90 percent drives 8.6 percent of growth. (This was the case in the United States when comparing real income change from 1979 to 2007. See the CBO report: Trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007.) However, Pareto efficiency is neither necessarily fair nor socially optimal. The controversy surrounding growing income inequality, which has spawned, amongst other things, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement of 2011, is a testament to the social dissatisfaction (at least by some) of the growing income gap.
Does inequality matter?
It is generally reported that lower levels of inequality are associated with higher levels of social satisfaction: Across studies and surveys, people report a greater sense of personal satisfaction with lower levels of income inequality. However, lower levels of inequality, per se, do not positively impact the consumption possibilities of households, so standard economic theory does not have an avenue for direct benefits from an egalitarian society. Nevertheless, with diminishing marginal utility of income, there are definite societal-level benefits to more equitable distributions under any social welfare function that weighs the utilities of individuals in society in more or less equal ways.
It is generally assumed that the welfare function of individuals consists of a composite good, as well as from leisure. Standard theory does not incorporate jealousy or altruism as factors that affect the felicity of individuals. Notwithstanding that, a SWF is not merely the sum of the utilities of the group (although this may be the case under a utilitarian SWF), so it may also include a level of income inequality as a direct argument. Whether inequality matters on a social-utility level depends on the goals of society. However, if higher levels of inequality are, per se, disruptive to the market and lead to unstable paths for the economy there are real reasons to be concerned about how to divide the pie. This is exactly the case for those that propose that high levels of inequality may trigger economic depressions.
Rawls’s veil of ignorance:
John Rawls, a Harvard philosopher who was educated at Princeton and Oxford, provides one of the most celebrated intellectual underpinnings for a society that is more equitably distributed in his masterpiece, “A theory of jutsice” (1971), which is at the foundation of liberalism. (Rawls’s intellectual opposite was Nozick, a colleague at Harvard, who argued in favour of libertarian justice in his work, “Anarchy, state, and utopia” (1974).) In Rawls’s intellectual search for a definition of a just society, he considered two socities: One in which the variation in outcomes between the best and worst are high, versus one in which the dispersion in outcomes are low. He argued that the more just society is one which a person would choose ex-ante if he did not know his relative position. A natural predisposition for risk aversion in humans thus led him to conclude that a more equitable distribution was a society which is more fair, so that economic, political, and social institutions should support outcomes that look more kindly on the less well-off.
Redistribution of income:
Because money is fungible and transferable it is often targeted for redistribution. It is seldom that other outcomes (athletics, beauty, health, etc.) are redistributed, with the exception of placements into higher education (c.f. the debate on affirmative action policies that redistribute spots in higher educational institutions). Taxes and transfers are the primary ways to effect income redistribution. Because taxes are distortionary they elicit strong responses, even if the purpose of the tax, or where the tax earnings are earmarked for, are laudable. Whether such redistributions are “fair” or necessary are highly contentious and one of the wedges that divide the political left and right. Even Rawls’s veil of ignorance is agnostic on this point as he only contends that ex-ante a more equitably distributed society is fair, but does not take a position on ex-post transfers of income once the distribution has been realised. With transfers from one individual to another there is no (Pareto) efficient solution since any transfer of income necessarily reduces the consumption possibilities of the donor. (Though this may be a socially optimal transfer, especially if the donor is benevolent and derives utility from charity.)
Optimal taxation policy (WIP):
The tax rate that maximises government revenue (restricted in this discussion to income tax) is the so-called “optimal tax rate”. This rate (between 0 and 100 percent) is thought to be increasing in the tax rate at low levels of taxation and decreasing at high levels, was infamously described by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a back of aserviette (although Laffer makes no claim of inventing the concept itself), which became a big argument of the conservative tax-cutting movement in the 1980s in countries such as the UK and the USA. Indeed, the curve that illustrates the elasticity of tax revenues as a function of the tax rate now bears the name of Arthur Laffer: The Laffer Curve. This figure is merely the rate that maximises tax revenues, and makes no normative statements about the fairness of the tax rate or how the taxes are spent. Much debate has ensued about the appropriate top marginal tax rate as countries deal with growing income inequality and public. This has been more than just an academic subject in a country such as France where the top marginal tax rate was set at 75 percent, a platform on which Francois Hollande campaigned successfully on to oust the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, in 2012. In an op-ed in The Guardian, Saez and Piketty (2013) argue that the top marginal rate could be set as high as 80 percent: Why the top 1% should pay tax at 80%. How the incentive to work responds to the effective wage (i.e. after-tax income) is ambiguous since the income and substitution effects work in the opposite direction — a higher wage induces people to consume more leisure (a normal good), but at the same time a higher wage makes the relative price of leisure more dear, so that it is consumed less.
Assortive mating (WIP):
Assortive mating refers to the fact that
Distribution of income by race/ethnicity (WIP):
Income and ethnicity/race are highly correlated in multicultural/multiracial societies (and also across countries). In the United States the median household income by race
Case study 1 (Singapore, 2013):
Singapore is one of the 20th century’s great development success stories. In 1965 — the year it was expelled from Malaysia — it had a per capita GDP not much more than $500. With limited geography, no natural resources and hostile neighbours its fate was, at best, murky. But by 2013 it had transformed itself into one of the world’s alpha cities, with the fourth largest financial centre and amongst the five busiest container ports. Its per capita GDP had grown to $55 thousand, ranking it amongst the world’s richest countries. However, its development has not been without challenges, most notably the city state has a high level of income (and wealth) inequality. The below are charts of the income inequality in Singapore based on 2013 tax filings. (Data note: Those earning less than SGD 20,000 (annual) are excluded from paying taxes in Singapore.)
