Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005 

Report of the 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

November 13, 2007 
Summary 

This study examines income mobility of individuals over the past decade (1996 through 

2005) using information reported on individual income tax returns. 

While many studies have documented the long-term trend of increasing income 

inequality in the U.S. economy, there has been less focus on the dynamism of the U.S. 

economy and the opportunity for upward mobility. Comparisons of snapshots of the 

income distribution at points in time miss this important dimension and can sometimes be 

misleading. 

Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel 

where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. Important aspects of 

fairness are that those in the small rooms have an opportunity to move to a better one, and 

that the luxurious rooms are not always occupied by the same people. The frequency 

with which people move between rooms is a crucial aspect of the trends in income 

inequality in the United States. 

The key findings of this study include: 

•	 There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during 

the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income 

quintile over this period. 

•	 Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved 

up to a higher income group by 2005. 

•	 Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – 

only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of 

these taxpayers declined over this period. 

•	 The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade 

(1987 through 1996). 

•	 Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 

1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after 

adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over 

this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income 

groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher 

income groups. 

The degree of mobility in the overall population and movement out of the bottom quintile 

in this study are similar to the findings of prior research on income mobility. 
 

 

 

Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005 

Many studies have documented the long-term trend of increasing income inequality in the 

U.S. economy. U.S. Census data, for example, show that the share of household income 

of the top 20 percent of households increased from 44.1 percent in 1980 to 50.4 percent 

by 2005, with the share of the bottom 20 percent decreasing from 4.2 percent to 3.4 

percent.1

 Similarly, Piketty and Saez (1998, 2007) find that the share of income of the 

top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 31.7 percent in 1960 to 44.3 percent in 2005, 

while the share of the top 1 percent increased from 8.4 percent to 17.4 percent. 

Economists have suggested a variety of factors as possible explanations for these trends, 

including increased returns to skill and education, greater globalization of labor markets, 

the decline in unionization, increased immigration, and changes in the supply of highly 

educated workers. 

To get a broader perspective on these trends, one must look at the opportunity for upward 

mobility in the United States, which has sometimes been seen as a defining characteristic 

of the nation’s economy.2

 Comparisons of snapshots of the income distribution at points 

in time miss this important dimension and can sometimes be misleading. Research shows 

that the distribution of lifetime incomes is more equal than a one-time snapshot implies 

because a household’s relative position in the income distribution often changes over 

time. Concerns about income inequality at a particular point in time may be assuaged if 

low incomes are temporary and income mobility provides individuals and families with 

the opportunity to improve their economic situation over time. In addition, different 

policy prescriptions might be appropriate for assisting those who are persistently lowincome as compared to those whose incomes are only temporarily low. 

Economic historian Joseph Schumpeter compared the income distribution to a hotel 

where some rooms are luxurious, but others are small and shabby. The rooms are always 

occupied, but often by different people.3 Important aspects of fairness are that those in 

the small rooms to have an opportunity to move to a better one, and that the luxurious 

rooms are not always occupied by the same people. Mobility means that over time 

people move between rooms. The frequency with which people move between rooms is 

a crucial aspect of the changing trends in income inequality in the United States. 

Another aspect of discussions of income distribution is the extent to which all income 

rises over time with an expanding economy. Some have likened this process to an 

escalator where the opportunity for mobility means that no matter which step a person 

starts on, he or she can move up. With an escalator, while one can get ahead faster by 

walking up the steps, much of the movement is due to the escalator itself.4 That is, the 

1

 U.S. Census Bureau (2006). 

2

 Litan and Slemrod (1999) state that “A defining ethic of America has long been that, no matter which step
 

you first land on or how great the distance to the higher steps, you have a good shot at moving up if, as 

President Clinton has frequently said, ‘you work hard and play by the rules.’” 3

 See Sawhill and Condon (1992) for more discussion of the hotel analogy. 

4

 Litan and Slemrod (1999) use the escalator analogy, while McMurrer and Sawhill (1996b) use a similar
 

analogy of moving up and down the economic ladder. In climbing a ladder, however, all the progress is
 

due to individual effort. Holtz-Eakin, et al., (2000) connect mobility with Horatio Alger success stories. 

3 
 

 

real incomes of households can increase over time with the growth of the overall 

economy. 

Using three different measures of income mobility that track changes in the incomes of a 

large sample of individual taxpayers over time, this study presents new evidence on 

income mobility over the decade from 1996 through 2005. Key findings include: 

•	 There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the 

1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure 

and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 

1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another 

measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income 

group by 2005. 

•	 Median incomes of taxpayers in the sample increased by 24 percent after adjusting 

for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this 

period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lowest income groups 

increased more in percentage terms than the median incomes of those in the higher 

income groups. The median inflation-adjusted incomes of the taxpayers who were in 

the very highest income groups in 1996 declined by 2005. 

•	 The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less 

than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1 

percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the 

individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 

2005. 

•	 The degree of relative income mobility among income groups over the 1996 to 2005 

period is very similar to that over the prior decade (1987 to 1996). To the extent that 

increasing income inequality widened income gaps, this was offset by increased 

absolute income mobility so that relative income mobility has neither increased nor 

decreased over the past 20 years. 

Prior Studies of Income Mobility 

Previous research on income mobility over the past several decades has generally found 

that about half of those in the bottom quintile move to a higher quintile and also that 

more than half of households move to a different income quintile within about 10 years.5 

Sawhill and Condon (1992), for example, used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

(PSID) to examine the mobility of individuals between the ages of 25 and 54 for the 

periods 1967-1976 and 1977-1986. Using a measure of relative mobility that compares 

households within their sample, they found that over 60 percent of individuals were in a 

different family income quintile a decade later. Among individuals initially in the lowest 

income quintile, 44 percent moved to a higher quintile between 1967 and 1976 and 47 

5

 McMurrer and Sawhill (1996a) summarize a number of the early mobility studies. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

percent moved to a higher quintile between 1977 and 1986. Downward mobility from 

the top quintile was experienced by 47 percent and 50 percent in the two periods, 

respectively. A later study by McMurrer and Sawhill (1996b) concluded that mobility 

rates had remained unchanged during this 20-year period. 

Two 1992 Treasury studies (1992a and 1992b) examined mobility during the period from 

1979 to 1988 using a panel that followed 14,351 income tax returns over the period and 

controlled for changes in the definition of income due to changes in the tax law.6 The 

Treasury data showed that 86 percent of taxpayers in the lowest income quintile in 1979 

had moved to a higher quintile by 1988 and 15 percent of them had moved all the way to 

the top quintile. Among those who were in the top quintile in 1979, 65 percent remained 

in the top quintile in 1988, and only 1 percent had dropped to the lowest quintile. The 

high degree of mobility reported by this study resulted from several features of the 

analysis, most importantly the inclusion of taxpayers under age 25, the lack of data on 

Social Security benefits for older taxpayers, and comparison to the full taxpayer 

population. When the sample was limited to taxpayers age 25 to 64 and compared to 

taxpayers in the panel, rather than to all taxpayers aged 25 to 64, the Treasury study 

showed that 50 percent of the lowest income quintile had moved to a higher quintile after 

10 years.7 Thus, the results were very similar to Sawhill and Condon when a comparable 

sample and mobility measure were used. 

Bradbury and Katz (2002a, 2002b) used PSID data to examine relative income mobility 

in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Their results also show that about half of households in 

the bottom quintile moved out after 10 years (51 percent for 1969-1979, 50 percent for 

1979-1989, 47 percent for 1988-1998). They argue that relative mobility declined 

slightly in the 1990s as 40 percent of households remained in the same income quintile as 

compared to 36 percent in the 1970s and 37 percent in the 1980s.8 They also show that 

the income gaps widened over this period, which would make mobility across quintiles 

more difficult, and may account for the small decline in relative mobility.9 

6

 The 1992 Treasury studies limited the sample to non-dependent taxpayers who had filed in all 10 years 

from 1979 to 1988. Income was defined as real constant law adjusted gross income (AGI). Real constant 

law income includes capital gains, but excludes Social Security benefits because they were not taxable until 

1984 and thus no data were available for earlier years. For a more detailed description of constant law 

AGI, see U.S. Treasury (1992a). Income percentiles for each year were computed using the IRS Statistics 

of Income cross-section samples, which represent the full population of income tax returns filed each year. 

