2010 SS Income Stats

Animorph

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
4,366
Here's the raw data from SS:
Wage Statistics for 2010

So I entered it into a spreadsheet and calculated that if all those people with $1M+ incomes donated all their earnings equally to all the wage earners (including themselves), that would be an extra $1493.36 to all wage earners. Similarly, if the guys making $5M and above gave it all up that would be $481.68 for all of us. Not a whole lot to be gained by taxing only the CEO rich, or ensuring they have lower salaries.

If everyone shared everything we would all be making $39,959.30.
 
Sad part is...

that 50% of US individuals make less that about 25K. I don't know how the number of retirees on fixed incomes have an impact, but I find that amazing.
 
that 50% of US individuals make less that about 25K. I don't know how the number of retirees on fixed incomes have an impact, but I find that amazing.

It states wage statistics taken from W-2's. So I don't think it includes retirees. I would imagine the amount of part time workers skews the average income lower.
 
It states wage statistics taken from W-2's. So I don't think it includes retirees. I would imagine the amount of part time workers skews the average income lower.
Right. And it doesn't include money earned by 1099 "employees", sole proprietors, those working off the books entirely, etc. And, of course, this is only earned income, not income from investments.
 
samclem said:
Right. And it doesn't include money earned by 1099 "employees", sole proprietors, those working off the books entirely, etc. And, of course, this is only earned income, not income from investments.

The vast majority of people make their income from earned income, not investments, so I don't think the numbers would change much even were that included. The mean might change, due to the people making their money being extreme outliers on the upper end, but likely the median wouldn't change one bit.
 
REattempt said:
that 50% of US individuals make less that about 25K. I don't know how the number of retirees on fixed incomes have an impact, but I find that amazing.

That is shocking. Even with part time workers "skewing" it, that's a low number.

I wonder what the average expenses are (so counting all money spent from earned income, all debt racked up, all money from food stamps, welfare, investments, etc.).
 
The vast majority of people make their income from earned income, not investments, so I don't think the numbers would change much even were that included. The mean might change, due to the people making their money being extreme outliers on the upper end, but likely the median wouldn't change one bit.
I don't have the numbers broken out as percentages of the median AGI, but non-wage, non-investment income (SS, pensions, annuities, rent income, partnerships and S-corps, business and professional) together added up to about 1/3 of the income from wages for 2004. And that's information on gross income from tax returns, so it's going to understate income from these sources at the lower income levels (since many folks don't file tax returns).

(I couldn't separate the annuity income since it was jumbled in with pensions, but I'd guess it's a fairly small percentage of the total)
 
And another thing to add: A worker who worked all year at the federal minimum wage would also receive over $7,800 in tax credits (EITC, etc). After payroll taxes, the subsidy still amounts to over $6,700 per year. None of that was included in the W-2 tally from the OP. And we haven't started counting other forms of assistance that augment the incomes of low wage earners.

(Credit to Robert Ray Cummings, Sr, CPA)
 
If the stats don't include sch. C income it really doesn't mean much as many people get 1099 MISC or operate on a cash basis and have to do the sch. C.

A better picture would be to look at AGIs.
 
And another thing to add: A worker who worked all year at the federal minimum wage would also receive over $7,800 in tax credits (EITC, etc). After payroll taxes, the subsidy still amounts to over $6,700 per year. None of that was included in the W-2 tally from the OP. And we haven't started counting other forms of assistance that augment the incomes of low wage earners.
Usually people who argue from a redistributionist standpoint are directly or indirectly gaining from government directed redistribution. The plain facts that you cite in this quoted post are conveniently ignored, because they blunt the political message- "We need, you have, government must take yours and give to me".
Ha
 
Animorph said:
Here's the raw data from SS:
Wage Statistics for 2010

So I entered it into a spreadsheet and calculated that if all those people with $1M+ incomes donated all their earnings equally to all the wage earners (including themselves), that would be an extra $1493.36 to all wage earners. Similarly, if the guys making $5M and above gave it all up that would be $481.68 for all of us. Not a whole lot to be gained by taxing only the CEO rich, or ensuring they have lower salaries.

If everyone shared everything we would all be making $39,959.30.

Wouldn't have much impact here, but in Libya it is different. I read yesterday that they believe Gaddafi squirreled away 200 billion in assets world wide. Enough for over $33,000 per person in the country of about 6 million people. Amazing what a dictator can accumulate in only 40 years!
 
Wouldn't have much impact here, but in Libya it is different. I read yesterday that they believe Gaddafi squirreled away 200 billion in assets world wide. Enough for over $33,000 per person in the country of about 6 million people. Amazing what a dictator can accumulate in only 40 years!

I wonder what his planned SWR was going to be?
 
Census 2010 information is that the 2010 median income for households (not individuals) is $50,046. Don't know if that is a helpful statistic or not in this context.

American FactFinder - Results
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom