The IRS numbers were for individual filers. 23% of individuals reported income of >100K, 33% of individuals reported income >75K, this doesn’t even include the cash value of employer sponsored health insurance and 401(k) matches and small business owners doing “creative” accounting.
American Economics Thread
- Thread starter Bernard
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
No they are not. Out of 160M filers in 2021, 55M were "married, filing jointly," and 21M were "head of household." For 401k match you are looking at most 2-3% of BASE SALARY.
No, but the IRS extracted incomes by SSN (an individual level record). The IRS extracted individual incomes for “married, filing jointly” and “head of household”.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Now where does it say that? Since in every source I looked at, I saw the number AndrewS shared previously.
It also fits with this analysis of the Current Population Survey as well - 100K is 80th percentile and 75K is 70th percentile - (so in this case 1 in 5 individuals make over 100K in labor income. Excluding dividends, interest, and passive real estate income which would be taxable but the census doesn’t ask)
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
That chart shows 82 percentile for 100k income for 2022, very close to what AndrewS shared (which you refuted). Your counter claim was 23%/77 percentile for 2021.
100K income is 80th percentile (1 in 5, the top 20%) while at the same time, the current population survey doesn’t income from dividends, interest, and passive real estate interests. This is totally inconsistent with 90K being 84th percentile (1 in 6) as AndrewS claimed. A less exclusive cohort being smaller is illogical. And once again, both IRS and Census data under measure income because they both don’t count the value of untaxed employee benefits as income and they both don’t adjust for “creative” small business owners dodging taxes
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Look at the graph in the link you posted and see what is 80, 81, 82 percentile again. AndrewS claimed top 17%, which is 83 percentile. I don't care about untaxed employee benefits or small businesses underreporting income because they just don't make a large enough of impact on the big picture. It is becoming very tiring arguing with someone that 1) cannot read charts 2) cannot do basic math 3) has not be to the outside world.
Attachments
-
incomedistribution.png
100K being 80th percentile is directly contradictory to 90K being 84th percentile because the 84th percentile is a more exclusive cohort. 1 in 5 U.S. workers making more than 100K and 1 in 3.5 U.S. workers making more than 75K is mass affluence.
Especially since the reason for many low-income earners being low-income earners is either because of mass affluence (they are college students or early retirees) or for reasons totally unrelated to the economy (illness, disability, and family issues).
Employer benefits also matter a lot - the employer contribution to a family health insurance plan is worth ~15K ( ). Thats significant.
Last edited:
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Ok I reread AndewS's post and saw he posted 90k, not 100k. Don't know why you are still using the wrong percentile, 100k is 82 percentile. And I disagree with your subjective definition of affluence when 100k gross income is insufficient for even home ownership in most US metros where jobs paying 100k actually exist.