This article is part of a series on |
Income in the United States of America |
---|
United Statesportal |
The United States has the greatest income disparity among developed nations. [1] However, the inequality indicators vary considerably from state to state. States that have a high concentration of skilled jobs, implement regressive tax policies, or have weaker worker protections in general tend to have greater income inequalities. As of 2019, the highest inequality may be observed in Puerto Rico, around the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas, across much of the Southern United States, in California, and in Massachusetts.
In the framework of American federalism, states generally have wide latitude to enact policies within their borders, including state taxation and labor laws. Among the factors that may increase inequality in a state are regressive state tax policies [2] (taxation has played a growing role in diminishing inequality since the 1980s), [3] tax incentives for large companies, [4] corruption, [5] reduced labor-union membership, [6] right-to-work laws, [7] lower minimum wages, [8] poorer healthcare, [9] and increased welfare spending on the poor. [7] Additionally, since the 1970s, income disparities have disproportionately increased in metropolitan areas, because of the concentration of high-skilled jobs there. [10] [11] For example, even though New York is the state with the highest inequality, Upstate New York has much less income inequality than Downstate New York, because the economy of New York City (Gini index 0.5469) [12] relies greatly on high-salary earners. [11] States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities; but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states, the former having more equality up to a certain level of development, beyond which the inequality rises non-linearly. [13] The influx of foreign direct investment lessens the disparity at the federal level, but it does not necessarily do so for individual states. [14]
The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality of incomes (or sometimes wealth) across individuals. A score of "0" on the Gini coefficient represents complete equality, i.e. every person has the same income. A score of 1 would represent the case in which one person would have all the income and others would have none. Therefore, a lower Gini score is roughly associated with a more equal distribution of income and vice versa. In 2018 U.S. income inequality as measured by the Gini index was close to the highest recorded values ever. [15] [16]
The information was tabulated in 2019 from data from the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the US Census Bureau. The South, the tri-state area around New York City and California tend to have more income inequality, while the Upper Midwest, the Northwest and Northern New England are relatively more equal. According to the American Community Survey's (ACS) 2019 estimate, Utah is the most equal state when it comes to income, while New York is the most unequal by this measure, with the Gini indices, before taxes and transfer, [17] of 0.4268 and 0.5149, respectively. [18]
The uncertainties are not shown in the table. The ACS gives a much higher estimate of the Gini coefficient for the United States than other sources. [15] [16] [19]
# | Entity [lower-alpha 1] | Gini coefficient (2019) [18] | Gini coefficient (2015-2019) [20] |
---|---|---|---|
United States | 0.4811 | 0.4823 | |
1 | Puerto Rico | 0.5509 | 0.5486 |
2 | New York | 0.5149 | 0.5142 |
3 | District of Columbia | 0.5115 | 0.5269 |
4 | Connecticut | 0.5024 | 0.4963 |
5 | Louisiana | 0.4978 | 0.4953 |
6 | Mississippi | 0.4896 | 0.4807 |
7 | California | 0.4866 | 0.4886 |
8 | Florida | 0.4808 | 0.4862 |
9 | Massachusetts | 0.4803 | 0.4826 |
10 | Illinois | 0.4800 | 0.4821 |
11 | Georgia | 0.4795 | 0.4819 |
12 | New Jersey | 0.4782 | 0.4814 |
13 | New Mexico | 0.4768 | 0.4784 |
14 | Kentucky | 0.4764 | 0.4786 |
15 | Texas | 0.4753 | 0.4791 |
16 | Arkansas | 0.4750 | 0.4765 |
17 | Tennessee | 0.4749 | 0.4788 |
18 | South Carolina | 0.4747 | 0.4740 |
19 | Pennsylvania | 0.4745 | 0.4720 |
20 | North Carolina | 0.4743 | 0.4760 |
21 | Alabama | 0.4741 | 0.4791 |
22 | Oklahoma | 0.4739 | 0.4689 |
23 | Nevada | 0.4710 | 0.4620 |
24 | Virginia | 0.4690 | 0.4689 |
25 | Ohio | 0.4651 | 0.4654 |
26 | West Virginia | 0.4644 | 0.4667 |
27 | Michigan | 0.4634 | 0.4669 |
28 | Missouri | 0.4633 | 0.4641 |
29 | Rhode Island | 0.4628 | 0.4702 |
30 | Montana | 0.4597 | 0.4594 |
31 | Arizona | 0.4591 | 0.4664 |
32 | Indiana | 0.4584 | 0.4526 |
33 | Washington | 0.4577 | 0.4573 |
34 | Maryland | 0.4558 | 0.4535 |
35 | North Dakota | 0.4558 | 0.4537 |
36 | Colorado | 0.4548 | 0.4566 |
37 | Delaware | 0.4509 | 0.4545 |
38 | Kansas | 0.4500 | 0.4563 |
39 | Oregon | 0.4500 | 0.4586 |
40 | Maine | 0.4490 | 0.4511 |
41 | Vermont | 0.4471 | 0.4484 |
42 | Minnesota | 0.4434 | 0.4494 |
43 | Iowa | 0.4422 | 0.4416 |
44 | New Hampshire | 0.4406 | 0.4384 |
45 | Nebraska | 0.4400 | 0.4442 |
46 | Hawaii | 0.4397 | 0.4414 |
47 | Wisconsin | 0.4391 | 0.4448 |
48 | Alaska | 0.4376 | 0.4284 |
49 | South Dakota | 0.4360 | 0.4440 |
50 | Wyoming | 0.4345 | 0.4361 |
51 | Idaho | 0.4337 | 0.4462 |
52 | Utah | 0.4268 | 0.4265 |
States and territories are sorted by the share of the lowest quintile in aggregate household income, i.e. the share of household income of 20% of the poorest households in the total household income. Due to different methodologies by which the United States Census Bureau and the EPI have calculated their results, the data should not be compared.
