Reason for shift of the U.S. income distribution in last two decades.
Explanation of Solution
In recent decades(from 1980s onward), the share of income earning by the top fifth has increased, and the share earnings by the bottom fifth has declined. The richest fifth’s share of income increased from 43.7 percent in 19900= to 51.1 percent in 2014. The foremost contributor to the larger share of income earning by the highest group has been the growth of two-earner households in that top group.
Note that in the top quantile, almost three out of the four households have two or more than two working. A major contributor to the smallest share earned by the lowest group has been the growth of single parent household in the bottom group.
Because of significant reduction in the marginal tax rates (in 1990 and 1996), high-income people had no incentive to engage in avoidance of tax, so their reported income increased. This boosted the share of reported earned income by the richest 5 percent of the households.
Want to see more full solutions like this?
- Don't used Ai solutionarrow_forwardThe preferences of a consumer are represented by the following utility function: U = min (×1, 2x2) If income is 100 and p1=p2=1 a) What is the optimal bundle? b) If p₁=4, what is the new optimal bundle? c) If p2=4, what is the new optimal bundle? d) Decompose the price effect into income and substitution effect and provide a graphical representation of your results.arrow_forwardChallenges of Nepal's foreign trade.arrow_forward
- General Accounting Question solution and give me Blank ? Carrow_forwardIt is possible to use transformational leadership strategies to reach unethical objectives. Traditional leadership theories and morals standards are not adequate to help employees solve complex organizational issues. For the statement above, argue in position for both in favor or opposed to the statements.arrow_forwardDiscuss the preferred deterrent method employed by the Zambian government to combat tax evasion, monetary fines. As noted in the reading the potential penalty for corporate tax evasion is a fine of 52.5% of the amount evaded plus interest assessed at 5% annually along with a possibility of jail time. In general, monetary fines as a deterrent are preferred to blacklisting of company directors, revoking business operation licenses, or calling for prison sentences. Do you agree with this preference? Should companies that are guilty of tax evasion face something more severe than a monetary fine? Something less severe? Should the fine and interest amount be set at a different rate? If so at why? Provide support and rationale for your responses.arrow_forward
- answerarrow_forwardDiscuss the preferred deterrent method employed by the Zambian government to combat tax evasion, monetary fines. As noted in the reading the potential penalty for corporate tax evasion is a fine of 52.5% of the amount evaded plus interest assessed at 5% annually along with a possibility of jail time. In general, monetary fines as a deterrent are preferred to blacklisting of company directors, revoking business operation licenses, or calling for prison sentences. Do you agree with this preference? Should companies that are guilty of tax evasion face something more severe than a monetary fine? Something less severe? Should the fine and interest amount be set at a different rate? If so at why? Provide support and rationale for your responses.arrow_forwardNot use ai pleasearrow_forward
- Principles of Economics 2eEconomicsISBN:9781947172364Author:Steven A. Greenlaw; David ShapiroPublisher:OpenStax
- Essentials of Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781337091992Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage LearningBrief Principles of Macroeconomics (MindTap Cours...EconomicsISBN:9781337091985Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage LearningEconomics Today and Tomorrow, Student EditionEconomicsISBN:9780078747663Author:McGraw-HillPublisher:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill School Pub Co