Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998
2003 · paper · Economics
Builds consistent series of top income and wage shares in the U.S. from 1913 to 1998 using tax returns. Top shares follow a U-shaped pattern, which the authors link to progressive taxation for capital incomes and social norms for wages.
Checked: PDF from nber.org, fetched 5 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
13 findings
Substance The text says 'the share of the salaried occupation declines steadily within the top percentile from 28% to less than 10%', but Table 2 starts at 30.5% (P99-99.5).
- p. 15 Section 3.2, discussion of Table 2
declines steadily within the top percentile from 28% to less than 10%
- p. 84 Table 2, P99-99.5, Salaried Professions
30.5%
- p. 15 Section 3.2, paragraph on Table 2
declines steadily within the top percentile from 28% to less than 10% at the very top
Judge's note: Table 2 (p.84), column (3) reads 30.5, 22.1, 16.2, 12.0, 8.0%. The value 28% appears nowhere in the table, and 30.5 does not round to 28. The end value (8.0%, 'less than 10%') matches.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 1 gives the P90-95 average income as "$94,000", but its stated source (Table A4, row 1998) has 93,167.
- p. 83 Table 1, row P90-95, col (5)
$94,000
- p. 94 Table A4, row 1998, col P90-95
93,167
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 1 (p. 83) gives 'Table A0 and Table A4, row 1998' as its source. The other cells are ordinary roundings of Table A4 values: 266,684 to $267,000; 493,988 to $494,000; 1,492,150 to $1,490,000; 81,687 to $81,700. Table A4 (p. 94), 1998, P90-95 is 93,167, and no rounding of that gives $94,000.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table A4 col. (7) P0-90 levels for 1913-1947 (e.g. 1917 "9,127") do not satisfy average = 0.9×P0-90 + 0.1×P90-100 with the Table A0 col. (5) average (1917 "13,204"); from 1948 on the identity holds.
- p. 93 Table A4, row 1917, cols (1) and (7)
9,127
- p. 85 Table A0, row 1917, col (5)
13,204
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the images on p093 (Table A4) and p085 (Table A0). For 1948 the identity holds: (18579−6265.1)/0.9 = 13,682 against 13,683 printed. Before 1948 it does not: 1917 gives 8,761 against 9,127 printed, 1940 gives 7,636 against 7,980, and 1947 gives 13,588 against 14,095. The pre-1948 printed values match exactly what you get if the Table A0 average is first raised by 2.5%: (1.025×avg − 0.1×P90-100)/0.9 gives 9,127, 7,980 and 14,095. Footnote 59 (p.37) says only that top income levels and top shares for 1913-1947 were raised by about 2.5% for the 'married women' bias. It does not say the overall average was raised or how P0-90 was built. The Table A1 identity cited on p.~40 (top share = level / A0 average) fits the P90-100 levels, so the pre-1948 P0-90 column does not fit the A0 averages. Only the authors can say which figure is intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The insert line reads 'Figure 10B: Dividends, retained earnings and corporate tax in the U.S., 1929-1998', but the figure is titled '... 1929-1950' and its axis ends in 1950.
- p. 18 Insert line for Figure 10B
Insert Figure 10B: Dividends, retained earnings and corporate tax in the U.S., 1929-1998
- p. 71 Figure 10B title
Figure 10B: Dividends, retained earnings and corporate tax in the U.S., 1929-1950
- p. 18 Figure insertion list
Figure 10B: Dividends, retained earnings and corporate tax in the U.S., 1929-1998
- p. 71 Figure 10B caption
1929-1950
Judge's note: The p.18 image shows the insert line with 1929-1998. The p.71 upright image shows the figure title 1929-1950 and an x-axis running 1929-1950.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The text says 'We report on Figure 17 ... from 1916 to 1960', and the insert line reads '1916-1960', but Figure 17 is titled '1917-1960' and its data start in 1917.
- p. 24 Section 4.1
bill in the economy from 1916 to 1960
- p. 25 Insert line Figure 17
P99-99.9, 1916-1960.
- p. 78 Figure 17 title
1917- 1960
Judge's note: The same paragraph on p.24 says the officer compensation statistic is reported 'starting in 1917'. The p.78 figure title reads 1917-1960, and its first data point is 1917.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In section A3: "(this corresponds to the “variant 3” series described in section A3 above)" – the variants are described in section A2.