Data for quintiles and top 5% come from the American Community Survey estimates in 2019. [21]
# | Entity [lower-alpha 1] | First (lowest) quintile | Second quintile | Third quintile | Fourth quintile | Fifth (highest) quintile | Of which top 5% | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean income | Share | Mean income | Share | Mean income | Share | Mean income | Share | Mean income | Share | Mean income | Share | ||
United States | $14,521 | 3.15% | $39,139 | 8.48% | $66,006 | 14.30% | $103,917 | 22.51% | $238,035 | 51.56% | $430,662 | 23.32% | |
1 | Utah | $20,124 | 4.18% | $49,437 | 10.25% | $75,847 | 15.73% | $109,645 | 22.74% | $227,022 | 47.09% | $403,396 | 20.92% |
2 | Idaho | $16,199 | 4.11% | $38,686 | 9.80% | $61,073 | 15.47% | $90,879 | 23.01% | $188,036 | 47.62% | $325,365 | 20.60% |
3 | South Dakota | $15,519 | 4.00% | $37,357 | 9.62% | $59,967 | 15.45% | $90,692 | 23.36% | $184,714 | 47.58% | $317,665 | 20.45% |
4 | Nebraska | $15,965 | 3.87% | $39,782 | 9.64% | $63,576 | 15.40% | $95,376 | 23.11% | $197,997 | 47.98% | $343,133 | 20.79% |
5 | Wisconsin | $16,034 | 3.87% | $39,807 | 9.60% | $64,285 | 15.51% | $96,390 | 23.25% | $197,977 | 47.76% | $345,564 | 20.84% |
6 | Iowa | $15,270 | 3.81% | $38,455 | 9.58% | $61,810 | 15.40% | $92,822 | 23.13% | $192,979 | 48.08% | $339,126 | 21.12% |
7 | New Hampshire | $19,002 | 3.77% | $48,213 | 9.56% | $77,837 | 15.43% | $117,466 | 23.29% | $241,891 | 47.96% | $412,033 | 20.42% |
8 | Maine | $14,674 | 3.75% | $36,011 | 9.20% | $59,241 | 15.13% | $90,983 | 23.24% | $190,606 | 48.68% | $327,475 | 20.91% |
9 | Alaska | $18,408 | 3.74% | $47,516 | 9.65% | $75,786 | 15.39% | $116,589 | 23.67% | $234,221 | 47.55% | $387,399 | 19.66% |
10 | Minnesota | $18,156 | 3.74% | $46,381 | 9.56% | $74,632 | 15.39% | $111,856 | 23.06% | $233,949 | 48.24% | $406,818 | 20.97% |
11 | Wyoming | $15,528 | 3.74% | $40,761 | 9.80% | $66,001 | 15.87% | $97,455 | 23.44% | $196,029 | 47.15% | $339,640 | 20.42% |
12 | Kansas | $15,090 | 3.67% | $38,458 | 9.35% | $62,366 | 15.16% | $94,502 | 22.97% | $200,932 | 48.85% | $350,796 | 21.32% |
13 | Vermont | $15,054 | 3.63% | $38,675 | 9.32% | $63,610 | 15.32% | $96,920 | 23.35% | $200,816 | 48.38% | $343,288 | 20.68% |
14 | Montana | $13,899 | 3.60% | $35,107 | 9.08% | $57,539 | 14.88% | $88,237 | 22.82% | $191,819 | 49.62% | $350,655 | 22.67% |
15 | Indiana | $13,987 | 3.59% | $35,772 | 9.16% | $58,036 | 14.87% | $89,247 | 22.86% | $193,279 | 49.52% | $348,590 | 22.33% |
16 | Colorado | $18,417 | 3.56% | $48,151 | 9.30% | $77,739 | 15.02% | $118,168 | 22.83% | $255,114 | 49.29% | $450,609 | 21.76% |
17 | Oregon | $15,597 | 3.53% | $40,845 | 9.24% | $67,311 | 15.22% | $103,468 | 23.39% | $215,026 | 48.62% | $365,465 | 20.66% |
18 | North Dakota | $15,064 | 3.52% | $39,112 | 9.14% | $64,634 | 15.11% | $98,958 | 23.13% | $209,985 | 49.09% | $373,709 | 21.84% |
19 | Washington | $18,576 | 3.51% | $48,370 | 9.15% | $78,904 | 14.92% | $120,904 | 22.86% | $262,118 | 49.56% | $457,171 | 21.61% |
20 | Arizona | $14,754 | 3.50% | $38,775 | 9.18% | $62,516 | 14.81% | $96,326 | 22.82% | $209,819 | 49.70% | $367,580 | 21.77% |
21 | Hawaii | $18,445 | 3.47% | $51,487 | 9.69% | $83,525 | 15.72% | $125,285 | 23.58% | $252,492 | 47.53% | $423,529 | 19.93% |
