Kanton ZürichStatistisches Amt
Income Mobility in the Canton ofZurich - a NovelUse of Tax DataDr. Peter Moser
Presentation at the Swiss Statistics Meeting 2013 in Basle
2
� Equality of opportunity defines a modern democraticsociety
� Equality of opportunity implies social mobility amongits members, an absence of a rigidly hierachical class system(eg. the feudal system of the Middle Ages)
� The degree of social mobility in a society indicates theactual degree of equality of opportunity
� Two different concepts: intergenerational social mobility
(changes in the status of the members of different generationsof a family group) and intragenerational mobility
� Income mobility (∆ income t1 - t0) is an important aspectof intragenerational social mobility, because income iscentral to the notion of social status
Income Mobility - Why Is It Important?
3
� Federal income tax returns from the Canton of Zurich
� each year from 1999 to 2010 individual data for all ordinary tax subjects.
� Variables: taxable income, tax rate used (Singles and families - a proxy for household structure), age of taxpayer (proxy for the positionof the household in the life cycle), wealth
� and crucially : a key variable connecting units of taxation
over time (pseudonymized social security number) …
� … and thus allowing for the generation of the panel data
required to analyze individual (or household) income mobility
� this gives us about half a million of complete cases (out of a total of 1.2 Mio) for a balanced panel during the ten years between 2001 und 2010
The Data: Income Tax Returns
4
� Advantages
� lots and lots of cases for
free!
� trustworthy, verified income
data (as compared to surveydata)
� Data includes all sources of
income (e.g. not only wages)
� selective panel mortality
is not at big problem (withthe exception, obviously, of theelderly)
Tax Data: Advantages and Drawbacks
� Drawbacks
� almost no additional
information abouthouseholds (formation, earnings and wealth structureetc.)
� little explanation ofincome mobility is possible
� Tax law defines income,
not social science
� The key variable refers toan individual, the unit ishowever a household
5
� life-cycle of absolute income
change expectations over a ten year horizon
� High absolute gains among
young (single) households
� Turning point at about 50, incomes ten years hence areusually lower than incomes now
� Looming retirement implies
lower incomes
� (Nominally) more or lessconstant incomes after
retirement
� Different income trajectory
for multiperson-households!
Absolute Income Mobility in the Life Cycle
Age (2001)
Med
ian
Inco
me
Diff
eren
ce 2
001-
2010
-200
00-1
0000
010
000
2000
030
000
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Type of HouseholdSingleMultiple Persons
Single- > MultipleMultiple- > Single
Total
6
Absolute Income Mobility by Age & Income Class
age (2001)
med
ian
abso
lute
inco
me
diffe
renc
e (r
eal)
20
01-2
010
-600
00-4
0000
-200
000
2000
040
000
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
1. quintile 2001 (-36K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
2. quintile 2001 (36-54K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
3. quintile 2001 (54-72K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
4. quintile 2001 (72-102K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
5. quintile 2001 (102+K)
household typesinglemulti-person
single- > multimulti- > single
total
7
Relative Mobility: a Quantile-Mobility-Matrix
� Relative (Quantile) income
mobility 2001 to 2010, Downwardsmovement = upward movement
� Diagonal orientation: Past incomerank predicts future ranking rather well
� 28% are staying in the same
decile after ten years
� 72 % of households have some
relative income mobility.
However, about half of them only moveinto an adjacent Decile
� 3% of those in the bottom
decile move to the top decile
� There is income mobility - but asexpected it is also limited, especiallyin the corner deciles (Q1, Q10)
Q1:
0-1
9K
Q2:
19-
35K
Q3:
35-
46K
Q4:
46-
55K
Q5:
55-
64K
Q6:
64-
74K
Q7:
74-
87K
Q8:
87-
107K
Q9:
107
-146
K
Q10
: 146
K+
Q10: 137K+
Q9: 102-137K
Q8: 84-102K
Q7: 72-84K
Q6: 63-72K
Q5: 54-63K
Q4: 46-54K
Q3: 36-46K
Q2: 21-36K
Q1: 0-20K 43
19
10
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
19
29
17
11
8
6
4
3
2
2
10
19
23
16
11
8
6
4
3
1
6
11
18
20
15
11
8
5
3
2
5
7
12
17
19
15
11
7
5
2
4
5
8
11
17
19
16
11
7
3
4
4
5
8
12
16
19
17
11
4
3
3
4
5
8
11
17
22
19
8
3
2
2
3
5
7
10
18
29
20
3
1
1
2
2
3
5
8
18
56
2001
2010
8
Relative Mobility by Age & Income
age (2001)
shar
e of
mob
ile h
ouse
hold
s (m
ovin
g ou
t of s
tarti
ng q
uint
ile) i
n %
2040
6080
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
1. quintile 2001 (-36K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
2. quintile 2001 (36-54K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
3. quintile 2001 (54-72K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
4. quintile 2001 (72-102K)
25-2
9
30-3
4
35-3
9
40-4
4
45-4
9
50-5
4
55-5
9
60-6
4
5. quintile 2001 (102+K)
household typessinglemulti-person
single > multimulti > single
total
9
Relative Mobility Within Age Groups� income mobility (relative and
absolute) is influenced by thenormal financial life-cycle of a household
� But: How important is it for
total income mobility?
� Mobility between age groups vs. Mobility within age groups
� Mobility within age groups ishigher among the young andlowest among the retired
� But it is not very much lower
than overall mobility
� Total income mobility is
mostly „real“ and not merely an artifact of the financial life-cycle
age (2001)
inco
me
mob
ility
(1-S
pear
man
s R
ho)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
household typessinglemulti-person
single > multimulti > single
total
10
Income Mobility Among the Top Earners� Income mobility at the top
matters: Money is power, renewal of
elites essential in a democracy
� 47% of households in the top 1%
(400KFr+) in 2001 are still there ten
years later and 38% of those in thetop 0.1% (1.5MFr+)
� 25 % of households in the top 1%
remain there during every one of
those ten years and 19% of thosein the top 0.1%
� There is renewal - but also persistence at the top; the more (orless) the thinner the income slice.
� Persistence depends on age (nextslide)
.. Top 10% .. Top 1% ... Top 0.1%
Per
cent
age
Sha
re o
f tho
se w
ho a
re 2
001
in th
e re
spec
tive
Inco
me
clas
s
050
100
150
200
100
150
200
250
300
2001 und 2010 among the ..during the whole period among the ..at least once in the period among the ...
11
Age and Persistence of Top Incomes
Top Incomes ...
Sha
re a
s %
1020
3040
5060
10% 1%
0.1%
1 Year
10%
1% 0.1%
..2..
10% 1%
0.1%
..3..
10%
1% 0.1%
..4..
10% 1%
0.1%
..5..
10%
1% 0.1%
..6..
10% 1%
0.1%
..7..
10%
1% 0.1%
..8..
10% 1%
0.1%
..9..
10%
1% 0.1%
10 Years
Age classified (2001)18-44-years old 45-64-years old 65+ years old
12
� Is there a clear trend? I thinkthis must remain an open
question with only about a decade‘s worth of data
� Mobility at the very top, while volatile, seems to increaseslighty
� Income mobility increases
in periods of strong growth asinnovation opens up newopportunities for people toadvance financially (Internet-boom in 2000, financial boom in 2007)
Is Income Mobility Changing over Time?
Sh
are
of I
nco
me
mo
bile
ho
use
hold
s in
%
30
40
50
60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total1. Decile
10. Decile (Top 10%)Top 1%
Top 0.1%
13
� Income mobillity in the Canton ofZurich is in the lower middle
range internationally
� Close to Germany, Austria,
France
� Income mobility is slightly lower
than in the US (as studies also based on Tax data show)
� International comparisons are
difficult due to data problems
� Income mobility seems to be
influenced by growth rates
(Booming Spain, Ireland?) egalitarianism (Denmark?)
Comparative Income Mobility
Share of mobile households in %
Dänemark
Irland
Spanien
Belgien
Grossbritannien
Griechenland
OECD-17
Niederlande
Italien
Frankreich
Österreich
Deutschland
Kanton Zürich
Portugal
Luxembourg
Finnland
25 30 35 40 45 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2
9
1
7
3
5
8
4
10
13
11
12
6
14
16
15
2
3
7
1
4
6
5
12
8
14
9
13
15
16
11
10
Income Mobilitytotal 1. Quintile 5. Quintile
14
Dr. Peter Moser Statistical Office of the Canton of ZurichSchöntalstrasse 58090 Zurich
Peter Moser: Wie durchlässig ist die Gesellschaft? Einkommensmobilität im Kanton Zürich 2001 bis 2010, statistik.info 2013/08
www.statistik.zh.ch/dam/justiz_innern/statistik/Publikationen/statistik_info/si_2013_08_einkommensmobilitaet.pdf
Thank You for Your Attention