Income is a variable that is log-normally distributed. This means that its distribution is bounded below (at zero) and is skewed. (In mathematical terms, the logarithm of the distribution is normally distributed.) The below is a histogram of income in Singapore (2013), which takes on the log-normal shape.
The CIA Factbook reports Singapore’s Gini coefficient (2013) as 46.3. This ranks the country as one of the more inequitable countries amongst developed economies. The below is a chart of the Lorenz Curve and the estimated Gini coefficient based on 2013 tax filing data. The Gini calculated (0.51) is higher than that reported in the CIA Factbook. This could be because the below chart is based on incomes before taxes and redistribution. Nevertheless, with a Gini even higher than the United States, Singapore’s rapid ascension into a global financial powerhouse seems to have lifted all boats, but not evenly. Although such a transformation may be Pareto efficient, such uneven growth may engender social unrest.
Median income in Singapore is just shy of $42k, while the minimum threshold into its top-1 percent is $500k. This gives a ratio (top-1 percent to median) of almost 12x. For comparison, the median income in the United States is $39k (for those working full time, between the ages of 24 and 65, which is the natural comparison to the Singapore data since the Singapore data is truncated below at SGD 20k), while entry into its top-1 percent is $394k. The US ratio — which is already high amongst developed nations — is 10x; i.e. below that of Singapore.
Of course, the proper comparison is not Singapore versus USA, but rather Singapore vs New York City. According to a CUNY study (Bergad, 2014) the household income Gini for New York City in 2010 was 0.50 — suggesting that the current level may be higher given a secular trend that has seen the Gini level rise from 0.44 in 1990 to 0.49 in in 2000 and 0.50 in 2010. Levels of income inequality are higher in urban centres versus rural (or suburban) areas; but whether national (blended) levels are higher versus the urban level is not clear.
Case study 2 (New York City):
- Bergad, Laird W. (2014): “The concentration of wealth in New York City: Changes in the structure of household income by race/ethnic groups and Latino nationalities 1990-201).” Latino Data Project – Report 56, Graduate Centre CUNY, January 2014.
- Rawls, John (1971): “A theory of justice.” Cambridge, USA: Belknap Press.
- Weinberg, Danile H. (2011): “US neighbourhood income inequality in the 2005-2009 period.” American Community Service Reports, US Census Bureau, October 2011.
Uchumi na siasa za usambazaji wa mapato: Jinsi jamii inavyogawanya utajiri wake kati ya wanachama wake ni msingi wa uchumi (na siasa). Kwa ujumla inachukuliwa kuwa usambazaji sawa zaidi ni, ceteris paribus, zaidi ya kutamaniwa kwa jamii. Hii ni matokeo ya asili kutokana na kupungua kwa faida ya makali katika matumizi na mapato na ikiwa jamii inahusika na kila mmoja wa wanachama wake sawa. Hata hivyo, kuna mjadala juu ya nini biashara-offs inaweza kuwepo kati ya viwango vya usambazaji wa mapato na malengo mengine ya jamii (kwa mfano. ukuaji wa kiuchumi). Emmanuel Saye (UC Berkeley) na Thomas Piketty (Paris School of Economics) ni watafiti wawili wa kuongoza wa usawa wa mapato, na kuzingatia Marekani (na Ufaransa), ambapo ongezeko la usawa wa mapato tangu mwishoni mwa miaka ya 1970 (kuambatana na deregulation ya masoko) imefanya nchi hiyo kuwa na usawa mkubwa zaidi kati ya mataifa yote ya viwanda. Kiwango cha Gini cha Marekani kilikuwa 48.9 katika mwaka wa 2007, kulingana na makadirio ya Ofisi ya Bajeti ya Bunge (CBO), na 32.7 katika Ufaransa. Mbali na kipimo cha Gini cha usawa wa mapato, moja ya kiashiria cha kuelezea zaidi ya usawa wa Amerika unaoongezeka - ambayo pia inaonyeshwa katika mataifa mengine mengi ya viwanda - ni sehemu inayoongezeka ya mapato (utajiri) inayopatikana (kujikusanya) na asilimia 1 ya juu ya idadi ya watu. Asilimia moja ya watu tajiri zaidi nchini Marekani wana karibu nusu ya utajiri wa nchi hiyo na sehemu yao ya mapato ya kitaifa inazidi asilimia 20. Kiwango kingine cha kawaida kinachotumiwa kuonyesha pengo linaloongezeka kati ya matajiri na watu wengi ni mfuko wa mshahara wa Mkurugenzi Mtendaji ikilinganishwa na mfanyakazi wa kawaida. "Wakuu wa kampuni kubwa zinazochukuliwa hadharani nchini Marekani wanapata mapato ya mara 500 ya wafanyakazi wa kawaida, huku utafiti wa hivi karibuni wa Canada ulioitwa ""Recession-proof: Canada's 100 Best Paid CEOs"" ukiweka kiwango hicho katika mara 155." Miles Corak, Mkurugenzi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Ottawa, anaandika blogi ya kiuchumi kuhusu masuala ya kijamii na kiuchumi (watoto, elimu, uhamiaji, ukosefu wa usawa na umaskini, Wall Street, na ukosefu wa ajira): Uchumi kwa ajili ya sera za umma. Saez na Piketty, pamoja na Facundo Alvarado (Shule ya Uchumi ya Paris) na Tony Atkinson (Chuo Kikuu cha Oxford) wanadumisha tovuti kubwa ambayo ni hifadhidata ya usambazaji wa mapato ya ulimwengu: Hifadhidata ya mapato ya juu ya ulimwengu. Kwa wale wanaopendezwa na mkusanyiko mzuri wa makala na mijadala juu ya mada hiyo, New York Times ina ukurasa wa kujitolea kwa mada ya usawa: The Great Divide. "Kuna madai kwamba ongezeko la usawa wa mapato ni jambo la kawaida la ukuaji wa kiuchumi kwa nchi katika hatua za mapema za maendeleo.""" Nadharia hii inasema kwamba usawa wa mapato unafuata mteremko wa Kuznet <unk> yaani. Inakua wakati mapato ya kitaifa yanaongezeka, kisha hupungua wakati mapato ya kitaifa yanafikia kiwango fulani. Hata hivyo, wazo hili la hali ya ustawi kuwa <unk> nzuri ya kawaida<unk> ni changamoto na ukuaji wa ukosefu wa usawa katika nchi tajiri tangu miaka ya 1980: Mapato ya juu katika muda mrefu wa historia (Atkinson, Piketty, na Saez 2010). Polarization ya mapato pamoja na idadi ya watu kugawanyika kando ya mistari ya elimu na kikabila itakuwa shinikizo mshikamano wa kijamii, hasa katika jamii mbalimbali. Ingawa Toronto mara nyingi huchukuliwa kama mfano wa jiji la tofauti ambalo linafanya kazi (ingawa madai kama hayo sasa yanapingwa sana), jambo la kuchagua limefanyika na linaendelea kutokea katika jiji: Ukosefu wa usawa wa kiuchumi huko Toronto. Jinsi nchi - na hasa miji ambapo mwenendo ni mkali zaidi - kushughulika na kupanuka kwa pengo kati ya matajiri na wengine wote itakuwa moja ya changamoto kubwa ya karne ya 21 kwa watunga sera. Wataalamu wa uchumi kupima kudumu ya mapato katika vizazi na kinachoitwa <unk> mapato beta<unk>, yaani. coefficient katika regression ya mapato ya watoto juu ya mapato ya wazazi. "Kifaa cha 1 kinamaanisha kwamba mapato ya mtoto yanaweza kutabiriwa kikamilifu na mapato ya wazazi wake, wakati thamani ya sifuri inamaanisha kwamba mapato ya wazazi hayana uhusiano na ya mtoto.""" "Watu wengi wanasema kwamba nchi kama Marekani huvumilia kiwango cha juu cha ukosefu wa usawa (kuhusu nchi nyingine za viwanda) kwa sababu inatoa fursa zaidi kwa ajili ya uhamaji wa kijamii (yaani, ""kufanya kazi kwa ajili ya watu wengi.""" Beta ya mapato ni ya chini. Hata hivyo, uthibitisho mwingi wa kitaaluma unaonyesha hali tofauti. "Nancy Stokes, mwandishi wa ""Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves: The Economics of Social Mobility,"" alitoa maoni ya kushangaza kuhusu jinsi watu wanavyoweza kupata pesa kwa njia ya njia ya kijamii, na kugundua kwamba idadi ya watu wanaofanya kazi katika nchi za Ulaya ni ya chini kuliko nchi za Ulaya." Kulingana na utafiti wa hivi karibuni (Janthi et al. 2006: American Exceptionalism in a New Light), 42% ya wanaume wa Marekani waliozaliwa katika quintile ya chini ya usambazaji wa mapato wanabaki katika quintile ya chini kama watu wazima, wakati 8% ya wanaume wa Marekani waliozaliwa katika quintile ya chini ya mapato wanaendelea kwenye quintile ya juu kama watu wazima. Katika nchi ya Uingereza, ambapo darasa ni muhimu, asilimia 30 ya wanaume waliozaliwa katika quintile ya chini walibaki katika quintile ya chini kama watu wazima. Tofauti kubwa katika mapato ya Marekani kwa kawaida husababisha chini ya uhamisho wa mapato ya jamaa katika Marekani vis-à-vis nchi zaidi haki. Kwa mfano, tofauti ya jumla kutoka kwa quintile ya chini hadi ya juu ni kubwa zaidi nchini Marekani, na hii inaathiri idadi ya watu wanaohamia kutoka kwa quintile moja hadi nyingine, ikilinganishwa na nchi ambazo makundi ya mapato ni nyembamba zaidi. Kwa upande mwingine, mwendo wa mapato ya jumla hupima mapato ya mtoto ikilinganishwa na mapato ya wazazi, badala ya nafasi ya mtoto katika usambazaji wa