December 12, 2011 - On Saturday, MLI Director of Research Jason Clemens discussed how income inequality "isn't as simple as it's portrayed" in the Vancouver Sun. His column is below:

 

Income inequality isn't as simple as it is portrayed

By Jason Clemens, Vancouver Sun, December 10, 2011

Occupy Wall Street and growing unease over unemployment have heightened  interest in the near perpetual issue of inequality. Far too many analyses of  inequality, however, treat it as a simple, straightforward issue when the  opposite is true. Inequality is terribly complicated and simplistic diagnoses  risk worsening the problem.

Take the measurement of inequality, which normally relies on both official  income statistics as well as surveys. The simple comparisons normally employed  ignore the influence of unreported income. Numerous studies have concluded that  certain types of income are consistently underreported in Canada. For instance,  self-employment income is usually under-reported by 12 to 24 per cent.  Similarly, transfers from government for employment insurance have been  demonstrated to be under-reported by 20 per cent and social assistance by 40 per  cent.

Government sources of income are largely concentrated at the lower end of  earnings. Thus, at least some of the income inequality may in fact be due to  unreported income.

Further, consider this problem of under-reporting income and its effect on  inequality statistics in an international context. Many countries, including  both industrialized countries like Greece and most developing countries, have  much larger informal or underground economies than developed countries like  Canada, which affects the calculation of earnings for lower-income  households.

A different question is whether we should be concerned with income or  consumption. If our primary interest is ensuring that households in the bottom  20 per cent have adequate resources to secure basic necessities then  consumption, not income, should be the focus.

Three important findings emerge when we examine consumption rather than  income. First, there are gaps between what the income statistics say about the  resources households have versus what the consumption statistics indicate. For  example, in 2004, some 183,000 households reported income of less than $5,000  but these same households' consumption was, on average, $20,000. The difference  is due to some combination of unreported income, monetary or inkind gifts, the  drawing down of savings, and foreign sources of income, none of which are  included in income statistics.

Second, consumption data consistently show lower levels of inequality  compared to income. That is, when we examine what households consume versus  their income, we find lower levels of inequality. Third, consumption data show  lower increases in inequality over time.

The solutions often advocated from simple analyses more often than not would  make matters worse. For example, a consistent recommendation and one included in  the recently released Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  report is to increase marginal tax rates on higher earners. In Canada, this  means increasing taxes on the top 20 per cent who already pay roughly 55 per  cent of the total tax burden while earning 47 per cent of income.

Critically, most of these studies assume that increasing such taxes has no  effect on the economy. Indeed, some studies argue that increasing these taxes  improves the economy. Yet the data and experience demonstrate the reverse. Jobs  are created when existing business expand or new businesses are created. The  capital for both must come from savings. Reducing the rewards to savings as well  as to the success of expanding or creating a business necessarily reduces the  incentives to do either. Robert Carroll and his colleagues, for instance,  investigated this very issue and found that increases in marginal tax rates  resulted in large reductions in the proportion of entrepreneurs investing in new  capital.

The worst possible solution to improve the lot of the bottom 20 per cent is  to pursue policies that would reduce job creation. The best chance to improve  the opportunities for lowerincome earners is a robust labour market in which  they can obtain onthe-job training and experience. For example, in the  decade-plus period preceding the 2008 recession, Canadian poverty rates were  reduced by nearly 40 per cent owing largely to a booming labour market.

There are a number of other important factors that contribute to inequality  such as technological change, the quality of education, and transformations in  the composition of households over time. There are also additional  considerations needed to fully understand the dynamics of inequality, such as  how our income naturally changes over the course of our life as we move from  dependent children, to students, to entry-level workers, to experienced workers,  to retirement.

Over-simplifying complex problems so they fit neatly on a T-shirt is never a  substitute for thoughtful, informed debate on critical issues facing our  country.

Jason Clemens is the director of research at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute  and a co-author of the award-winning bestseller The Canadian Century.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

 

 

 

 

 

MLI would not exist without the support of its donors. Please consider making a small contribution today.