7 See U.S. Treasury (1992b). Since Social Security benefits were not taxable prior to 1984, the Treasury 

income measure excluded Social Security benefits. Dropping the elderly from the sample eliminated 

spurious downward mobility when households stopped earning wages but were not credited with Social 

Security benefits. Similarly, dropping those under age 25 eliminated the effects of dramatic income 

increases when students leave school and get their first full-time jobs. 

8

 Gittleman and Joyce (1999) also conclude that income mobility rates differed little between the 1970s and 

1980s. Comparable data for the 1990s would not yet have been available for their 1999 study. 

9

 It is unclear whether absolute mobility increased or decreased in these data as this study does not examine 

absolute income mobility. Table 1 in Bradbury and Katz (2002b) shows that average real incomes of 

families in the lowest quintile in 1988 increased from 1988 to 1998 after declining in the previous two 

decades, which may suggest some increase in absolute mobility. 

5 
 

 

 

 

New Results on Income Mobility – 1996-2005 

This study examines income mobility over the period from 1996 through 2005 using data 

from a large sample of individual income tax returns for these two years. The panel uses 

a large sample of approximately 96,700 tax returns with 169,300 primary and secondary 

(i.e., spouses on joint returns) taxpayers who filed for tax years 1996 and 2005.10 The 

sample represents 117.1 million taxpayers on 76.9 million income tax returns. While the 

income data are as reported on tax returns, the analysis includes both primary and 

secondary taxpayers who are each followed separately. Thus, if a married couple filed a 

joint tax return in 1996, divorced, and then filed separate tax returns in 2005, each person 

is followed separately, even if one or both of them appear as a secondary taxpayer on 

another tax return. To avoid counting transitions from school to work as mobility, the 

analysis follows the common practice in previous research of excluding taxpayers who 

were under the age of 25 in 1996.11 Income is defined as cash income as reported on 

individual income tax returns and supplemented by data on Social Security benefits 

reported on information returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).12 So as to 

remove the effects of inflation, cash income is adjusted to 2005 dollars using the 

Consumer Price Index Current Methodology Series. 

In order to provide a more complete picture of the different dimensions of income 

mobility, the analysis provides three different measures: two measures of relative income 

mobility and one measure of absolute income mobility.13 Relative income mobility 

shows how the income of households changes over time relative to the incomes of other 

households, while absolute income mobility measures show how the real incomes of 

households change over time. 

Taxpayers are grouped by income quintiles (the lowest 20 percent, the second 20 percent, 

etc.). Results for the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent of the population are also 

reported.14 The two measures of relative income mobility are illustrated using a 

10 The sample is based on the IRS Statistics of Income Individual Income Tax Files. The sample used for 

the study excludes dependent filers and follows primary and secondary taxpayers separately. The 

construction of the panel sample used for the analysis is discussed in more detail in the Technical 

Appendix. 

11 For example, Sawhill and Condon (1992) examine individuals age 25 through 54 in the initial year, while 

Gittleman and Joyce (1999) limit their sample to individuals between age 25 and 64 in both the initial and 

ending years. 

12 The definition of cash income is discussed in more detail in the Technical Appendix. 

13 Other income mobility measures include income variance over time, the correlation between income in 

one year and income in another year, and the percentages of households that are in a top income class or 

fall below the poverty level at least once in a period of years as compared to the percentages in a single 

year. Instead of following the income of specific individuals or households over time, some studies 

compare similar population groups at different points in time. For example, a recent CBO study (May 

2007) reported that the average income of households with children in the lowest income quintile in 2005 

was 35 percent higher than the average income of comparable households in 1991 after adjusting for 

inflation. Since this approach does not follow the incomes of specific households over time, it does not 

measure income mobility as generally understood.

14 Since primary and secondary taxpayers are followed separately, they are counted separately in 

determining the income quintiles of the taxpayer population. Thus, a married couple filing jointly is 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

transition matrix that shows the movement of individuals across the population quintiles. 

For individuals in each income quintile in 1996, the transition matrix shows the 

percentages that end up in each income quintile in 2005. The measure of absolute 

income mobility groups taxpayers by income quintile in 1996 and shows the distribution 

of percentage changes in real income by 2005. 

The first measure of mobility considers how the incomes of taxpayers in each income 

group in 1996 changed relative to the incomes of all taxpayers in the filing population in 

2005 (Table 1). The income thresholds in 1996 and 2005 for the income quintile groups 

in this measure are based on all taxpayers age 25 and over in the population of all tax 

return filers in these two years. The table shows a high degree of income mobility over 

this period. Nearly 58 percent of households (i.e., 57.6 = 100 – 42.4) in the lowest 

income quintile in 1996 had moved to a higher quintile by 2005. While 29 percent 

moved up to the second quintile, the same percentage moved up at least two quintiles, 

and about 5 percent moved all the way to the top quintile. 

Table 1: More than 50 percent of taxpayers in the bottom quintile moved to a higher quintile within ten years 

Income Mobility Relative to the Total Tax Filing Population, 1996 to 2005 

1996 Income 

Lowest 

Quintile Lowest 

42.4 

Second 

28.6 

Middle 

13.9 

2005 Income Quintile 

Fourth Highest Total 

9.9 5.3 100.0 

Top 10% 

2.3 

Top 5% 

1.3 

Top 1% 

0.2 

Second 17.0 33.3 26.7 15.1 7.9 100.0 3.0 1.2 0.1 

Middle 7.1 17.5 33.3 29.6 12.5 100.0 4.2 1.4 0.3 

Fourth 4.1 7.3 18.3 40.2 30.2 100.0 8.6 2.7 0.3 

Highest 2.6 3.2 7.1 17.8 69.4 100.0 43.4 22.5 4.4 

Top 10% 

Top 5% 

Top 1% 

2.6 

2.6 

3.2 

2.2 

1.8 

1.3 

4.9 

3.9 

2.2 

11.8 

8.6 

4.9 

78.6 

83.1 

88.4 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

61.1 

71.6 

82.7 

37.6 

54.4 

75.0 

8.3 

15.2 

42.6 

All Income 

Groups 13.2 16.8 19.6 23.3 27.1 100.0 13.4 6.4 1.2 

Notes: The rows sum to 100 percent across the five quintiles in the first five columns. The table uses the tax returns of primary and 

secondary non-dependent taxpayers who were age 25 or over in 1996 and filed for both 1996 and 2005. Income breaks for the quintiles 

and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where the taxpayer is age 25 and over. Income is cash 

income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix. 

Source: Tabulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of Income, Individual 

Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005. 

Middle-income taxpayers also did well with respect to mobility across income quintiles 

in the population. A much larger portion moved up to a higher income quintile (42.1 

percent = 29.6 +12.5) than dropped to a lower quintile (24.6 percent = 7.1 +17.5). About 

one-third of the taxpayers in the middle income quintile in 1996 were still in the middle 

quintile in 2005. While households in the top quintile had a higher probability of staying 

there in 2005, over 30 percent had dropped to a lower quintile, and 2.6 percent dropped 

all the way to the bottom quintile. While not shown directly in the table, 56 percent of 

counted as two observations. Similar procedures have been followed in some prior studies, some of which 

count all members of a household (including children) separately in determining the population quintiles. 