mapato. Kulingana na utafiti wa Pew Research Center, zaidi ya asilimia 80 ya Wamarekani wana mapato ya juu kuliko wazazi wao, lakini kwa sababu ya uchumi unaokua. Kwa hiyo kuna mjadala juu ya ambayo ya metrics ya uhamaji ni zaidi muhimu kwa watunga sera. Chati ya chini kutoka kwa Miles Corak (College of Ottawa) inaonyesha Gini coefficient kwenye mhimili wa x na elasticity ya mapato ya kizazi (yaani. Mapato ya kipekee (y) kwenye mhimili wa y Denmark, Norway, Finland na Canada zina viwango vya juu vya uhamaji wa mapato, wakati Afrika Kusini, Peru, China na Brazil zina uhamaji mdogo wa mapato. Ukosefu wa usawa unaweza kuchukuliwa kuvumilika kama kuna uhamaji mkubwa. Grafu iliyo hapa chini inaonyesha kwamba ukosefu wa usawa unahusishwa na uhamaji mdogo. Kiwango cha Gini ni kipimo cha kiwango cha Gini, ambacho kilitokana na Corrado Gini, mwanafunzi wa Chuo Kikuu cha Bologna, ambaye alianzisha kipimo cha kiwango cha kwanza cha usawa. Ni mahesabu kwa cheo-kuagiza idadi ya watu na usambazaji variable kando ya x-mhimili na thamani ya jumla ya usambazaji variable kando ya y-mhimili <unk> kwa uwazi basi usambazaji variable kuwa mapato. (Hii basi ni Curve ya Lorenz, jina lake baada ya mwanauchumi Max O. Lorenz.) Mhimili wa x na mhimili wa y ni kawaida kwa 1 ili mstari wa diagonal kutoka mwanzo (0,0) hadi hatua (1,1) uwakilishi usambazaji wa mapato sawa kabisa. N percentile ya idadi ya watu ni asilimia ya jumla ya mapato. Gini ni eneo kati ya diagonal na mstari wa mapato ya mkusanyiko, na kwa njia ya kipimo kutoka sifuri hadi moja, ni mara mbili. (Kati ya kawaida huonyeshwa pia kama nambari kati ya 0 na 100.) Gini coefficient ya zero ina maana kwamba mstari wa mapato ya mkusanyiko ni sawa na mstari wa diagonal, hivyo mapato ni perfectly sawa kusambazwa. Katika kesi ambapo wote lakini mtu wa juu anapata sifuri (yaani Ikiwa mtu wa juu anapata mapato yote, mstari wa mapato ya jumla utakuwa mstari wa usawa kwenye mhimili wa x na kuruka hadi 1,1,1 kwa mtu wa mwisho (na tajiri zaidi). Gini ni 1 na ni matokeo yasiyo ya usawa zaidi ya usambazaji wa mapato. Katika nchi 135 ambazo data zinapatikana, nchi yenye kiwango cha chini zaidi cha Gini ni Sweden (23.0), wakati kiwango cha juu zaidi cha usawa wa mapato kinapatikana Namibia (70.7), na nchi ya kati katika orodha ni Mauritius (39.0). Kwa mujibu wa IMF, GDP ya kila mtu nchini Sweden ni $619,98, $6,087 na $8,520 kwa kila mtu. Utofauti wa mapato na utajiri nchini Canada: Kuna mjadala juu ya uhusiano kati ya viwango vya kodi na ukosefu wa usawa wa mapato. Kwa mfano, ongezeko la sehemu ya mapato yaliyopatikana na mwisho wa juu wa usambazaji wa mapato ni matokeo ya kupungua kwa kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya kibinafsi. Hii inadhani kuwa mapato ya juu ni matokeo ya uhamisho wa mapato kutoka sekta ya ushirika hadi binafsi wakati kodi zimepunguzwa kwenye mapato ya kibinafsi. Katika Marekani, kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya mapato imepungua kwa kasi kutoka zaidi ya asilimia 80 katika miaka ya 1960 hadi kiwango chake cha sasa cha asilimia 35, wakati kupungua kwa kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya mapato nchini Canada katika kipindi hicho hicho kumekuwa kidogo zaidi. Kwa kutumia njia hizi mbili tofauti katika kiwango cha kodi, na kutumia ukweli kwamba nchi zote mbili zilionyesha ongezeko kubwa katika mapato ya juu ya moja, Emmanuel Saez na Michael Vail wanaonyesha katika karatasi ya AER ya 2004 (The Evolution of High Income in North America: Lessons from the Canadian Experience) kwamba ongezeko la usawa wa mapato nchini Marekani haikuwa tu matokeo ya mabadiliko ya msingi wa kodi kwa kujibu kupunguzwa kwa viwango vya kodi ya kibinafsi. Kuongezeka polarization ya mapato katika Marekani (tazama, kwa mfano. Ukosefu wa usawa wa mapato nchini Marekani, 1913 (Piketty na Saez, 2003) ni moja ya matukio ya kuvutia zaidi katika historia ya Marekani, na ni moja ya matukio ya kuvutia zaidi katika historia ya Marekani. Kuongezeka kwa Canada's Richest 1%). Hata hivyo, Marekani bado ni kitovu cha utafiti huu kwa sababu ukosefu wa usawa ni wa juu zaidi miongoni mwa mataifa tajiri, na ni wa juu zaidi tangu Enzi za Dhahabu, kabla tu ya Mshuko Mkubwa wa Kiuchumi kuzalisha sera za uchumi za kugawa upya (New Deal). Kwa hivyo, kufanana katika