22 | Michigan | $13,976 | 3.47% | $36,017 | 8.93% | $59,559 | 14.76% | $92,178 | 22.85% | $201,676 | 49.99% | $356,455 | 22.09% |
23 | Delaware | $15,945 | 3.45% | $43,297 | 9.37% | $70,395 | 15.23% | $107,695 | 23.30% | $224,894 | 48.65% | $387,937 | 20.98% |
24 | Missouri | $13,294 | 3.42% | $34,818 | 8.94% | $57,697 | 14.82% | $89,430 | 22.96% | $194,185 | 49.86% | $345,545 | 22.18% |
25 | Ohio | $13,601 | 3.42% | $35,246 | 8.87% | $58,719 | 14.77% | $90,882 | 22.86% | $199,074 | 50.08% | $354,673 | 22.30% |
26 | Arkansas | $11,555 | 3.39% | $29,074 | 8.52% | $49,079 | 14.39% | $77,445 | 22.70% | $173,941 | 50.99% | $315,234 | 23.10% |
27 | Tennessee | $13,144 | 3.37% | $33,913 | 8.69% | $56,209 | 14.41% | $87,453 | 22.41% | $199,456 | 51.12% | $366,578 | 23.49% |
28 | Florida | $14,026 | 3.35% | $36,228 | 8.64% | $59,312 | 14.14% | $92,392 | 22.03% | $217,456 | 51.85% | $404,254 | 24.10% |
29 | North Carolina | $13,301 | 3.33% | $34,642 | 8.66% | $57,647 | 14.40% | $90,467 | 22.61% | $204,129 | 51.01% | $367,316 | 22.95% |
30 | Nevada | $14,425 | 3.32% | $39,271 | 9.03% | $63,769 | 14.67% | $97,058 | 22.33% | $220,208 | 50.65% | $415,695 | 23.91% |
31 | Maryland | $18,902 | 3.31% | $52,314 | 9.17% | $86,873 | 15.23% | $132,242 | 23.18% | $280,115 | 49.10% | $478,927 | 20.99% |
32 | Oklahoma | $12,507 | 3.31% | $32,890 | 8.71% | $54,708 | 14.49% | $85,519 | 22.64% | $192,061 | 50.85% | $352,070 | 23.30% |
33 | Pennsylvania | $14,295 | 3.26% | $37,855 | 8.62% | $63,852 | 14.55% | $99,443 | 22.65% | $223,499 | 50.92% | $403,160 | 22.96% |
34 | Virginia | $17,138 | 3.26% | $45,821 | 8.72% | $76,771 | 14.61% | $120,555 | 22.94% | $265,171 | 50.46% | $455,891 | 21.69% |
35 | Texas | $14,556 | 3.25% | $38,685 | 8.63% | $64,520 | 14.39% | $101,720 | 22.68% | $228,924 | 51.05% | $408,263 | 22.76% |
36 | West Virginia | $10,649 | 3.24% | $28,675 | 8.71% | $48,905 | 14.85% | $77,739 | 23.61% | $163,240 | 49.58% | $280,030 | 21.26% |
37 | Rhode Island | $14,829 | 3.20% | $40,953 | 8.85% | $70,808 | 15.30% | $107,226 | 23.17% | $228,951 | 49.47% | $406,567 | 21.96% |
38 | Georgia | $13,668 | 3.16% | $36,961 | 8.55% | $62,262 | 14.40% | $97,048 | 22.45% | $222,399 | 51.44% | $402,002 | 23.25% |
39 | South Carolina | $12,334 | 3.16% | $34,044 | 8.71% | $56,598 | 14.48% | $89,011 | 22.77% | $198,951 | 50.89% | $355,363 | 22.72% |
40 | Kentucky | $11,367 | 3.15% | $30,762 | 8.52% | $52,800 | 14.62% | $82,595 | 22.87% | $183,549 | 50.83% | $333,777 | 23.11% |
41 | Illinois | $14,667 | 3.07% | $40,418 | 8.44% | $69,263 | 14.47% | $109,103 | 22.79% | $245,173 | 51.22% | $442,476 | 23.11% |
42 | New Mexico | $10,976 | 3.07% | $29,804 | 8.33% | $52,194 | 14.58% | $83,044 | 23.20% | $181,940 | 50.83% | $314,941 | 21.99% |
43 | Alabama | $10,916 | 3.06% | $30,244 | 8.46% | $52,062 | 14.57% | $83,697 | 23.42% | $180,469 | 50.50% | $311,208 | 21.77% |
44 | New Jersey | $18,249 | 3.06% | $50,796 | 8.52% | $86,333 | 14.47% | $135,936 | 22.79% | $305,190 | 51.16% | $540,499 | 22.65% |
45 | California | $16,981 | 2.99% | $47,103 | 8.30% | $80,693 | 14.21% | $127,666 | 22.48% | $295,369 | 52.02% | $531,014 | 23.38% |
46 | Mississippi | $9,715 | 2.99% | $26,122 | 8.03% | $45,905 | 14.11% | $74,345 | 22.85% | $169,318 | 52.03% | $304,820 | 23.42% |