7 
 

 

 

 

the households filing tax returns in 1996 had moved to a different income quintile in 

2005.15 

The mobility of the top 1 percent of the income distribution is also important. More than 

half (57.4 percent = 100 – 42.6) of the top 1 percent of households in 1996 had dropped 

to a lower income group by 2005. This statistic illustrates that the top income groups as 

measured by a single year of income (i.e., cross-sectional analysis) often include a large 

share of individuals or households whose income is only temporarily high. Put 

differently, more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there 

nine years earlier. Thus, while the share of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in 

prior years, it is not a fixed group of households receiving this larger share of income. As 

suggested by the Schumpeter hotel analogy, many of the more luxurious rooms are 

occupied by different people at different times. 

The second measure of income mobility shows how the incomes of taxpayers in each 

income quintile in 1996 changed relative to that same group of taxpayers in 2005 (Table 

2). Note that unlike Table 1 in which the comparison is to all taxpayers age 25 and over 

in the filing population in 2005, the comparison in Table 2 is only to the other taxpayers 

included in the panel. Unlike Table 1, the construction of Table 2 means that in the 

bottom row showing all taxpayers, 20 percent of the 1996 taxpayers are in each of the 

2005 quintiles.16 Since no new lower-income households enter the comparison 

population in this table, there is no overall upward movement of these taxpayers within 

the overall income distribution. Thus, under this measure of income mobility, taxpayers 

in the bottom income quintile are less likely to rise in to a higher quintile because the 

only new entrants to the bottom quintile are taxpayers whose incomes have fallen. 

Nevertheless, almost half of the lowest income quintile (44.9 percent) moved to a higher 

quintile by 2005. Total mobility was approximately the same as in the first mobility 

measure, as 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a higher or lower income quintile 

compared to 56 percent in Table 1.17 As compared to Table 1, this measure of relative 

income mobility also implies more downward mobility.18 For example, a larger portion 

of taxpayers in the 1996 top quintile were in a lower income quintile in 2005: 39 percent 

(38.6 = 100 – 61.4) as compared to 31 percent in Table 1. Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers 

in the top 1 percent in 1996 dropped out of the top 1 percent by 2005, although 87 

percent of them remained in the top quintile. 

15 This figure is calculated by summing all of the non-diagonal cells and dividing this number by 5. The 

diagonal cells contain households in the same quintile in both years. Dividing by 5 adjusts for the fact that 

the percentages in each quintile row sum to 100 percent, or 500 percent for all five rows. 

16 This is because Table 2 is constructed by classifying the same group of tax households based on their 

1996 income and then by income percentiles based on their 2005 income. There are no additional young or 

new immigrant taxpayers against which the incomes of these taxpayers are being compared as in Table 1. 

17 The 55 percent figure is calculated by summing all of the non-diagonal cells and dividing this number by 

5 as was done previously for Table 1. 

18 Table 2 shows greater downward mobility because for every household that moves up another must 

move down. The table construction combined with the fact discussed previously that new entrants into the 

population have lower incomes on average results in more downward mobility using this measure. 

8 
 

Table 2: The degree of mobility remains substantial after restricting the analysis to taxpayers included in the panel 

of tax returns 

Income Mobility Relative to the Panel Population, 1996 to 2005 

1996 Income 

Lowest 

Quintile Lowest 

55.1 

Second 

23.7 

Middle 

10.8 

2005 Income Quintile 

Fourth Highest Total 

6.9 3.6 100.0 

Top 10% 

1.7 

Top 5% 

0.9 

Top 1% 

0.1 

Second 24.7 37.2 21.9 10.6 5.6 100.0 2.0 1.0 0.1 

Middle 10.8 23.4 34.1 23.0 8.7 100.0 3.2 1.2 0.2 

Fourth 6.0 11.0 24.2 38.1 20.8 100.0 6.4 2.1 0.3 

Highest 3.5 4.7 9.0 21.5 61.4 100.0 36.7 19.8 4.3 

Top 10% 

Top 5% 

Top 1% 

3.5 

3.2 

3.9 

3.4 

2.8 

1.7 

6.5 

5.0 

3.0 

13.9 

9.6 

4.9 

72.8 

79.4 

86.5 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

54.4 

67.2 

80.3 

33.5 

49.7 

73.0 

7.9 

14.4 

40.3 

All Income 

Groups 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 

Notes: The rows sum to 100 percent across the five quintiles in the first five columns. The table uses the tax returns of primary and 

secondary non-dependent taxpayers who were age 25 or over in 1996 and filed for both 1996 and 2005. Income breaks for the quintiles 

and top percentiles are based on only the tax returns of the panel population. Income is cash income in 2005 dollars as defined in the 

Technical Appendix. 

Source: Tabulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of Income, 

Individual Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005. 

The third measure examines absolute income mobility, that is, the extent to which 

taxpayers’ incomes rose or fell over time. Table 3 shows that median taxpayer income 

rose by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation.19 20 Real income increased for two-thirds 

(67.5 percent = 17.7 +14.3 +15.8 +19.7) of taxpayers between 1996 and 2005. 

Percentage increases in real income were the largest for taxpayers with the lowest 

incomes in 1996. Among those taxpayers in the lowest income quintile in 1996, median 

income increased by 90 percent by 2005. Real incomes increased over the period for 82 

percent (81.7 = 8.6 + 8.7 + 15.0 +49.4) of these low-income taxpayers and at least 

doubled for nearly half of this group (49.4 percent). 

Among taxpayers in the highest income quintile in 1996, real income increased for over 

half (54.7 percent = 19.5 +14.0 +12.7+8.5) and doubled for only 8.5 percent. The median 

real income of taxpayers in the top quintile in 1996 rose by 10 percent, while the median 

income of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 declined by 25.8 percent. While this study 

does not examine these results in detail, the likely causes include the typical life cycle of 

income and “mean reversion” in which the incomes of taxpayers whose incomes were 

temporarily high in 1996 revert to a level closer to their long-run average.21 

19 By comparison, in the U.S. Census data (2006), median household real income increased by 5.4 percent 

from $43,967 to $46,326 over this time period in 2005 dollars. One difference is that the Census data 

measures changes in the full cross-section population including new entrants, while the data in Table 3 

show changes in incomes of individuals that filed income tax returns in 1996 and 2005.

20 Median income refers to the income of the individual in the middle of the income distribution, with half 

having higher incomes and half having lower incomes. Mean or average income is the arithmetic average 

of the all taxpayers in the sample. In each case, the calculations are weighted to reflect the total tax-filing 

population.

21 The results of Auten and Gee (2007) illustrate the effects of the life cycle of incomes. Taxpayers age 45 

to 54 had the highest incomes of any age group in 1987, but the median inflation-adjusted income of these 

taxpayers declined by 1996. By comparison, taxpayers age 25 to 34 had the lowest incomes in 1987, but 

the most rapid increases in incomes between 1987 and 1996. 

9 
 

 

 

 

Among households in the middle income quintile in 1996, median income increased by 

23.3 percent. Real income increased for about two-thirds of taxpayers in this group and 

at least doubled for 14.5 percent. The results reported in Table 3 demonstrate that over 

the 1996 to 2005 period, incomes rose for the majority of households, and that upward 

income mobility was the greatest among those that began the period in the lowest income 

groups. 

Table 3: Were taxpayers better off in 2005 than in 1996? 