mazingira ya sasa ya kiuchumi ni ya kushangaza, na wengine wanasema kuwa kunaweza kuwa na uhusiano wa sababu kati ya ukosefu wa usawa na kushuka kwa uchumi. Ukosefu wa usawa wa utajiri kwa kawaida ni mkubwa zaidi kuliko ukosefu wa usawa wa mapato. Kwa mfano, katika Marekani, asilimia moja ya matajiri zaidi ya watu wanaopata mapato wanadai kuwa wanashiriki asilimia 23 ya mapato ya kitaifa, wakati asilimia moja ya matajiri zaidi wanamiliki asilimia 50 ya utajiri wa Marekani. Katika nchi ya Canada, asilimia moja ya watu wenye mapato ya juu huchukua asilimia 18 ya mapato ya taifa, huku asilimia moja ya watu matajiri wakidhibiti asilimia 30 ya utajiri wa taifa. "Hakuna ufafanuzi rasmi wa wakati mtu binafsi au kaya inachukuliwa kuwa "" maskini "" au "" tajiri "" (ingawa katika uchunguzi wa 2011 na Gallup, majibu ya wastani yaliyotolewa na Wamarekani kama tajiri yalikuwa mapato ya kila mwaka ya $ 150,000)." Nchi zingine hufafanua mstari wa umaskini kwa kutumia alama inayohusiana na mapato ya kati (kwa mfano. Mstari wa umaskini hufafanuliwa kama nusu ya mapato ya wastani katika nchi nyingi za Ulaya, wakati kipimo cha ukosefu wa kipato hutumiwa katika Amerika ya Kaskazini (ambayo kwa kawaida ni maalum kwa eneo fulani ili kuelezea tofauti za gharama za maisha), na katika nchi zingine zinazoendelea umaskini hufafanuliwa na ulaji wa kalori. "Kama ilivyo katika Ulaya, "" tajiri "" ni mtu ambaye mapato yake ni zaidi ya mara moja ya kipato cha kati, na "" tajiri "" ni mtu ambaye mapato yake ni zaidi ya mara tano au kumi ya kipato cha kati." Kwa kutumia takwimu za Marekani (kiwango cha wastani cha mapato ya familia ya karibu $ 50,000) hii inaonyesha kwamba, kwa uwiano wa 5x, matajiri ni wale familia na mapato zaidi ya $ 250,000 au $ 500,000 kama mara 10 mara nyingi hutumiwa badala yake. Kwa upande mwingine, kipimo cha mwisho cha kuamua tajiri hutegemea mtazamo wa mtu unayeuliza, kama vile uchaguzi wa Gallup uliotajwa katika kifungu cha awali unaonyesha kwamba idadi inatofautiana kulingana na kiwango cha kujibu. pointi ya rejea) ya mapato. Kwa mfano, kwa mfano, kiwango cha $ 150,000 ni mara 3 ya mapato ya kati, na $ 1 milioni ni mara 20 ya mapato ya kati. "Watu wengi wanaamini kuwa ""wenye utajiri"" ni wale walio katika x-percentile ya juu ya usambazaji wa mapato, ambapo x katika harakati ya Occupy Wall Street (OWS) imekuwa 1." Wenye utajiri ni wale walio katika asilimia 1 ya juu ya usambazaji wa mapato. Kwa kutumia takwimu za Marekani, hii inamaanisha kizingiti cha mapato ya kaya (ya jumla, kabla ya kodi) ya $ 350,000 nchini Marekani (mzuri 7x ya mapato ya kati) kwa kutumia takwimu za IRS kutoka 2011 - data nyingine zinaonyesha kwamba kizingiti cha juu cha asilimia 1 ni juu zaidi (kwa utaratibu au $ 500,000). Katika Canada, ambapo walipa kodi wanatoa kama watu binafsi, cut-off kwa juu 1 percentile ya mapato ya usambazaji ingekuwa zinahitaji mapato ya kila mwaka ya C$ 170,000. "Kutambua "" tajiri "" itakuwa na athari za sera za kuvutia kwa sababu ya msukumo wa kisiasa wa "" kulipa kodi tajiri "" kusaidia nchi kurudisha nafasi yao ya kifedha, na kwa sababu ya wasiwasi unaoongezeka kwamba viwango vya juu vya usawa vinaweza kuwa na madhara kwa jamii kubwa. """ Takwimu pia zinaonyesha kuwa ni matajiri ambao wamepata faida nyingi za kiuchumi tangu miaka ya 1980. Kufafanua viwango vya juu marginal kodi <unk> yaani "Kama vile ilivyo kwa ""wenye utajiri"" na ""wenye mapato ya kati,"" hii ni hatua moja inayowezekana katika mwelekeo sahihi wa kukabiliana na pengo linaloongezeka wakati wa kuwa kichocheo cha sambamba." Hiyo ni, kama viwango vya juu vya kodi ni (chanya) kazi ya mapato ya kati ya nchi (kwa mfano "Kama kiwango cha juu cha kodi huanza katika 5x ya mapato ya kati, basi matajiri (kwa asilimia 1 au zaidi) ambao ni wale walio na nguvu za kisiasa kufanya mabadiliko ya sera muhimu wanaweza kuongeza mapato yao baada ya kodi kwa kuongeza mapato yao ya kabla ya kodi na au kwa kuongeza mapato ya kati ya kitaifa. """ Vivyo hivyo, mshahara wa Mkurugenzi Mtendaji unaweza kuwekwa kama kazi ya mapato ya kati ya nchi, pamoja na utendaji wa kifedha wa kampuni (kwa mfano. Msaada wa kifedha wa kiwango cha juu ni 50x ya mapato ya kati ya kitaifa au 50x ya wastani wa kupimwa wa mapato ya kati ya kitaifa na ya kampuni. Chini ya mpango huu, Mkurugenzi Mtendaji - ambaye anaweza kuathiri si tu mwelekeo wa makampuni yao, lakini pia ya sera za kitaifa - ni kuhamasishwa kufanya kazi kwa ajili ya kuboresha kampuni, wafanyakazi, na jamii kwa ujumla. (Tazama: <unk>Mfumo wa kulipa haki zaidi?