Are We Better off Now? A Look at How Tax Cut Made Rich Richer and Poor Poorer
By Sun
Yesterday, I read this interesting article on NY Times about how our personal income in 2004 (the year that the latest IRA data is available) compared to what we earned four years earlier in 2000. The title of the article, ’04 Income in U.S. Was Below 2000 Level, already decleared the conclusion of the comparison. However, the statistics compiled from IRS data offered more insights on how the tax cut favored the rich over the poor than the headline did.
I remember more than four years ago when the tax cut was a hot topic, politicians supporting the cut from every corner argued how on average a family could save $1000 on taxes if the initiative went through. While it is true on average, the distribution is by no means even. If for one rich household there is a poor family, the rich could save $1900 on taxes with the poor getting the short end of the stick of $100, and that still made the average tax savings per household at $1000. However, the cold fact is for one rich family, there are probably ten families earning minimum wages or less to offset, and that will make the difference even more significant than the face number suggested.
The following is what I summarized from the article.
Overall income & taxes in 2004 and 2000
- Total income reported on all tax returns is $7.044 trillion in 2004, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000.
- The average reported income is $53,974 in 2004, falling $1,641, or 3 percent, compared to 2000.
- Individual taxpayers paid $831.8 billion income taxes in 2004, down from $980.4 billion in 2000.
The pain of the poor
- The poorest 60 million Americans (48 million adults and 12 million dependent children) reported average incomes of less than $7 a day each. The official poverty line in 2004 was $27 a day for a single adult below retirement age and $42 a day for a household with one child.
- The bottom fifth taxpayers (about 26 million) made less than $11,166 each in 2004 and had an average income of $5,743, up $135 or 2.4 percent, from the year 2000.
The gain of the rich
- The top one-tenth of 1 percent, about 130,500 taxpayers, reported average income of just under $4.9 million each in 2004.
- About 300,000 Americans in the very top households made significantly more combined pretax income than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004.
How the tax cut made rich richer and poor poorer: From 1979 to 2004
- Overall, average incomes rose 27% from 1979 to 2004. But the gains were narrowly concentrated at the top and offset by losses for the bottom 60 percent of Americans, those making less than $38,761 in 2004.
- On average, the bottom 60 percent of Americans made less than 95 cents in 2004 for each dollar they reported in 1979.
- The fifth of Americans on the 60th to 80th rungs of the income ladder, averaged 2 cents more income in 2004 for each dollar they earned in 1979.
- The average income of the top 5 percent (those on the 95th to 99th rungs of the income ladder) rose by 53%, almost twice the average rate.
- The top 1 percent contributed to a third of the entire national increase in reported income and more than half of that went to the top tenth of 1 percent, whose one dollar in 1979 became $3.48 in 2004 after inflation adjustment.
- For those top tenth of 1 percent, each inflation-adjusted dollar they had after tax in 1979 they had $3.94 left after taxes in 2004.
- For the bottom 60 percent, while their pretax average incomes fell by a nickel on the dollar from 1979 to 2004, their after-tax incomes fell by a fraction of a penny less.
If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to the RSS feed.
This article was originally written or modified on . If you enjoyed reading this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed. Or you can also choose to have free daily updates delivered right to your inbox.






I’m curious how many of the “poor 60M” are full time workers. I’m guessing it’s not much as minimum wage is more than $7 a day. We are probably talking about paper boys and college students working one or two days a week or for very limited times.
If earning money isn’t their main focus, I’m guessing education is, then I wouldn’t expect them to bring much of an income.
The number is based on reported income from IRS data, therefore, I assume that’s what they earned, whether they were working full time or not is not clear. My guess is that many of the 60 million probably don’t work at all and live on welfare instead. Or only one person in a family works on minimum wage while others don’t work.
If the data is from the IRS, then its quite questionable considering how many people cheat on their taxes, especially the rich and upper middle class. So probably the top 30% or so are probably making more that what the data says.
The first thing to learn about statistical analysis and data capturing is that there is very little to trust unless you performed it all yourself (and then you know the truth, whether you manipulate it to fool others, or not).
That being said, I am not really surprised by what is being proposed. Given inflation, the poor will always stay near zero, but the nominal values held by those who have a positive savings rate will sky rocket. That does not necessarily mean that the disparity between the rich and poor is increasing the same, however, because these are nominal values and not real values (adjusted for inflation).
So, if the idea is to suggest that something should be done, what is it that should be done? Increasing the tax rates of the rich will not work; it is taken as a personal attack, and rightly so. That will lead to fiscal retaliation… off-shoring jobs, vacationing in cheaper countries instead of the nice places in our own nation, etc. Giving more tax credits to the poor will not work either; if it worked, we wouldn’t have a poor population any longer because there are plenty of tax credits already available. The key is education, and that is not to say that education is too expensive; anyone in the US has the financial means to get an education, these days. People need to have a personal motivation to get to where they want to be.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
John: The numbers were indeed from IRS data according to NYT. It’s true that any survey like this will have errors, but the general trend won’t be affected too much by the marginal errors. If people cheat on their taxes, then the real gap could be larger. Anyway, I believe the trend is a good indicator.