47 | Connecticut | $16,037 | 2.80% | $45,494 | 7.94% | $78,998 | 13.78% | $126,468 | 22.07% | $306,153 | 53.42% | $579,711 | 25.29% |
48 | Massachusetts | $16,450 | 2.80% | $49,102 | 8.36% | $86,122 | 14.66% | $136,548 | 23.25% | $299,188 | 50.93% | $526,243 | 22.40% |
49 | Louisiana | $9,426 | 2.60% | $27,826 | 7.66% | $51,134 | 14.07% | $84,866 | 23.36% | $190,038 | 52.31% | $336,976 | 23.19% |
50 | New York | $13,372 | 2.49% | $40,540 | 7.55% | $72,668 | 13.54% | $118,290 | 22.04% | $291,906 | 54.38% | $553,773 | 25.79% |
51 | District of Columbia | $13,762 | 2.03% | $50,961 | 7.53% | $93,636 | 13.83% | $156,790 | 23.16% | $361,695 | 53.44% | $640,700 | 23.66% |
52 | Puerto Rico | $2,546 | 1.54% | $11,355 | 6.87% | $20,645 | 12.49% | $35,887 | 21.71% | $94,840 | 57.38% | $179,744 | 27.19% |
The data presented in the table comes from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a think tank, relying on data from 2015 tax returns. [22] [23] The table is sorted according to mean income of families (leftmost column).
# | Entity [lower-alpha 2] | Mean income | Bottom 90% | 90th-95th percentile | 95th-99th percentile | 99th-99.5th percentile | 99.5th-99.9th percentile | 99.9th-99.99th percentile | Top 0.01% | Ratios of average income | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Mean | Share | Top 10%/Bottom 90% | Top 1%/Bottom 99% | |||
United States | $62,776 | $35,712 | 51.2% | $148,367 | 11.82% | $251,184 | 16.01% | $525,941 | 4.19% | $1,014,839 | 6.47% | $3,610,007 | 5.18% | $32,231,855 | 5.15% | 8.58 | 26.28 | |
1 | Connecticut | $92,293 | $47,678 | 46.49% | $191,398 | 10.37% | $364,628 | 15.8% | $883,709 | 4.79% | $1,875,492 | 8.13% | $6,986,612 | 6.81% | $70,019,008 | 7.61% | 10.36 | 37.24 |
2 | Alaska | $80,258 | $59,020 | 66.18% | $157,792 | 9.83% | $253,740 | 12.65% | $478,028 | 2.98% | $847,542 | 4.22% | $2,352,936 | 2.64% | $12,202,360 | 1.5% | 4.6 | 12.66 |
3 | New Jersey | $80,236 | $45,959 | 51.55% | $192,645 | 12% | $335,564 | 16.73% | $706,880 | 4.41% | $1,356,809 | 6.76% | $4,310,330 | 4.83% | $29,977,585 | 3.71% | 8.46 | 24.31 |
4 | Massachusetts | $80,125 | $43,129 | 48.44% | $183,931 | 11.48% | $326,594 | 16.3% | $698,164 | 4.36% | $1,436,407 | 7.17% | $5,264,275 | 5.91% | $50,073,531 | 6.33% | 9.58 | 30.88 |
5 | Wyoming | $79,320 | $50,057 | 56.8% | $117,805 | 7.43% | $234,288 | 11.81% | $518,794 | 3.27% | $1,141,617 | 5.76% | $4,906,764 | 5.57% | $74,430,630 | 9.37% | 6.85 | 31.2 |
6 | District of Columbia | $79,080 | $42,007 | 47.81% | $185,316 | 11.72% | $335,460 | 16.97% | $731,702 | 4.63% | $1,493,112 | 7.55% | $5,160,851 | 5.87% | $43,313,489 | 5.45% | 9.83 | 30.42 |
7 | North Dakota | $78,441 | $56,154 | 64.43% | $140,368 | 8.95% | $251,890 | 12.84% | $537,519 | 3.43% | $979,301 | 4.99% | $2,849,992 | 3.27% | $16,638,624 | 2.09% | 4.97 | 15.82 |
8 | Maryland | $74,376 | $47,989 | 58.07% | $173,556 | 11.67% | $278,771 | 14.99% | $539,027 | 3.62% | $990,375 | 5.33% | $3,044,613 | 3.68% | $19,960,954 | 2.64% | 6.5 | 17.84 |
9 | New Hampshire | $73,509 | $48,522 | 59.41% | $159,167 | 10.83% | $263,486 | 14.34% | $497,666 | 3.39% | $903,356 | 4.92% | $3,048,414 | 3.73% | $24,495,804 | 3.4% | 6.15 | 18.06 |
10 | Virginia | $73,316 | $47,318 | 58.09% | $171,941 | 11.73% | $275,813 | 15.05% | $520,672 | 3.55% | $935,689 | 5.1% | $2,980,645 | 3.66% | $20,071,419 | 2.82% | 6.49 | 17.66 |