<unk>) Non-linearity ya mapato <unk> utajiri usambazaji (katika maendeleo): Jambo ambalo limechukua tahadhari ya umma katika mjadala juu ya usambazaji wa mapato ni pengo kati ya tajiri zaidi 1 asilimia na wengine wa jamii. Mara nyingi asilimia 1 tajiri (ama kipimo kwa mapato au utajiri) ni kuchukuliwa sawa na <unk> tajiri<unk>, bado hata ndani ya kundi hili kuna tofauti kubwa katika muundo wao (kazi, nguvu, nk.) na matokeo yao (yaani kiwango cha mapato). Kwa mfano, asilimia 99.9 ya watu walio katika nafasi ya kwanza ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia ya asilimia. Kwa kweli, sehemu kubwa ya ukuaji wa mapato na utajiri wa asilimia moja ya watu katika Kanada na Marekani imepita kwa asilimia 0.1 ya watu. "Wanauchumi wa uchumi hutumia ""kazi za ustawi wa kijamii"" (SWF) ili kuorodhesha matokeo ya hali ya kijamii." Kwa usahihi zaidi, ni kazi ambayo inatoa idadi halisi kwa seti ya hali zinazowezekana za ulimwengu (yaani. usambazaji wa matumizi na fursa za burudani), ambapo idadi kubwa huhusishwa na viwango vya juu (ordinal) vya manufaa ya kijamii. Kwa hivyo, SWF inaweza kutumika kutathmini kutamaniwa kwa hali mbadala za kijamii. Ambapo SWF ni inayotokana ni utata kama kuna njia nyingi za kukusanya huduma za mtu binafsi katika huduma ya kijamii, ambayo sifa hutegemea imani ya kisiasa ya mtu. SWFs ni pamoja na: (i) utilitarian (maximizes jumla ya utilities); (ii) maxi-min SWF (maximizes utility ya mtu wa chini); (iii) maxi-max SWF (maximizes utility ya mtu wa juu); (iv) maxi-med SWF (maximizes utility ya mtu wa kati). Amartya Sen, mshindi wa tuzo ya Nobel ya uchumi mwaka 1998, aliwahi kusema kuwa, 'Mfumo wa matumizi ya uchumi wa kila mtu (GDP) ni sawa na kiwango cha Gini. Matokeo ya usambazaji wa kiuchumi huitwa ufanisi wa Pareto ikiwa usambazaji wowote lazima ufanye angalau mtu mmoja kuwa mbaya zaidi. Mabadiliko katika matokeo ya utafiti huitwa Pareto kuboresha ikiwa hufanya angalau mtu mmoja afanye vizuri bila kufanya mtu yeyote kuwa mbaya zaidi. "Ikiwa matumizi ya watu yanategemea tu mtindo wao wa matumizi, basi mabadiliko katika usambazaji wa mapato ambapo mapato ya asilimia moja tajiri zaidi yanaongezeka kwa asilimia 275, wakati mapato ya asilimia 81 hadi 99, 21 hadi 80 na 20 ya chini yanaongezeka kwa asilimia 65, 40 na 18 kwa mtiririko huo, ni ""pareto kuboresha.""" Katika hali hii, asilimia moja tajiri zaidi wanadai asilimia 60 ya ongezeko lote la mapato wakati asilimia 90 ya chini huendesha asilimia 8.6 ya ukuaji. Hii ni kwa sababu ya hali ya uchumi nchini Marekani, ambapo mabadiliko ya mapato ya kweli ya mwaka 1979 hadi 2007 ni ya kawaida. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika ripoti ya CBO, ""Mwelekeo wa usambazaji wa mapato ya kaya kati ya 1979 na 2007.""" Hata hivyo, ufanisi wa Pareto si haki wala bora kwa jamii. "Mjadala kuhusu ongezeko la usawa wa mapato, ambao umesababisha, miongoni mwa mambo mengine, harakati ya ""Kuchukua Wall Street"" ya 2011, ni ushahidi wa kutoridhika kwa jamii (angalau kwa baadhi) ya tofauti ya mapato inayokua." Je, ukosefu wa usawa ni jambo la maana? Kwa ujumla, viwango vya chini vya usawa vinahusishwa na viwango vya juu vya kuridhika kijamii: Katika masomo na tafiti, watu wanaripoti hisia kubwa ya kuridhika binafsi na viwango vya chini vya usawa wa mapato. Hata hivyo, viwango vya chini vya usawa, kwa wenyewe, hazina athari nzuri kwa uwezekano wa matumizi ya kaya, kwa hivyo nadharia ya kawaida ya kiuchumi haina njia ya faida ya moja kwa moja kutoka kwa jamii ya usawa. Hata hivyo, kwa kupungua kwa faida ya kipimo cha mapato, kuna faida za kiwango cha jamii kwa usambazaji wa usawa zaidi chini ya kazi yoyote ya ustawi wa kijamii ambayo hupima matumizi ya watu katika jamii kwa njia sawa au chini. Kwa ujumla inadhaniwa kwamba kazi ya ustawi wa watu binafsi inajumuisha bidhaa ya mchanganyiko, pamoja na kutoka kwa burudani. Nadharia ya kawaida haijumuishi wivu au ubinafsi kama mambo yanayoathiri furaha ya watu. Hata hivyo, SWF si tu jumla ya huduma za kikundi (ingawa hii inaweza kuwa kesi chini