Absolute Income Mobility, 1996 to 2005 

Distribution of Percentage Changes in Income from 1996 to 2005 in $2005 Percent Change in: 

Decreased Increased 

1996 Income more than Decreased Decreased Increased Increased Increased 100% or Mean Median 

Quintile 50% 25 to 50% up to 50% up to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% more Total Income Income 

Lowest 6.8 4.6 6.9 8.6 8.7 15.0 49.4 100.0 232.5 90.5 

Second 6.7 7.8 12.6 16.6 14.7 17.5 24.1 100.0 70.6 34.8 

Middle 6.6 10.1 14.8 20.2 15.5 18.3 14.5 100.0 43.1 23.3 

Fourth 7.9 10.6 17.3 21.7 17.6 15.8 9.1 100.0 28.3 16.6 

Highest 14.0 14.0 17.3 19.5 14.0 12.7 8.5 100.0 26.2 10.0 

Top 10% 18.6 15.6 16.4 17.1 10.9 12.0 9.6 100.0 27.6 2.9 

Top 5% 25.0 16.3 15.4 13.3 9.4 9.6 11.1 100.0 29.5 -6.8 

Top 1% 38.9 13.8 12.1 8.6 6.0 7.6 13.0 100.0 12.5 -25.8 

All Income 

8.6 9.7 14.2 17.7 14.3 15.8 19.7 100.0 38.0 24.2 Groups 

Notes: The table uses the tax returns of primary and secondary non-dependent taxpayers who were age 25 or over in 1996 and filed for both 

1996 and 2005 Income breaks for the quintiles and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where the 

primary taxpayer is age 25 and over Income is cash income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix 

Source: Tabulations by the U S Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of Income, Individual 

Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005 

Income Dynamics of the Top 1/100, 1/10, and 1 Percent of the Population 

One of the advantages of using data from income tax returns to examine income mobility 

is that these data include a very detailed and complete sample of the very highest income 

taxpayers. In contrast, most survey data used to study income dynamics, such as the 

PSID, include only a few high-income households and exclude the very highest income 

households altogether. This section examines the income mobility of the top 1 percent of 

the population in detail. 

Approximately 117 million taxpayers who filed tax returns for 1996 and 2005 are 

represented in the sample for this study. Thus, the top 1 percent included about 1.17 

million taxpayers, the top 0.1 percent was about 117,000 thousand taxpayers and the top 

0.01 percent was about 11,700 taxpayers. Table 4 below shows the income mobility of 

the top 1 percent compared to the total tax filing population in 2005. This table uses the 

same measure of relative income mobility as Table 1, but shows the top 1 percent in 

greater detail. 

The central theme that emerges from an examination of the very highest income 

taxpayers is that the composition of this group changes dramatically over time (Table 4). 

The vast majority of taxpayers in this group at the beginning of the 10 year period are 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

absent from this group 10 years later; that is, the very top of the income distribution is 

highly transient. Among those in the top 0.01 percent in 1996, only 25 percent remained 

in this group in 2005. While over 80 percent (82.4 = 24.2 + 32.9 + 25.3) of these 

taxpayers remained within the top 1 percent in 2005, 6 percent dropped out of the top 

income quintile. Similarly, about 25 percent of those who were in the top 0.1 percent in 

1996, but below the top 0.01 percent, remained in this group in 2005. About 3.8 percent 

of these taxpayers moved to the top 0.01 percent and over 70 percent moved further down 

in the income distribution. 

Table 4: How did the incomes of the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 1996 change relative to the total population? 

Income Mobility of the Top 1 Percent Relative to the Total Population 

 Percent Distr bution by 2005 Income Percentile 

1996 Income Below top 

Percentile 20% 10 to 20% 5 to 10% 1 to 5% 0.1 to 1% 0.01 to 0.1% Top .01% All 

0.1 to 1% 12.0 6.0 8.1 34.2 35.1 4.2 0.3 100.0 

0.01 to 0.1% 8.4 2.9 4.3 16.8 39.1 24.7 3.8 100.0 

Top .01% 6.0 1.1 1.6 9.1 24.2 32.9 25.3 100.0 

All Income 

72.9 13.7 7.0 5.2 1.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 Groups 

Notes: The table includes taxpayers age 25 or over and in the top 1 percent of tax returns in 1996 who filed for both 1996 and 2005. 

Income breaks for the quintiles and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where the primary 

taxpayer is age 25 and over. Income is cash income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix. 

Source: Tabulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of Income, 

Individual Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005. 

The data also indicate that the incomes of many taxpayers at the highest income levels 

are very volatile. Table 5 shows that real incomes increased for about 26 percent (25.6 = 

4.8 + 3.5 +4.9 + 12.4) of taxpayers in the top .01 percent in 1996. On the other hand, 59 

percent of taxpayers in the top 0.01 percent experienced declines in real income of at 

least 50 percent. Similarly, 52 percent of those in the top 0.1 percent, but below the top 

0.01 percent, experienced income declines of at least 50 percent. These results illustrate 

that the incomes of a significant portion of those in the very highest income classes in a 

given year are transitory and not maintained over time. 

Table 5: Absolute Income Mobility of the Top 1 Percent in 1996: Distribution of Changes in Income by 2005 

Distribution of Percentage Changes in Income in $2005 

Decreased Increased 

1996 Income more than Decreased Decreased Increased Increased Increased 100% or 

Percentile 50% 25 to 50% up to 25% up to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 100% more Total 

0.1 to 1% 37.4 14.1 12.6 8.9 6.2 7.9 13.0 100.0 

0.01 to 0.1% 51.9 10.8 8.1 6.0 4.4 5.6 13.2 100.0 

Top .01% 59.1 9.3 6.2 4.8 3.5 4.9 12.4 100.0 

All Income 

8.6 9.7 14.2 17.7 14.3 15.8 19.7 100.0 Groups 

Notes: The table includes taxpayers age 25 or over and in the top 1 percent of tax returns in 1996 who filed for both 1996 and 

2005. Income breaks for the quintiles and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where 

the primary taxpayer is age 25 and over. Income is cash income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix. 

Source: Tabulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of Income, 

Individual Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 shows the mean and median incomes of taxpayers in the top 1 percent in 1996 

and 2005 and the percentage changes over time. As in Table 5, this table shows that the 

real incomes of the majority of those in the very top income classes in a given year are 

likely to be lower in a later year. Thus, the median income of those in the top 0.01 

percent of taxpayers in 1996 fell by 64.6 percent from $11.6 million to $4.1 million. The 

pattern was similar, if less dramatic, for the other subgroups of the top 1 percent in 1996. 

The basic result is that the income of many of the highest-income taxpayers is transitory. 

Thus, for the majority of this group at least, the rich do not get richer. Instead, their 

income drops to a lower level, albeit generally to a level well above average. 

Table 6: How did the Absolute Incomes of the Top 1 Percent in 1996 Change by 2005? 

1996 Income Mean Income Median Income 

Percentile 1996 2005 % Change 1996 2005 % Change 

0.1 to 1% 654,953 801,672 22.4 557,503 412,433 -26.0 

0.01 to 0.1% 2,854,752 3,150,686 10.4 2,375,946 1,180,878 -50.3 

Top 0.01% 17,518,043 14,391,130 -17.8 11,592,130 4,102,806 -64.6 

All Income 

Groups 70,420 97,206 38.0 48,684 60,487 24.2 

Notes: The table includes taxpayers age 25 or over and in the top 1 percent of tax returns in 1996 who filed for both 

1996 and 2005. Income breaks for the quintiles and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns 

for each year, where the primary taxpayer is age 25 and over. Income is cash income as defined in the Technical 

Appendix. 

Source: Tabulations by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis, using data from IRS Statistics of 

Income, Individual Income Tax Files for tax years 1996 and 2005. 

Has Income Mobility Increased or Decreased Over Time?: Comparing 1996-2005 to 

1987-1996 

Some studies have argued that income mobility decreased in the 1990s as compared to 

earlier periods.22 The income tax data used for this study can be used to compare income 

mobility in the 1996 to 2005 period with income mobility in the 1987 to 1996 period.23 

Both time periods begin and end roughly during the middle of periods of economic 

expansion and thus should allow for comparisons that are not greatly affected by the 

business cycle. 

Table 7 shows comparable mobility data for the two time periods using the first measure 

of relative income mobility that compares each initial period sample to the total 

population in the ending year. While the mobility measure in this table is comparable to 

that in Table 1, the sample population follows tax households as measured by the tax 

22 See, for example, Bradbury and Katz (2002a, 2002b). Kopczuk, Saez and Song (2007) conclude that 

both short-term and long-term earnings mobility among all workers has been fairly constant since about 

1950. 

23 The mobility data for the 1987 to 1996 period are taken from Auten and Gee (2007) who examined 

income mobility for that period using a large panel sample of individual income tax returns and income and 

mobility measures similar to those in this study. 

12 
 

 

 

return of the primary taxpayer.24 This sample restriction is necessary in order to allow 

comparable analysis for the two time periods.25 

For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the income mobility over the 1987 

to 1996 period and the lower row shows the income mobility over the 1996 to 2005 

period. Thus, one can examine how income mobility changed by comparing the upper 

and lower rows for the various initial and final income quintile combinations. For 

example, the upper left part of the table shows that 38.9 percent of taxpayers in the lowest 

income quintile in 1987 remained in the lowest quintile in 1996, while 37.8 percent of 

those in the lowest quintile in 1996 were in the lowest quintile in 2005. Thus, the degree 

of upward mobility from the lowest quintile periods is essentially the same in the two 

time periods: 61.1 percent from 1987 to 1996 and 62.2 percent from 1996 to 2005. 

The 1.1 percentage point difference (37.8 percent versus 38.9 percent) for the upper left 

cells is neither economically nor statistically meaningful, nor are other differences of a 

few percentage points. The reason is that each cell of the table is based on a sample, 

albeit a very large one, and the values are subject to sampling error, as well as 

measurement error from misreported incomes. An examination of the various cells 

suggests that income mobility was approximately the same in almost all income groups 

during these time periods. This result may seem surprising given that other studies have 

reported widening income gaps over time. However, it may indicate that increases in 

absolute mobility have been able to offset any effects of wider income gaps. 

A few differences, however, may be large enough for further analysis. For example, the 

percentage of households in the top income quintile that remained there increased from 

roughly 68 percent to 73 percent. Interestingly, the percentage of the top 1 percent that 

remained in the top 1 percent stayed the same, about 45 percent to 46 percent in both 

periods. This result suggests that the decrease in downward mobility occurred among 

households in the top 20 percent, but below the top 1 percent of the population.26 In 

addition, the percentage of households in the middle-income quintile that moved to a 

higher income quintile increased by 4.8 percentage points (4.8 = (31.1 – 28.4) + (16.3 – 

14.2)), a change that may suggest slightly greater upward mobility among middle-income 

households. While these differences are interesting, more careful analysis is needed to 

understand them, such as whether they represent changes among certain income or 

24 The analysis in this section is based on households as defined for income tax purposes, which differs in 

some cases from households as defined for Census studies and in various surveys. Since the definitions of 

“income tax units” and “households” are the same in most cases, this section uses the term “households” in 

describing the family units reflected on the income tax returns.

25 Auten and Gee (2007) examined the income mobility of tax households, following the primary taxpayer. 

The sample for Tables 7 and 8 differs from the sample used for the prior sections of the current study in 

that secondary taxpayers are not followed if they file separately in the ending year. An extension of the 

analysis would be to apply the analytical framework of the current study by tracking primary and secondary 

taxpayers separately in the data for the earlier period. 26 The more detailed version of this table provided in the Technical Appendix (Table A.4) shows that the 

percentages of households remaining in the top 5 percent and top 10 percent of households increased. 

Thus, the decrease in downward mobility occurred for all but the top 1 percent of households. 

13 
 

occupational groups. The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is 

approximately the same in the last 10 years as it was in the previous decade. 

Table 7: Income Mobility Relative to the Total Tax Filing Population, Age 25 and Over, 

1987-1996 and 1996-2005
 

Initial Income Time End of Period Income Quintile (1996 or 2005) 

Quintile Period Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Total Top 1% 

Lowest 1987-1996 38.9 28.3 14.9 10.6 7.3 100.0 0.3 

1996-2005 37.8 27.1 16.1 11.8 7.2 100.0 0.3 

Second 1987-1996 14.2 33.8 26.4 16.4 9.3 100.0 0.2 

1996-2005 15.8 30.1 28.0 17.2 9.0 100.0 0.2 

Middle 1987-1996 6.1 17.4 33.9 28.4 14.2 100.0 0.3 

1996-2005 5.9 14.0 32.6 31.1 16.3 100.0 0.3 

Fourth 1987-1996 3.0 7.5 19.4 40.1 30.0 100.0 0.5 

1996-2005 3.1 5.7 15.5 41.9 33.8 100.0 0.3 

Highest 1987-1996 1.8 2.5 7.3 20.6 67.8 100.0 5.4 

1996-2005 2.0 2.0 5.7 17.2 73.2 100.0 4.8 

Top 1% 1987-1996 2.1 0.9 2.5 4.7 89.9 100.0 46.0 

1996-2005 2.7 1.0 1.5 4.5 90.3 100.0 44.7 

All Income 1987-1996 11.3 16.5 20.1 24.1 28.0 100.0 1.5 

Groups 1996-2005 11.7 14.7 19.1 24.4 30.0 100.0 1.3 

Notes: For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the 1987-1996 period and the lower row shows the 1996-2005 

period. Each row sums to 100 percent across the five quintiles. The table includes returns of households where the primary 

taxpayer filed in both years and is age 25 or over in the initial year. Income breaks for the quintiles and top percentiles are 

based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where the primary taxpayer is age 25 and over. Income is cash 

income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix. 

Source: U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis, 1987-1996 Family Panel, Tax Year 1996 and 2005 Individual 

Income Tax Files. 

An important related question is whether absolute income mobility changed over this 

time period. As shown in Table 8 below, absolute income mobility increased at all 

income levels in the 1996 to 2005 time period as compared to the 1987 to 1996 time 

period. For example, median incomes of taxpayers in the lowest income quintile 

increased by 81 percent in the 1987 to 1996 period, but by 109 percent in the more recent 

period. Similarly, median incomes of taxpayers in the middle quintile increased by 9 

percent in the earlier period and 26 percent in the more recent period. Median incomes of 

taxpayers in the top quintile declined nearly 2 percent in the earlier period, but increased 

nearly 9 percent in the more recent period. Finally, the median income of taxpayers 

initially in the top 1 percent for each period declined by about 23 percent to 24 percent in 

each time period. The percentages of each initial income group whose real incomes 

doubled also increased for every income group. The percentage of taxpayers initially in 

the lowest income quintile whose income doubled increased from 47.3 percent to 53.5 

percent, for example. Overall, the table shows that upward absolute income mobility 

increased in the most recent decade as compared to the previous decade. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 8: Absolute Income Mobility of Households Age 25 and Over, 1987-1996 and 1996-2005 

Percent Distribution of Changes in Income 

Initial Income 

Quintile 

Time 

Period Decreased 

more than Decreased Increased 

in 2005 Dollars 

Increased 

Increased 

100% or Mean Median 

% Change in: 

50% 5 to 50% No change 5 to 50% 50 to 100% more Income Income 

Lowest 1987-1996 8.7 10.3 4.0 17.0 12.8 47.3 247.5 80.6 

1996-2005 6.8 9.3 2.6 14.2 13.7 53.5 284.6 108.7 

Second 1987-1996 6.0 22.0 8.7 28.0 14.8 20.6 53.9 22.1 

1996-2005 6.6 17.1 5.3 28.4 15.9 26.8 82.6 38.0 

Middle 1987-1996 7.0 29.2 10.7 28.7 13.2 11.2 30.9 9.1 

1996-2005 6.0 20.2 7.6 31.0 17.0 18.3 52.5 26.2 

Fourth 1987-1996 8.1 34.5 10.2 30.9 9.6 6.6 15.6 2.3 

1996-2005 6.7 25.1 7.9 34.1 15.6 10.7 15.6 17.0 

Highest 1987-1996 14.2 36.3 9.1 25.6 7.4 7.5 9.6 -1.8 

1996-2005 12.5 28.9 8.3 30.2 11.9 8.2 25.0 8.7 

Top 1% 1987-1996 37.0 26.7 4.8 14.3 6.6 10.7 1.6 -23.8 

1996-2005 36.7 25.8 4.3 13.3 7.3 12.6 13.6 -23.4 

All Income 1987-1996 9.0 27.6 8.8 26.4 11.3 17.0 24.1 11.1 

Groups 1996-2005 7.9 20.8 6.5 28.1 14.7 22.0 41.0 30.2 

Notes: For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the distribution of changes over the 1987-1996 period and the lower row shows 

the 1996-2005 period Each row sums to 100 percent across the first six columns The table includes returns of households where the primary 

taxpayer filed in both years and is age 25 or over in the initial year Income breaks for the base year quintiles and top percentiles are based on 

the tax returns of primary taxpayers whose age is 25 and over Income is cash income in 2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix 

Source: U S Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis, 1987-1996 Family Panel, Tax Year 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files 

Conclusions 

This study examined income mobility of individual taxpayers age 25 and over for the 

period from 1996 through 2005 using information reported on individual income tax 

returns. The key findings are that there was considerable income mobility of individuals 

in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period and that the degree of income 

mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior comparable period (1987 

through 1996). 

The analysis found that more than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure and 55 

percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between 1996 and 

2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of 

those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group by 2005. 

Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 

1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting 

for inflation. In addition, the real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over 

this period. Further, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups 

increased more than the median incomes of those in the higher income groups. 

The analysis also found that the composition of the very top income groups changes 

dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent by different measures) 

of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 

25 percent of individuals in the top 0.01 percent in 1996 remained in the top 0.01 percent 

in 2005. 

15 
References 

Ackerman, Deena, James Cilke, Julie-Anne Cronin, Janet Holtzblatt, Gillian Hunter, 

Emily Lin, Janet McCubbin and James R. Nunns. “Treasury’s Panel Model for Tax 

Analysis,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, OTA Paper, forthcoming 2007. 

Auten, Gerald and Geoffrey Gee. “Income Mobility in the U.S.: Evidence from income 

Tax Returns for 1987 and 1996,” OTA Paper 99, U.S. Treasury Department, May 

2007. 

Bradbury, Katherine and Jane Katz. “Are Lifetime Incomes Growing More Unequal? 

Looking at New Evidence on Family Income Mobility” Regional Review, No. 4, 

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, September, 2002a. 

_______. “Women’s Labor Market Involvement and Family Income Mobility When 

Marriages End,” New England Economic Review, No. 4, 2002b. 

Carroll, Robert, David Joulfaian and Mark Rider, “Income Mobility: The Recent 

American Experience,” Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State, 

Working Paper 06-20, July 2006. 

Cilke, James, Julie-Anne M. Cronin, Janet McCubbin, James R. Nunns, and Paul Smith. 

“Distributional Analysis: A Longer Term Perspective,” in Proceedings of the NinetyThird Annual Conference on Taxation, 248-258. Washington, D.C.: National Tax 

Association, 2001. 

Congressional Budget Office. “Changes in the Economic Resources of Low-Income 

Households with Children,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, May 2007. 

Congressional Budget Office. “Trends in Earnings Variability Over the Past 20 Years,” 

Congressional Budget Office Paper, April 2007. 

Gittleman, Maury and Mary Joyce. “Have Family Income Mobility Patterns Changed?”, 

Demography 36, No. 3, August 1999, 299-314. 

Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, Harvey Rosen and Robert Weathers. “Horatio Alger Meets the 

Mobility Tables,” Small Business Economics 14, No. 4, June 2000, 243-274. 

Kopczuk, Wojciech, Emmanuel Saez, and Jae Song. “Uncovering the American Dream: 

Inequality and Mobility in Social Security Earnings Data Since 1937,” NBER 

Working Paper 13345, August 2007. 

McMurrer, Daniel and Isabel Sawhill. “Economic Mobility in the United States,” No. 

6722, Urban Institute, 1996a. 

16 
 

McMurrer, Daniel and Isabel Sawhill. “How Much Do Americans Move Up and Down 

the Economic Ladder?,” in the Opportunity in America Series, No. 3. Washington, 

D.C.: Urban Institute November 1996b. 

Piketty, Thomas and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-

1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXVIII, No. 1, February 2003. 

Piketty, Thomas and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, Tables 

and Figures Updated to 2005”, website: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/ , March 2007. 

Stewart, Kenneth and Stephen Reed "CPI research series using current methods, 1978-

98," Monthly Labor Review, June 1999, pp. 29-38. 

Sawhill, Isabel and John E. Morton, Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive 

and Well? Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts website 

economicmobility.org, May 2007. 

Sawhill, Isabel and Mark Condon. “Is U.S. Income Inequality Really Growing?: Sorting 

Out the Fairness Question,” Policy Bites. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1992. 

Sawhill, Isabel V., “Still the Land of Opportunity?,” Urban Institute web site. 

U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United 

States, 2005, Current Population Reports P60-231. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC, 2006. 

U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis. “Household Income Changes over 

Time: Some Basic Questions and Facts,” Tax Notes 56, August 24, 1992a, 1065-

1074. 

U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis. “Household Income Mobility During 

the 1980s: A Statistical Assessment Based on Tax Return Data,” Special Supplement, 

Tax Notes 55, June 1, 1992b. 

17 
Technical Appendix 

The data for this study are based on income reported on individual income tax returns, 

supplemented by data on Social Security benefits from Form SSA-1099 for lower-income 

households that are not required to report this information on their income tax returns. 

The 1996 base year sample uses income tax data for the 1996 tax year from the 1996 IRS 

Statistics of Income (SOI) Individual Income Tax File and from late-filed returns 

included in the 1997 and 1998 income tax files. Tax returns for which the primary 

taxpayer is under age 25 or a dependent filer in 1996 are excluded. In order to obtain the 

maximum number of matches for 2005, the corresponding data for 2005 were obtained 

from the IRS Individual Returns Master File at the IRS Computer Data Warehouse. Data 

for 2005 were obtained for both primary and secondary taxpayers in cases where 

taxpayers who filed jointly in 1996 filed separately or were a secondary taxpayer in a 

different tax unit for 2005. Since the data for late-filed tax returns are not yet available 

for tax year 2005, the analysis does not include such returns. Late-filed tax returns are 

generally 1 percent or 2 percent of tax returns filed, and are generally more complex tax 

returns of high-income tax households. Matches were found for 88 percent of the 

primary and secondary taxpayers in the 1996 sample. This attrition rate is relatively low 

for this time period, and is likely primarily accounted for by the death of the taxpayer. 

Cash income is defined to include wages and salaries, tip income, taxable and tax-exempt 

interest, dividend income, alimony, net income from business (sole proprietorships, 

partnerships, and S corporations), farm income, net rental income, royalty income, net 

capital gain or loss in adjusted gross income (AGI), other gain or loss, unemployment 

compensation, taxable and non-taxable pension and annuity income, Social Security 

benefits (including the non-taxable portion), and other income included in AGI. Net 

operating losses carried over from prior years are added back. Alimony payments are 

subtracted to reflect cash income. These sources of income are as reported on individual 

income tax returns and supplemented by data from information returns on Social Security 

benefits received but not subject to tax. The inclusion of tax-exempt interest and Social 

Security benefits are important improvements to income as generally measured on 

income tax returns. The inclusion of Social Security benefits is particularly important 

because it is the main source of income of many older households. Transfer payments 

subject to tax and thus included in income tax return data accounted for about 84 percent 

of all cash transfer payments in 1995, the closest year to 1996 for which data were 

available. (See Technical Appendix A in Auten and Gee, 2007). 

Overall, the income measure used in this study should generally provide a good measure 

of cash income for most households, though it may understate income for households 

receiving significant amounts of tax-exempt income from workers’ compensation, 

Supplemental Security Income, family assistance, or certain veterans disability programs. 

In addition, the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit is not included 

because cash income is a before-tax measure. Cash income can be affected by changes in 

financial and compensation arrangements. For example, in recent years many mutual 

funds have altered how they manage their portfolios so as to reduce currently taxable 

capital gains of investors (i.e., capital gains distributions), even though the market values 

18 
of the mutual fund shares have been increasing. This change could reduce the incomes of 

households that owned mutual funds in 2005 compared to the income that would have 

been reported absent the change. 

The definition of cash income used in this analysis is similar, but not identical, to 

measures used in other studies. For example, the definition used here includes capital 

gains income, while the Census measure of money income does not include capital gains. 

Some CBO and Treasury analyses have used measures of income that include employerpaid payroll taxes such as the employer share of Social Security taxes and unemployment 

insurance taxes. These employer-paid taxes are considered to be part of the economic 

income of households, but are not included in cash income in this study as households are 

unlikely to regard such items as part of their cash income. Income is adjusted for 

inflation using the Consumer Price Index Research Series Using Current Methods (CPIU-RS). 

Table A.1 shows the cash income levels for the income quintiles and the top 10 percent, 5 

percent, and 1 percent of the taxpayer population. 

Table A.1: Income Breaks for Population Quintiles for 1996 and 

2005 (in 2005 dollars) 

Income Quintile or 1996 2005 

Percentile Income Cutoff Income Cutoff 

Bottom Under 15,326 Under 19,488 

Second 15,326 19,488 

Middle 25,787 33,120 

Median 31,785 41,242 

Third 38,881 51,257 

Fourth 60,897 83,138 

Top 10% 85,387 120,211 

Top 5% 116,425 171,856 

Top 1% 284,603 463,615 

Source: IRS, Statistics of Income 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files. 

Since the data for this study is based on income tax returns, an important question is the 

extent to which the sample accurately represents the total population. The sample 

includes individuals who are either primary or secondary non-dependent taxpayers on tax 

returns filed in 1996. Table A.2 shows that as of 1996, the population of income tax 

filers used in this study included 85.5 percent of the population age 25 and over and 90.7 

percent of the resident population age 25 to 64. Thus, the sample is highly representative 

of the population aged 25 to 64. In addition, to low-income individuals, the 9.1 percent 

of individuals in the non-filing population includes non-compliant taxpayers who should 

have filed returns, late filers, individuals who filed but were claimed as dependents on 

other tax returns, and individuals who retired and began collecting Social Security 

benefits prior to age 65. Representation of younger and older individuals was not as 

complete. About 69 percent of individuals age 20 to 24 and 56 percent of individuals age 

19 
65 and over were represented on tax returns. The filing rate for older households declines 

because Social Security benefits constitute a large portion of the incomes of many older 

households, but are not subject to tax until modified adjusted gross income exceeds 

$32,000 for married couples filing jointly and $25,000 for non-married individuals. 

Table A.2: Comparison of the Adult Tax Filing Population with the U.S. 

Age in 1996 

Resident 

Population,

 July 1, 1996 

1996 Primary and 

Secondary 

Taxpayers 

Taxpayers as Percent 

of Resident Population 

20-24 17,508 12,604 72.0 

25-64 158,675 143,856 90.7 

55-64 21,353 18,831 88.2 

65 and over 33,956 20,893 61.5 

25 and over 192,631 164,749 85.5 

Notes: Secondary taxpayer refers to the spouse of the taxpayer on joint tax returns filed by married 

taxpayers. Dependent taxpayers who are claimed as dependents on other tax returns are excluded 

from the numbers of primary and secondary taxpayers. 

Source: Resident population from Resident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and 

Sex: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999 , U.S. Census Bureau. Numbers of taxpayers from U.S. Treasury 

Department, IRS Statistics of Income, Individual Income Tax Files. 

As shown in the table below, overall attrition in the panel was 16.2 percent. Of the 

18,646 returns for which no tax return was found for 2005, information returns for Social 

Security benefits were found in 4,161 instances or 22 percent. These 4,161 individuals 

are not included in the analysis because of the lack of information about other potential 

sources of income such as interest, dividends, wages and self-employment income. 

While information on the deaths of taxpayers is not available for this panel, based on 

experience with the tax panel for the 1987-1996 period, it is likely that as many as half of 

the missing returns are attributable to the death of the taxpayer. This is suggested by the 

fact that of 14,485 not accounted for by Social Security recipient non-filers, 6,251 or 43 

percent were accounted for by taxpayers over age 65 in 1996. It is likely that several 

thousand additional late-filed 2005 returns could be found in later years. After 

accounting for these factors, the remaining attrition due to factors including noncompliance and income falling below the filing threshold appears to be relatively small. 

20 
 

 

 

 

Table A.3: Attrition in the 1996-2005 Panel of Tax Returns 

Numbers of Non-Dependent Returns Percent Attrition From 1996 Sample 

1996 Income 1996 Only Social No 2005 1996-2005 Only Social No 2005 Total 

Quintile Sample Security Match Panel Security Match Attrition 

Lowest 11,295 925 2,137 8,233 8.2 18.9 27.1 

Second 8,851 889 1,493 6,469 10.0 16.9 26.9 

Middle 9,977 636 1,493 7,848 6.4 15.0 21.3 

Fourth 11,418 415 1,421 9,582 3.6 12.4 16.1 

80-90th pct 6,725 165 776 5,784 2.5 11.5 14.0 

90-95th pct 4,867 106 496 4,265 2.2 10.2 12.4 

95-99th pct 14,795 257 1,900 12,638 1.7 12.8 14.6 

99-99.9 pct 18,700 309 2,045 16,346 1.7 10.9 12.6 

99.9-99.99 pct 19,022 297 1,821 16,904 1.6 9.6 11.1 

Top .01 pct 9,666 162 903 8,601 1.7 9.3 11.0 

Total 115,316 4,161 14,485 96,670 3.6 12.6 16.2 

1996 Age 

25-34 13,251 82 1,568 11,601 0.6 11.8 12.5 

35-44 25,574 160 2,529 22,885 0.6 9.9 10.5 

45-54 31,134 349 2,538 28,247 1.1 8.2 9.3 

55-64 22,732 1,316 1,599 19,817 5.8 7.0 12.8 

65 and over 22,625 2,254 6,251 14,120 10.0 27.6 37.6 

Total 115,316 4,161 14,485 96,670 3.6 12.6 16.2 

Notes: The column labeled "Only Social Security" shows the numbers of cases in which Form SSA-1099 information 

returns were found for 2005 but no income tax return was filed. The column labeled "No 2005 Match" shows the 

numbers of cases for which neither Form SSA-1099 nor a tax return were found for 2005. 

Source: IRS, Statistics of Income 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files. 

The following tables provide the complete mobility comparisons between the 1987-1996 

period and the 1996-2005 period. These more detailed tables show the results for the top 

5 percent and top 10 percent as well as the results for the second measure of relative 

income mobility. 