- p. 45 Appendix A3, paragraph on Table A8
(this corresponds to the “variant 3” series described in section A3 above)
- p. 45 A3, table A8 paragraph
described in section A3 above
- p. 45 A3, end of capital gains paragraph
this corresponds to the “variant 3” series described in section A3 above
Judge's note: The page image (p.45) shows 'section A3 above'. Section headings in the text place this paragraph in A3 ('Computing top fractiles income composition'). Variants 1-3 are defined in A2, and the same sentence correctly cites 'section A2 above' for variants 1 and 2.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Gottschalk and Smeeding (2000) and Lindert (2000) are both cited as chapters of the Handbook of Income Distribution (eds Atkinson and Bourguignon) with the same page range, "167-216, North-Holland".
- p. 56 References, Gottschalk and Smeeding (2000)
by A. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon, 167-216, North-Holland.
- p. 57 References, Lindert (2000)
Handbook of Income Distribution, edited by A. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon, 167-216, North-Holland.
- p. 57 References, Gottschalk and Smeeding
North-Holland, Volume
- p. 57 References, Lindert (2000)
167-216, North-Holland.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both reference entries (pp. 56-57) show '167-216' for different chapters of the same edited volume. Two chapters cannot occupy the same pages, so at least one range is wrong. The files do not show which one; the true page ranges would need checking against the handbook.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Figure 7 source line, "(Table A4, col. P99.5-100)", points to the income-levels table, but the figure plots capital-income and dividend shares, which are composition series.
- p. 67 Figure 7 source line
Source: Authors' computations based on income tax returns (Table A4, col. P99.5-100)
- p. 67 Figure 7 source note
Table A4, col. P99.5-100
- p. 65 Figures 5 and 6 source notes
Table A7, year 1929
Judge's note: Figure 7 (p. 67) plots capital-income and dividend shares in percent. Table A4 is titled 'Top fractiles income levels (excluding capital gains)'. Composition by income source is in Table A7 ('Income composition by sources of income and by fractiles'), which Figures 5 and 6 cite. The pointer should presumably be Table A7.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Figure 12 y-axis is labelled "Average estate (in thousands of 1998 dollars)", but the tick labels are full dollar amounts ($0 to $2,200,000).
- p. 73 Figure 12 y-axis
Average estate (in thousands of 1998 dollars)
Judge's note: Page image p. 73: the ticks carry $ signs and full digits. Table C3 is in thousands, so P98-99 at about 1,300 (thousand) plots at about $1,300,000. The unit label conflicts with the tick values and should read 'in 1998 dollars', as in Figure 11.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Figure 18 axis reads "CEOs pay (thousands of 1999 dollars)", while Table B4, whose values the figure plots, is headed "CEO pay statistics (in thousands of 1998 dollars)".
- p. 79 Figure 18 y-axis
CEOs pay (thousands of 1999 dollars)
- p. 115 Table B4 header
CEO pay statistics (in thousands of 1998 dollars)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The plotted 1970 points match Table B4: top-100 average about 1,255 and rank 100 about 966. On the right scale, the average wage of about $32,500 also matches B4's 32,522 in 1998 dollars. The same values carry two different price bases, so one label is wrong. Only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Figure 21 (top 0.1% share) source note cites "table A1, col. P99-100" for France and the U.S.; the top 0.1% column is P99.9-100.
- p. 82 Figure 21 source line
table A1, col. P99-100); U.S.: see this paper, table A1, col. P99-100)
- p. 82 Figure 21 source note
U.S.: see this paper, table A1, col. P99-100
- p. 88 Table A1, 1998 row
6.04
- p. 82 Figure 21 source note
col. P99-100); U.S.: see this paper, table A1, col. P99-100)
Judge's note: Page 82: the plotted U.S. 1998 point is about 6%. In Table A1 (p. 88), the 1998 row has P99-100 = 14.58 and P99.9-100 = 6.04. So the plotted series is P99.9-100, and the pointer looks copied from Figure 20.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table B1 note reads "Average wage is column (5) over column (2)." Column (5) is the average wage itself and column (2) is married women employees. The printed values equal column (4)/column (1) deflated by the CPI in column (7).
- p. 110 Table B1 notes
Average wage is column (5) over column (2).
Judge's note: I checked the column headers on p109 and the notes on p110. The columns are (1) total employees, (2) married women employees, (3) tax units with wage, (4) wage bill in current $mn, (5) average wage in 1998 $, (6) officer share and (7) CPI (1998 = 100). For 1929, 50,460/37,699/10.482×100,000 = 12,769.5, against 12,769 printed. Dividing by col. (3) instead does not match. So the note points to the wrong columns.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording B2 says the wage tables contain total wages "from 1927 to 1935" and only the number of taxpayers "from 1936 to 1941", but footnote 93 says "For years 1935 to 1941, and from 1944 to 1961, the published tables report only the number of tax units in each bracket."