ya SWF utilitarian), hivyo inaweza pia ni pamoja na kiwango cha mapato ya usawa kama hoja ya moja kwa moja. Kama usawa ni muhimu katika ngazi ya manufaa ya kijamii inategemea malengo ya jamii. Hata hivyo, ikiwa viwango vya juu vya ukosefu wa usawa ni, kwa wenyewe, kuvuruga soko na kusababisha njia zisizo thabiti kwa uchumi kuna sababu halisi za kuwa na wasiwasi juu ya jinsi ya kugawanya keki. Hii ni kweli kwa wale ambao wanapendekeza kwamba viwango vya juu vya ukosefu wa usawa vinaweza kusababisha kushuka kwa uchumi. "John Rawls, mwanafalsafa wa Harvard ambaye alisomea katika Princeton na Oxford, hutoa moja ya msingi maarufu wa kiakili kwa jamii ambayo imesambazwa kwa usawa zaidi katika kazi yake kuu, ""A Theory of Justice"" (1971), ambayo ni msingi wa uhuru." "Rawls alikuwa na uhusiano wa karibu na Nozick, ambaye alishirikiana naye katika utafiti wa Harvard, na ambaye alitoa hoja za haki ya uhuru katika kazi yake ""Anarchy, State, and Utopia"" (1974)." Katika utafutaji wa kiakili wa Rawls wa ufafanuzi wa jamii ya haki, alichukua jamii mbili: moja ambayo tofauti ya matokeo kati ya bora na mbaya zaidi ni kubwa, dhidi ya moja ambayo kutawanyika kwa matokeo ni chini. Alieleza kwamba jamii yenye haki zaidi ni ile ambayo mtu angeichagua mapema ikiwa hakujua nafasi yake ya jamaa. "Kutokana na mwelekeo wa asili wa wanadamu wa kuepuka hatari, alivutiwa na kuhitimisha kwamba ""usambazaji wa haki zaidi ni jamii ya haki zaidi, kwa hivyo taasisi za kiuchumi, kisiasa na kijamii zinapaswa kuunga mkono matokeo ambayo yanaonekana kuwa ya fadhili zaidi kwa wale walio chini.""" Ugawaji upya wa mapato: Kwa sababu fedha ni fungible na transferable ni mara nyingi lengo kwa ajili ya usambazaji upya. Ni mara chache kwamba matokeo mengine (michezo ya riadha, uzuri, afya, nk.) ni redistributed, isipokuwa kwa ajili ya uwekaji katika elimu ya juu (cf. Mjadala juu ya sera za hatua za haki ambazo husambaza nafasi katika taasisi za elimu ya juu). Kodi na uhamisho ni njia kuu ya kuathiri usambazaji wa mapato. Kwa sababu kodi ni distortionary wao kusababisha majibu ya nguvu, hata kama lengo la kodi, au ambapo mapato ya kodi ni earmarked kwa, ni sifa. Kama usambazaji kama huo ni "wa haki" au ni muhimu ni utata mkubwa na moja ya mipaka ambayo hugawanya kushoto na kulia kisiasa. Hata Rawls's veil of ignorance is agnostic on this point as he only contends that ex ante a more equitably distributed society is fair, but does not take a position on ex post transfers of income once the distribution has been realized. Kwa uhamisho kutoka mtu mmoja hadi mwingine hakuna (Pareto) suluhisho la ufanisi kwani uhamisho wowote wa mapato lazima hupunguza uwezekano wa matumizi ya mtoaji. (Ijapokuwa hii inaweza kuwa uhamisho bora wa kijamii, hasa kama mtoaji ni mwenye fadhili na hupata faida kutoka kwa hisani.) Msimamo bora wa kodi (WIP): Kiwango cha kodi ambacho huongeza mapato ya serikali (kizuizi katika majadiliano haya kwa kodi ya mapato) ni kinachoitwa "kiwango bora cha kodi". "Hiyo ni kwa sababu ya ""kiwango cha ushuru cha chini na kupungua kwa viwango vya juu"" (kwa mfano, Arthur Laffer, ambaye alidai kuwa ni mtengenezaji wa wazo la ushuru wa chini), ambayo ilifanya kuwa hoja kubwa ya harakati ya kupunguza ushuru katika miaka ya 1980 katika nchi kama vile Uingereza na Marekani." Kwa kweli, curve ambayo inaonyesha elasticity ya mapato ya kodi kama kazi ya kiwango cha kodi sasa hubeba jina la Arthur Laffer: The Laffer Curve. Hii ni kiwango cha kuongeza mapato ya kodi na haina taarifa yoyote ya kisheria kuhusu usawa wa kiwango cha kodi au jinsi kodi hutumiwa. Mjadala mkubwa umefanyika kuhusu kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya makadirio ya nchi zinazoshughulika na kuongezeka kwa usawa wa mapato na matumizi ya umma. Hii ni zaidi ya mada ya kitaaluma katika nchi kama Ufaransa ambapo kiwango cha juu cha kodi ya makadirio kilikuwa asilimia 75, jukwaa ambalo Francois Hollande alipiga kampeni kwa mafanikio kumfukuza Nicolas Sarkozy mnamo 2012. Katika makala yao ya maoni katika The Guardian, Saez na Piketty (2013) wanasema kwamba kiwango cha juu cha marginal kinaweza kuwekwa juu kama asilimia 80: Kwa nini asilimia 1 ya juu inapaswa kulipa kodi kwa asilimia 80? Jinsi ya kuchochea kazi inavyoshughulikia mshahara halisi (yaani "Kama matokeo