11 | Colorado | $73,163 | $46,003 | 56.59% | $161,401 | 11.03% | $276,993 | 15.14% | $560,707 | 3.83% | $1,052,236 | 5.75% | $3,431,201 | 4.22% | $25,509,683 | 3.43% | 6.9 | 20.62 |
12 | California | $71,531 | $38,410 | 48.33% | $164,067 | 11.47% | $295,694 | 16.54% | $628,703 | 4.39% | $1,264,510 | 7.07% | $4,655,579 | 5.86% | $45,539,688 | 6.35% | 9.62 | 30.7 |
13 | New York | $71,146 | $33,471 | 42.34% | $148,181 | 10.41% | $289,707 | 16.29% | $699,269 | 4.91% | $1,537,953 | 8.65% | $6,031,176 | 7.63% | $69,948,807 | 9.77% | 12.26 | 44.39 |
14 | Washington | $70,362 | $41,486 | 53.07% | $161,375 | 11.47% | $278,080 | 15.81% | $560,971 | 3.99% | $1,035,344 | 5.89% | $3,750,399 | 4.8% | $35,510,381 | 4.99% | 7.96 | 24.22 |
15 | Texas | $68,497 | $41,427 | 54.43% | $149,463 | 10.91% | $257,496 | 15.04% | $544,586 | 3.98% | $1,064,130 | 6.21% | $3,698,309 | 4.86% | $31,131,378 | 4.57% | 7.53 | 24.16 |
16 | Minnesota | $68,016 | $42,153 | 55.78% | $152,178 | 11.19% | $265,356 | 15.61% | $548,160 | 4.03% | $982,461 | 5.78% | $3,190,827 | 4.22% | $23,313,209 | 3.4% | 7.14 | 20.9 |
17 | South Dakota | $67,344 | $44,705 | 59.74% | $134,464 | 9.98% | $227,150 | 13.49% | $499,745 | 3.71% | $945,626 | 5.62% | $3,066,174 | 4.1% | $22,259,893 | 3.36% | 6.06 | 19.96 |
18 | Nebraska | $66,892 | $46,300 | 62.29% | $139,083 | 10.4% | $220,227 | 13.17% | $442,182 | 3.31% | $817,349 | 4.89% | $2,531,241 | 3.41% | $17,700,629 | 2.54% | 5.45 | 16.3 |
19 | Kansas | $66,409 | $44,263 | 59.99% | $141,368 | 10.64% | $228,922 | 13.79% | $460,073 | 3.46% | $849,610 | 5.12% | $2,773,428 | 3.76% | $21,151,645 | 3.24% | 6 | 18.27 |
20 | Illinois | $65,814 | $37,404 | 51.15% | $147,512 | 11.21% | $266,361 | 16.19% | $564,312 | 4.29% | $1,097,449 | 6.67% | $3,878,629 | 5.3% | $34,418,224 | 5.19% | 8.6 | 27.04 |
21 | Hawaii | $65,377 | $46,135 | 63.51% | $144,391 | 11.04% | $216,644 | 13.26% | $377,292 | 2.89% | $678,142 | 4.15% | $2,089,348 | 2.88% | $14,490,658 | 2.28% | 5.17 | 13.74 |
22 | Utah | $63,648 | $41,144 | 58.18% | $140,009 | 11% | $226,189 | 14.21% | $460,298 | 3.62% | $870,211 | 5.47% | $2,875,818 | 4.07% | $22,200,819 | 3.46% | 6.47 | 19.72 |
23 | Oklahoma | $61,333 | $41,632 | 61.09% | $128,051 | 10.44% | $203,408 | 13.27% | $409,091 | 3.34% | $763,424 | 4.98% | $2,492,468 | 3.66% | $19,982,262 | 3.23% | 5.73 | 17.75 |
24 | Pennsylvania | $61,331 | $37,220 | 54.62% | $144,964 | 11.82% | $239,384 | 15.61% | $477,868 | 3.9% | $880,578 | 5.74% | $2,966,398 | 4.35% | $24,428,147 | 3.96% | 7.48 | 21.66 |
26 | Iowa | $61,100 | $42,288 | 62.29% | $136,305 | 11.15% | $208,545 | 13.65% | $398,722 | 3.26% | $708,743 | 4.64% | $2,031,821 | 2.99% | $12,226,685 | 2.01% | 5.45 | 14.67 |
27 | Wisconsin | $60,087 | $38,969 | 58.37% | $136,859 | 11.39% | $213,219 | 14.19% | $428,881 | 3.57% | $800,748 | 5.33% | $2,591,790 | 3.88% | $19,963,684 | 3.27% | 6.42 | 18.93 |
28 | Rhode Island | $59,736 | $37,979 | 57.22% | $145,558 | 12.18% | $224,871 | 15.06% | $423,403 | 3.54% | $791,099 | 5.3% | $2,495,936 | 3.76% | $17,754,831 | 2.94% | 6.73 | 18.21 |
29 | Delaware | $59,234 | $38,022 | 57.77% | $147,042 | 12.41% | $224,169 | 15.14% | $413,675 | 3.49% | $754,106 | 5.09% | $2,319,168 | 3.52% | $15,522,579 | 2.57% | 6.58 | 17.03 |
