Abstract

This paper proposes a methodological framework to better incorporate non-labour income into existing top adjusted indicators of economic inequality. Surveys are known to miss the rich, receiving disproportionate amounts of capital income. There has been a surge in top harmonisation methodologies, which complement survey-based estimates of inequality with information from the rich reported in tax administrative sources. These harmonisation methods are found to have a significant upward effect on inequality indicators. This analysis uses the Family Resources Survey (household survey) and the Survey of Personal Incomes (tax data) to explore the extent to which existing UK harmonisation methodology corrects for capital income. First, this analysis finds that the FRS has experienced a significant decline in capital income measurement over the past 20 years (1997–2016), taking reported levels of capital income in the SPI as benchmark. Second, the top harmonisation methodology is found to only partially correct for this decline. Third, in response, the paper proposes a multi-step capital income correction to allocate the remaining capital income missing from top adjusted inequality indicators. The adjustment accounts for both under-coverage and under-estimation error of capital income across the income distribution. Poor measurement of capital incomes in household surveys has long been acknowledged but attempts to correct for this have remained few. This paper highlights the need for decomposable top adjusted indicators of inequality to give a better picture of the role of capital incomes in driving inequality. Surveys are traditionally used to produce inequality indicators used by governments, statistical offices and policy makers. The policy implication is that income missing from indicators structurally falls out of inequality debates, which has arguably been the case for capital incomes.

Highlights

  • It is a known problem that household surveys do not give an accurate picture of the rich

  • Because capital incomes are disproportionally held at the top of the distribution, capital income adjustments have an upward effect on indicators of economic inequality

  • Capital income measurement in the UK has deteriorated over the past 20 years, serving as good case study to carry out an exploration on how to go about this type of corrections

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is a known problem that household surveys do not give an accurate picture of the rich. In the UK the Family Resource Survey (FRS) and the Survey of Personal Income (SPI), household survey and tax administrative source respectively, have been frequently used in the UK to implement such top income methodologies (Atkinson and Jenkins 2019; Burkhauser et al 2017a, b; Jenkins 2017). These studies have so far not focused on capital income measurement in particular. The objective of this paper is to explore the underestimation of capital incomes in top methodologies further

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call