ya mapato na uingizwaji kazi katika mwelekeo kinyume, ""mshahara wa juu"" husababisha watu kutumia burudani zaidi (zuri ya kawaida), lakini wakati huo huo mshahara wa juu hufanya bei ya jamaa ya burudani kuwa ghali zaidi, hivyo hutumiwa kidogo." Asortive mating (WIP) ni uwiano wa mapato kulingana na jamii au kabila, na inahusiana sana na mapato katika jamii za kitamaduni au jamii mbalimbali. Katika nchi za Asia, uchumi wa nchi ni wa kawaida, na kwa mujibu wa utafiti wa Singapore, Singapore ni moja ya nchi za maendeleo ya karne ya 20. Mwaka 1965 - mwaka ambapo ilifukuzwa kutoka Malaysia - ilikuwa na Pato la Taifa kwa kila mtu lisilo zaidi ya dola 500. Kwa sababu ya eneo lake dogo, kutokuwa na maliasili na majirani wenye uhasama, hatima yake haikuwa wazi. Lakini kufikia mwaka 2013, mji huo ulikuwa umegeuka kuwa mojawapo ya miji mikubwa zaidi duniani, ukiwa na kituo cha nne kwa ukubwa cha fedha na miongoni mwa bandari tano zenye shughuli nyingi zaidi za kubebea mizigo. Pato lake la ndani kwa kila mtu limekua hadi $ 55,000, na kuorodhesha miongoni mwa nchi tajiri zaidi ulimwenguni. Hata hivyo, maendeleo yake hayajawa bila changamoto, hasa mji-jimbo ina kiwango cha juu cha mapato (na utajiri) ukosefu wa usawa. Chati hii inaonyesha tofauti ya mapato nchini Singapore kulingana na taarifa za kodi za mwaka 2013. Kwa mfano, wale wanaopata mshahara wa chini ya Dola za Singapore 20,000 (mwaka) hawawezi kulipa kodi nchini Singapore. Mapato ni variable ambayo ni log-normal kusambazwa. Hii ina maana kwamba usambazaji wake ni mdogo chini (kwa sifuri) na ni skewed. (Katika maneno ya hisabati, logarithm ya usambazaji ni kawaida kusambazwa.) Hii ni histogram ya mapato ya Singapore, ambayo inachukua umbo la kawaida. CIA Factbook inaripoti Singapore's Gini coefficient (2013) kama 46.3. Hii inaorodhesha nchi kama moja ya nchi zisizo na usawa zaidi kati ya uchumi wa maendeleo. Chini ni chati ya Curve ya Lorentz na Gini coefficient iliyokadiriwa kulingana na data ya kufungua kodi ya 2013. Gini iliyohesabiwa (0.51) ni ya juu kuliko ile iliyoripotiwa katika CIA Factbook. Hii inaweza kuwa kwa sababu chati hapa chini inategemea mapato kabla ya kodi na usambazaji upya. Hata hivyo, kwa Gini hata juu kuliko Marekani, Singapore ya kupanda kwa kasi katika nguvu ya kifedha ya kimataifa inaonekana kuwa kuinua mashua zote, lakini si sawa. Ingawa mabadiliko hayo yaweza kuwa yenye ufanisi wa Pareto, ukuzi huo usio sawa waweza kusababisha msukosuko wa kijamii. Kiwango cha wastani cha mapato nchini Singapore ni $ 42k, wakati kiwango cha chini cha kuingia katika asilimia ya juu ya $ 500k. Hii inatoa uwiano (upande wa juu -1% kwa wastani) wa karibu 12x. Kwa kulinganisha, kipato cha wastani nchini Marekani ni $ 39k (kwa wale wanaofanya kazi wakati wote, kati ya umri wa miaka 24 na 65, ambayo ni kulinganisha asili kwa data ya Singapore tangu data ya Singapore imepunguzwa chini ya SGD 20k), wakati kuingia katika asilimia yake ya juu ni $ 394k. Uwiano wa Marekani <unk> ambayo tayari ni ya juu miongoni mwa mataifa yaliyoendelea <unk> ni 10x; yaani. chini ya ile ya Singapore. Kwa kweli, kulinganisha sahihi si Singapore dhidi ya Marekani, bali badala Singapore dhidi ya New York City. Kulingana na utafiti wa CUNY (Bergad, 2014), mapato ya kaya ya Gini kwa New York City katika 2010 yalikuwa 0.50 - ikidokeza kwamba kiwango cha sasa kinaweza kuwa juu zaidi kutokana na mwenendo wa kilimwengu ambao umeona kiwango cha Gini kuongezeka kutoka 0.44 katika 1990 hadi 0.49 katika 2000 na 0.50 katika 2010. Viwango vya usawa wa mapato ni juu katika vituo vya mijini dhidi ya maeneo ya vijijini (au vitongoji); lakini kama ngazi za kitaifa (mchanganyiko) ni juu dhidi ya ngazi ya mijini si wazi. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika utafiti wa kesi ya ""Bergad, Laird W. (2014): Mkusanyiko wa utajiri katika New York City: Mabadiliko katika muundo wa mapato ya kaya kwa jamii na makundi ya kikabila na kitaifa ya Latino 1990-2010,"" ripoti ya 56 ya Kituo cha Graduate cha CUNY, Januari 2014." - Rawls, John (1971): <unk>Nadharia ya haki.<unk> Cambridge, USA: Belknap Press. "Wineberg, Danile H. (2011): ""Usawa wa mapato ya jirani ya Marekani katika kipindi cha 2005-2009"" - Ripoti za Huduma ya Jumuiya ya Marekani, Ofisi ya sensa ya Marekani, Oktoba 2011."