30 | Vermont | $57,946 | $38,175 | 59.29% | $136,517 | 11.78% | $214,919 | 14.84% | $390,548 | 3.37% | $709,443 | 4.9% | $2,157,359 | 3.35% | $14,433,588 | 2.47% | 6.18 | 16.24 |
31 | Idaho | $55,542 | $36,791 | 59.62% | $127,084 | 11.44% | $194,590 | 14.01% | $383,426 | 3.45% | $707,429 | 5.09% | $2,217,680 | 3.59% | $15,549,288 | 2.79% | 6.1 | 17.38 |
32 | Oregon | $54,718 | $32,580 | 53.59% | $142,250 | 13% | $229,862 | 16.8% | $435,299 | 3.98% | $783,967 | 5.73% | $2,402,341 | 3.95% | $16,614,076 | 2.95% | 7.8 | 19.72 |
33 | Nevada | $54,603 | $29,348 | 48.37% | $130,936 | 11.99% | $202,394 | 14.83% | $434,177 | 3.98% | $921,083 | 6.75% | $3,659,705 | 6.03% | $43,398,535 | 8.06% | 9.61 | 32.67 |
34 | Ohio | $54,286 | $34,445 | 57.11% | $129,717 | 11.95% | $205,240 | 15.12% | $406,909 | 3.75% | $745,525 | 5.49% | $2,278,530 | 3.78% | $15,522,306 | 2.8% | 6.76 | 18.61 |
35 | Florida | $54,134 | $25,330 | 42.11% | $132,848 | 12.27% | $231,578 | 17.11% | $526,040 | 4.86% | $1,115,498 | 8.24% | $4,246,994 | 7.06% | $45,516,509 | 8.34% | 12.37 | 39.47 |
36 | Indiana | $54,079 | $35,292 | 58.73% | $129,989 | 12.02% | $194,351 | 14.38% | $384,281 | 3.55% | $711,978 | 5.27% | $2,148,945 | 3.58% | $13,339,757 | 2.48% | 6.32 | 17.3 |
37 | Georgia | $53,661 | $30,874 | 51.78% | $136,683 | 12.74% | $227,121 | 16.93% | $454,127 | 4.23% | $850,589 | 6.34% | $2,690,006 | 4.51% | $18,861,618 | 3.47% | 8.38 | 22.55 |
38 | Missouri | $53,652 | $32,679 | 54.82% | $131,782 | 12.28% | $205,077 | 15.29% | $402,866 | 3.75% | $762,426 | 5.68% | $2,543,690 | 4.27% | $20,094,857 | 3.9% | 7.42 | 21.16 |
39 | Montana | $53,305 | $33,408 | 56.41% | $129,705 | 12.17% | $204,807 | 15.37% | $392,774 | 3.68% | $727,355 | 5.46% | $2,271,178 | 3.83% | $16,642,147 | 3.08% | 6.96 | 18.94 |
40 | Tennessee | $53,247 | $32,630 | 55.15% | $125,779 | 11.81% | $203,017 | 15.25% | $409,589 | 3.85% | $774,209 | 5.82% | $2,546,641 | 4.3% | $20,033,457 | 3.82% | 7.32 | 21.42 |
41 | Louisiana | $52,753 | $33,644 | 57.4% | $128,604 | 12.19% | $197,471 | 14.97% | $386,635 | 3.66% | $716,352 | 5.43% | $2,174,654 | 3.71% | $13,388,894 | 2.63% | 6.68 | 18.07 |
42 | North Carolina | $52,441 | $31,268 | 53.66% | $132,419 | 12.63% | $216,239 | 16.49% | $418,122 | 3.99% | $768,370 | 5.86% | $2,402,122 | 4.12% | $17,703,228 | 3.25% | 7.77 | 20.59 |
43 | Michigan | $51,574 | $30,266 | 52.82% | $136,035 | 13.19% | $208,895 | 16.2% | $403,459 | 3.91% | $755,627 | 5.86% | $2,458,467 | 4.29% | $19,924,851 | 3.73% | 8.04 | 21.43 |
44 | Arizona | $50,406 | $29,477 | 52.63% | $132,016 | 13.1% | $211,235 | 16.76% | $404,154 | 4.01% | $761,808 | 6.05% | $2,387,588 | 4.26% | $16,609,364 | 3.19% | 8.1 | 21.02 |
45 | Maine | $48,708 | $31,164 | 57.58% | $125,516 | 12.88% | $195,640 | 16.07% | $360,334 | 3.7% | $620,323 | 5.09% | $1,642,230 | 3.03% | $7,977,349 | 1.64% | 6.63 | 15.41 |
46 | Arkansas | $46,735 | $27,628 | 53.21% | $120,300 | 12.87% | $180,174 | 15.42% | $319,775 | 3.42% | $622,099 | 5.32% | $2,174,255 | 4.19% | $26,603,208 | 5.57% | 7.92 | 22.48 |
47 | South Carolina | $45,871 | $26,861 | 52.7% | $125,699 | 13.7% | $194,990 | 17% | $383,233 | 4.18% | $695,621 | 6.07% | $1,990,468 | 3.91% | $11,121,722 | 2.45% | 8.08 | 19.7 |
