InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

sgolds

07/30/04 10:03 AM

#40942 RE: mmoy #40940

mmoy, I did see that article about the IRS numbers. A couple of things:

1. The most recent years available, which they are talking about, is 2001 & 2002. 2003 numbers have not been compiled (probably because we are within the automatic extension date).

2. The IRS is reporting the total adjusted gross income, including wage plus things like schedule C (small business) and D (stock market). This has to be considered separately from wages (which was the context of the earlier discussion). (Although certain stock transactions are included as part of wages by the IRS.)

No doubt about it, it has been a lean few years!
icon url

upc

07/30/04 11:52 AM

#40948 RE: mmoy #40940

But wages/job quality NO DIFFERENT this cycle compared to previous cycles, per Fed Res. study:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5818727
icon url

SilentBob

07/30/04 12:16 PM

#40950 RE: mmoy #40940

mmoy,

I found this part of the article most interesting:

The report said the sharpest drops were in both the number and the earnings of people with the highest incomes. Those with incomes of $10 million or more saw average income fall 22 percent, while the number of returns reporting incomes at that level fell 53 percent during the two year period.

Meanwhile the average income of those filing returns with incomes between $25,000 and $500,000 saw the average income little changed, somewhere between a 0.1 percent decline and a 0.2 percent gain, depending upon the income category, the Times said.