scholarly journals Top 1 Percent Income Shares: Comparing Estimates Using Tax Data

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 307-311
Author(s):  
Gerald Auten ◽  
David Splinter

Many studies have used tax data to measure the U.S. income distribution, but their results vary widely. For example, in 2014 the top 1 percent share of income is 21.5 percent in Piketty and Saez (2003 and updates), 16.7 percent in the Congressional Budget Office (2018), and 13.1 percent in our analysis. What accounts for such large differences? We provide a step-by-step analysis of how methodological differences affect the results and address issues raised in Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018, 2019). Important differences include accounting for declining marriage rates, including social insurance and employer benefits, accounting for tax reforms, and including income missing from tax returns.

2010 ◽  
Vol 118 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Huggett ◽  
Juan Carlos Parra

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Severs

This chapter demonstrates the deep importance of Wallace’s collegiate study of U.S. economic policy, especially in the Great Depression, to his early short stories. What if, I ask, we locate Wallace’s “origins” not in the post-World War II moment or 1960s ironic postmodernism, but instead in the crash of 1929, a less predictable moment of cultural crisis in which he took a quieter but subsuming interest? Key elements that emerge in this chapter are the U.S. Treasury (surreally portrayed as the issuer of a post-gold-standard currency – and post-metaphysical meaning – in the uncollected gem “Crash of 69”) and, in “Westward,” the governmental remedies of social insurance and economic reconstruction in the New Deal. While attending more briefly to other stories in Girl With Curious Hair, this chapter also provides sustained readings of Dust-Bowl metaphysics in “John Billy” and Johnson’s Great Society in “Lyndon.”


Author(s):  
David L. Weimer

Four demands have driven the development of policy analysis in the U.S. First, reformers have sought evidence to support their efforts. Beginning with the municipal bureaus of the Progressive Era, advocacy groups have sought supportive policy analysis, resulting in the proliferation of ideologically differentiated think tanks that produce policy research. Second, politicians have recognized the need for specialized expertise to address pressing problems. Operations research grew out of efforts to solve problems facing the U.S. in World War II and led to subsequent efforts to improve bureaucratic decision-making capacity. Third, the growing scope and complexity of government have led to a demand for information to support routine decision processes. Fiscal offices support state budgeting and the Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, and Congressional Research Service support the routine business of Congress. Fourth, politicians have sought to discipline their own (and especially others’) future actions by mandating that analyses be applied to certain classes of decisions. Legislative requirements that the Army Corps of Engineers consider the benefits of investment projects were introduced at the beginning of the last century, legislative requirements for the completion of environmental impact statements were imposed in 1970, and beginning in 1981, executive orders have required cost-benefit analyses be completed for major agency rulemakings. Higher education has responded to these demands by supplying persons trained specifically in policy analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T. Beito

Abstract:At the behest of the Roosevelt administration in 1935, the U.S. Senate established a special committee to investigate lobbying activities by opponents of the “death sentence” of the Public Utility Holding Company Bill. Chaired by Hugo L. Black (D-Ala.), the “Black Committee” expanded its mission into a more general probe of anti–New Deal organizations and individuals. The committee used highly intrusive methods, notably catch-all dragnet subpoenas, to secure evidence. It worked closely with the IRS for access to tax returns and with the FCC to obtain copies of millions of telegrams. When the telegram search became public information, there was a major backlash from the press, Congress, and the courts. Court rulings in 1936, resulting from suits by William Randolph Hearst and others, not only limited the committee’s powers but provided important checks for future investigators, including Senator Joseph McCarthy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document