Table A.4: Income Mobility Relative to the Total Tax Filing Population, Age 25 and Over, 1987-1996 and 1996-2005 

Initial 

Income Time 

End of Period Income Quintile (1996 or 2005) 

Quintile Period Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Total Top 10% Top 5% Top 1% 

Lowest 1987-1996 38.9 28.3 14.9 10.6 7.3 100.0 3.4 1.7 0.3 

1996-2005 37,8 27.1 16.1 11.8 7.2 100.0 2.9 1.5 0.3 

Second 1987-1996 14.2 33.8 26.4 16.4 9.3 100.0 3.2 1.2 0.2 

1996-2005 15.8 30.1 28.0 17.2 9.0 100.0 3.5 1.5 0.2 

Middle 1987-1996 6.1 17.4 33.9 28.4 14.2 100.0 5.6 2.3 0.3 

1996-2005 5.9 14.0 32.6 31.1 16.3 100.0 5.8 2.0 0.3 

Fourth 1987-1996 3.0 7.5 19.4 40.1 30.0 100.0 10.3 3.8 0.5 

1996-2005 3.1 5.7 15.5 41.9 33.8 100.0 11.2 3.8 0.3 

Highest 1987-1996 1.8 2.5 7.3 20.6 67.8 100.0 42.6 23.9 5.4 

1996-2005 2.0 2.0 5.7 17.2 73.2 100.0 46.7 24.6 4.8 

Top 10% 1987-1996 1.8 1.5 4.4 13.6 78.7 100.0 60.6 38.9 9.9 

1996-2005 2.2 1.2 2.9 7.4 86.3 100.0 75.1 58.3 15.7 

Top 5% 1987-1996 1.9 1.4 3.2 8.2 85.2 100.0 73.3 56.3 17.3 

1996-2005 2.7 1.0 1.5 4.5 90.3 100.0 85.0 77.7 44.7 

Top 1% 1987-1996 2.1 0.9 2.5 4.7 89.9 100.0 83.3 75.8 46.0 

1996-2005 2.7 1.0 1.5 4.5 90.3 100.0 85.0 77.7 44.7 

All Income 1987-1996 11.3 16.5 20.1 24.1 28.0 100.0 14.4 7.3 1.5 

Groups 1996-2005 11.7 14.7 19.1 24.4 30.0 100.0 15.3 7.3 1.3 

Notes: For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the 1987-1996 period and the lower row shows the 1996-2005 period The table 

includes returns of households where the primary taxpayer filed for both years and is age 25 or over in the initial year Income breaks for the 

quintiles and top percentiles are based on the full cross-sections of tax returns for each year, where the primary taxpayer is age 25 and over 

Income is cash income as defined in the Technical Appendix 

Source: U S Treasury Department, 1987-1996 Family Panel, Tax Year 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A.5: Income Mobility Relative to the Base Year Population, Age 25 and Over, 1987-1996 and 1996-2005 

Initial 

Income Time 

End of Period Income Quintile (1996 or 2005) 

Quintile Period Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Total Top 10% Top 5% Top 1% 

Lowest 1987-1996 54.6 22.1 11.1 7.5 4.7 100.0 2.2 1.1 0.2 

1996-2005 54.1 22.8 11.1 7.8 4.3 100.0 2.0 1.1 0.2 

Second 1987-1996 25.5 36.5 20.3 12.0 5.7 100.0 2.0 0.6 0.2 

1996-2005 27.1 36.7 19.7 10.9 5.7 100.0 2.2 1.1 0.2 

Middle 1987-1996 12.0 24.6 32.9 19.9 10.6 100.0 4.2 1.7 0.3 

1996-2005 10.6 26.0 33.1 20.5 9.7 100.0 3.5 1.4 0.3 

Fourth 1987-1996 5.1 12.3 25.0 37.0 20.5 100.0 6.8 2.7 0.3 

1996-2005 5.4 10.4 26.7 37.7 19.9 100.0 6.7 2.3 0.3 

Highest 1987-1996 2.7 4.6 10.8 23.5 58.4 100.0 34.8 18.9 4.1 

1996-2005 2.8 4.1 9.6 23.1 60.4 100.0 35.7 19.1 4.1 

Top 10% 1987-1996 2.5 3.0 6.7 14.9 72.9 100.0 52.9 31.5 7.6 

1996-2005 2.7 2.7 6.0 14.0 74.7 100.0 54.1 33.0 7.6 

Top 5% 1987-1996 2.5 2.4 4.6 9.6 80.9 100.0 67.1 47.5 13.5 

1996-2005 2.9 2.3 4.6 8.9 81.4 100.0 68.5 50.6 14.0 

Top 1% 1987-1996 2.5 1.6 3.5 6.1 86.3 100.0 80.0 71.6 38.1 

1996-2005 3.4 1.2 2.9 4.7 87.8 100.0 81.9 74.5 40.4 

All Income 1987-1996 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 

Groups 1996-2005 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 10.0 5.0 1.0 

Notes: For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the 1987-1996 period and the lower row shows the 1996-2005 period The table 

includes returns of households where the primary taxpayer filed in both years and is age 25 or over in the initial year Income breaks for the 

quintiles and top percentiles use only the tax returns where the primary taxpayer is age 25 and over in the base year and filed in both years 

Income is cash income as defined in the Technical Appendix 

Source: U S Treasury Department, 1987-1996 Family Panel, Tax Year 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files 

Table A.6: Absolute Income Mobility of Households Age 25 and Over, 1987-1996 and 1996-2005 

Distribution of Percentage Changes in Income in $2005 Percent Change in: 

Initial Decreased Increased Increased 

Income Base more than Decreased No Increased 50 to 100% or Mean Median 

Quintile Year 50% 5 to 50% change 5 to 50% 100% more Income Income 

Lowest 1987-1996 8.7 10.3 4.0 17.0 12.8 47.3 247.5 80.6 

1996-2005 6.8 9.3 2.6 14.2 13.7 53.5 284.6 108.7 

Second 1987-1996 6.0 22.0 8.7 28.0 14.8 20.6 53.9 22.1 

1996-2005 6.6 17.1 5.3 28.4 15.9 26.8 82.6 38.0 

Middle 1987-1996 7.0 29.2 10.7 28.7 13.2 11.2 30.9 9.1 

1996-2005 6.0 20.2 7.6 31.0 17.0 18.3 52.5 26.2 

Fourth 1987-1996 8.1 34.5 10.2 30.9 9.6 6.6 15.6 2.3 

1996-2005 6.7 25.1 7.9 34.1 15.6 10.7 15.6 17.0 

Highest 1987-1996 14.2 36.3 9.1 25.6 7.4 7.5 9.6 -1.8 

1996-2005 12.5 28.9 8.3 30.2 11.9 8.2 25.0 8.7 

Top 10% 1987-1996 18.0 34.7 8.1 22.6 7.6 8.9 10.3 -4.0 

1996-2005 16.4 29.6 7.8 26.0 11.2 8.9 25.8 4.0 

Top 5% 1987-1996 23.2 31.7 6.5 20.3 8.0 10.2 9.4 -8.2 

1996-2005 22.6 29.6 6.8 20.3 10.3 10.4 27.7 -3.7 

Top 1% 1987-1996 37.0 26.7 4.8 14.3 6.6 10.7 1.6 -23.8 

1996-2005 36.7 25.8 4.3 13.3 7.3 12.6 13.6 -23.4 

All Income 1987-1996 9.0 27.6 8.8 26.4 11.3 17.0 24.1 11.1 

Groups 1996-2005 7.9 20.8 6.5 28.1 14.7 22.0 41.0 30.2 

Notes: For each initial income quintile, the upper row shows the distribution of changes over the 1987-1996 period and the lower 

row shows the 1996-2005 period. Each row sums to 100 percent across the first six columns. The table includes returns of 

households where the primary taxpayer filed in both years and is age 25 or over in the initial year. Income breaks for the base year 

quintiles and top percentiles are based on the tax returns of primary taxpayers whose age is 25 and over. Income is cash income in 

2005 dollars as defined in the Technical Appendix. 

Source: U.S. Treasury Department, 1987-1996 Family Panel, Tax Year 1996 and 2005 Individual Income Tax Files. 

22