48 | Kentucky | $45,790 | $28,069 | 55.17% | $122,430 | 13.37% | $180,401 | 15.76% | $334,689 | 3.65% | $616,790 | 5.39% | $1,868,021 | 3.67% | $13,368,017 | 2.99% | 7.31 | 18.44 |
49 | Alabama | $45,638 | $27,318 | 53.87% | $124,795 | 13.67% | $184,396 | 16.16% | $360,246 | 3.95% | $662,432 | 5.81% | $1,962,084 | 3.87% | $12,219,118 | 2.67% | 7.71 | 19.27 |
50 | New Mexico | $45,429 | $28,758 | 56.97% | $122,701 | 13.5% | $181,522 | 15.98% | $307,694 | 3.39% | $556,635 | 4.9% | $1,593,355 | 3.16% | $9,517,871 | 2.1% | 6.8 | 15.5 |
51 | Mississippi | $40,804 | $25,477 | 56.19% | $112,693 | 13.81% | $160,890 | 15.77% | $304,102 | 3.73% | $538,878 | 5.28% | $1,484,044 | 3.27% | $7,929,519 | 1.94% | 7.02 | 16.42 |
52 | West Virginia | $39,993 | $25,014 | 56.29% | $116,972 | 14.62% | $156,883 | 15.69% | $295,291 | 3.69% | $508,234 | 5.08% | $1,322,406 | 2.98% | $6,569,242 | 1.64% | 6.99 | 15.31 |
In economics, the Gini coefficient, also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio, is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income inequality, the wealth inequality, or the consumption inequality within a nation or a social group. It was developed by Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini.
In economics, the Lorenz curve is a graphical representation of the distribution of income or of wealth. It was developed by Max O. Lorenz in 1905 for representing inequality of the wealth distribution.
A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. The term progressive refers to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that a taxpayer's average tax rate is less than the person's marginal tax rate. The term can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole. Progressive taxes are imposed in an attempt to reduce the tax incidence of people with a lower ability to pay, as such taxes shift the incidence increasingly to those with a higher ability-to-pay. The opposite of a progressive tax is a regressive tax, such as a sales tax, where the poor pay a larger proportion of their income compared to the rich.
Economic inequality is an umbrella term for a) income inequality or distribution of income, b) wealth inequality or distribution of wealth, and c) consumption inequality. Each of these can be measured between two or more nations, within a single nation, or between and within sub-populations.
In economics, income distribution covers how a country's total GDP is distributed amongst its population. Economic theory and economic policy have long seen income and its distribution as a central concern. Unequal distribution of income causes economic inequality which is a concern in almost all countries around the world.
Income inequality metrics or income distribution metrics are used by social scientists to measure the distribution of income and economic inequality among the participants in a particular economy, such as that of a specific country or of the world in general. While different theories may try to explain how income inequality comes about, income inequality metrics simply provide a system of measurement used to determine the dispersion of incomes. The concept of inequality is distinct from poverty and fairness.
The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It shows one aspect of economic inequality or economic heterogeneity.
Household income is an economic standard that can be applied to one household, or aggregated across a large group such as a county, city, or the whole country. It is commonly used by the United States government and private institutions to describe a household's economic status or to track economic trends in the US.
In economics, personal income refers to the total earnings of an individual from various sources such as wages, investment ventures, and other sources of income. It encompasses all the products and money received by an individual.
Income inequality has fluctuated considerably in the United States since measurements began around 1915, moving in an arc between peaks in the 1920s and 2000s, with a 30-year period of relatively lower inequality between 1950 and 1980.
Income segregation is the separation of various classes of people based on their income. For example, certain people cannot get into country clubs because of insufficient funds. Another example of income segregation in a neighborhood would be the schools, facilities and the characteristics of a population. Income segregation can be illustrated in countries such as the United States, where racial segregation is a major cause of income inequality.
Income in India discusses the financial state in India. With rising economic growth and prosperity, India’s income is also rising rapidly. As an overview, India's per capita net national income or NNI was around 1.97 lakh rupees in 2022. The per-capita income is a crude indicator of the prosperity of a country. In contrast, the gross national income at constant prices stood at over 128 trillion rupees. The same year, GRI growth rate at constant prices was around 6.6 percent. While GNI and NNI are both indicators for a country's economic performance and welfare, the GNI is related to the GDP or the Gross Domestic Product plus the net receipts from abroad, including wages and salaries, property income, net taxes and subsidies receivable from abroad. On the other hand, the NNI of a country is equal to its GNI net of depreciation.
The inequality of wealth has substantially increased in the United States in recent decades. Wealth commonly includes the values of any homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments, as well as any associated debts.
China's current mainly market economy features a high degree of income inequality. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, “before China implemented reform and opening-up policies in 1978, its income distribution pattern was characterized as egalitarian in all aspects.”
Income inequality in India refers to the unequal distribution of wealth and income among its citizens. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Gini coefficient of India, which is a measure of income distribution inequality, was 35.2 in 2011, ranking 95th out of 157. Wealth distribution is also uneven, with one report estimating that 54% of the country's wealth is controlled by millionaires, the second highest after Russia, as of November 2016. The richest 1% of Indians own 58% of wealth, while the richest 10% of Indians own 80% of the wealth. This trend has consistently increased, meaning the rich are getting richer much faster than the poor, widening the income gap. Inequality worsened since the establishment of income tax in 1922, overtaking the British Raj's record of the share of the top 1% in national income, which was 20.7% in 1939–40.According to Oxfam India's report of 2023, "Survival of the Richest: India Story," just 5 per cent of Indians own more than 60 per cent of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 50 per cent of the population possess only 3 per cent of the wealth. It also says that between 2012 and 2021, 40% of wealth generated in India has gone to just 1% of the total population and 3% of the wealth has gone to bottom 50%. The number of hungry Indians increased to 350 million in 2022 from 190 million in 2018, while the number of billionaires has increased from 102 in 2020 to 166 in 2022. The covid pandemic reduced the income of the poor, but the wealthy did well. The combined wealth of India's 100 richest is now above $600 billion, which is equivalent to India's Union Budget for 18 months. According to Union Government 's own submission to Supreme Court of India, widespread hunger has caused 65% of deaths of children under the age of 5 in 2022.Saurabh Mukherjee, the founder and CIO of Marcellus Investment Managers, along with his colleague Nandita Rajhansa, has coined the term "Octopus Class" to depict 2 lakh families or around 1 million people in India who control 80% of India's wealth. This class has consolidated financial, social and political power and has continuously pushed its 'tentacles' in every profitable activity they are interested in, aided by liberalisation and consequent growth of globalised economy since 1991.
Socioeconomic mobility in the United States refers to the upward or downward movement of Americans from one social class or economic level to another, through job changes, inheritance, marriage, connections, tax changes, innovation, illegal activities, hard work, lobbying, luck, health changes or other factors.
Causes of income inequality in the United States describes the reasons for the unequal distribution of income in the US and the factors that cause it to change over time. This topic is subject to extensive ongoing research, media attention, and political interest.
Denmark has been noted as having one of the lowest income inequality ratings in the world and has been known to maintain relative stability in this metric throughout decades past. The OECD data of 2016 gives Denmark a Gini coefficient of 0.249, below the OECD average of 0.315. The OECD in 2013 ranked Denmark with having a 0.254 Gini coefficient, ranking third behind Iceland and Norway respectively as the countries with the lowest income inequality qualifications. Eurostat ranked Denmark with a Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income of 27.0 in 2022, having fallen for three straight years from a high of 27.8 in 2018. The Gini coefficients are measured using a 0–1 calibration where 0 equals complete equality and 1 equals complete inequality. "Wage-distributive outcomes" and their effect on income equality have been noted since the 1970s and 80s. Denmark, along with other Nordic countries, such as Finland and Sweden, has long held a stable low wage inequality index as well.