- p. 48 Appendix B2
The tables contain both the number of taxpayers and total wages reported by bracket from 1927 to 1935.
- p. 50 Footnote 93
For years 1935 to 1941, and from 1944 to 1961, the published tables report only the number of tax units in each bracket.
- p. 48 B2
The tables contain only the number of taxpayers (and not total wages reported) from 1936 to 1941.
- p. 50 footnote 93
For years 1935 to 1941, and from 1944 to 1961, the published tables report only the number of tax units
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page images of p.48 and p.50 show both statements. Footnote 93 is attached to the B2 sentence 'In a number of years, however, the IRS only published the number of returns and not the amounts', so both passages concern the wage tables. They disagree about 1935, and only the authors can say which is right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
28 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label The estate figures' source line reads "Authors' computations based on income tax returns (Table C3, ...)", but the Table C3 series come from estate tax returns.
- p. 73 Figure 12 source
Source: Authors' computations based on income tax returns (Table C3, col. P98-99, and P99-99.5)
Judge's note: Appendix C2 (p. 53) says the estate series are built from estate tax tables (McCubbin 1990; Statistics of Income estate tables). The source lines of Figure 12 (p. 73) and Figure 11 say 'income tax returns', which mislabels the data source.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The paper says, 'looking at Figures 3 and 4, the average increase in top shares from 1985 to 1994 is not significantly higher than the increase from 1994 to 1998 or from 1978 to 1984'. This does not fit the top 1% series (Figure 3) for the 1978-1984 comparison.
- p. 13 Section 3.1
top shares from 1985 to 1994 is not significantly higher than the increase from 1994 to 1998 or from 1978 to 1984.
- p. 12 Section 3.1, last paragraph
looking at Figures 3 and 4, the average increase in
- p. 13 Section 3.1, continued
top shares from 1985 to 1994 is not significantly higher than the increase from 1994 to 1998 or from 1978 to 1984
- p. 88 Table A1, col P99-100
9.09
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read Table A1 (p.88, upright image), column P99-100: 1978 7.95, 1984 8.89, 1985 9.09, 1994 12.85, 1998 14.58. Reviewer 2 used 13.33 for 1994, but that is the 1995 value. Per year, the top 1% rose about 0.42 pp in 1985-94, about 0.43 pp in 1994-98 and about 0.16 pp in 1978-84. The claim holds against 1994-98 but not against 1978-84. For the top 0.01% (P99.99-100: 0.58, 0.98, 0.97, 1.73, 2.57) the claim roughly holds (about 0.084 vs 0.067 pp per year). 'Significantly' is informal, so this is put to the authors as a wording query.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The text says 'The share of independent professions also declines from 20% to 5%', but Table 2 column (4) runs from 19.0% to 3.1% at P99.999-100.
- p. 15 Section 3.2
The share of independent professions also declines from 20% to 5%.
- p. 84 Table 2 column (4)
3.1%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table 2 column (4) reads 19.0, 14.0, 8.0, 5.1, 3.1%. The 5% matches the P99.99-99.999 row, not the very top. The text rounds loosely elsewhere too ('30% to 40%' for 30.3% to 42.6%), so this is minor.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Section 3.3 says top rates 'were decreased to mild levels from 1924 to 1932. However, starting in 1933 ... top rates have been set at very high levels'. Section 4.4 says 'Starting in 1932 ... the Roosevelt administration decided to increase substantially the top rates ... from 20% to 55%'.
- p. 21 Section 3.3, para 1
decreased to mild levels from 1924 to 1932. However, starting in 1933, and continuously until the 1980s, top rates have been set at very high levels
- p. 30 Section 4.4
Starting in 1932, during the worst part of the Great depression, the Roosevelt administration decided to increase substantially the top rates of the income tax from 20% to 55%
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: Roosevelt took office in March 1933, which bears only on the attribution. Within the paper the start year is inconsistent: 1933 on p.21 versus 1932 on p.30, and the text layer also has 'continuously high since 1932' (main.txt line 708). Only the authors can say which year and attribution they intend.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Section 4.3 says "Contrary to tax return evidence, CEO pay does not seem to increase sharply between 1986 and 1988", but Table B4 shows top-100 average pay rising from 4,665 (1986) to 7,118 (1987) and 6,393 (1988), and rank-10 pay rising from 6,562 to 12,368 and then 12,756.
- p. 28 Section 4.3
to tax return evidence, CEO pay does not seem to increase sharply between
- p. 115 Table B4, rows 1986-1988
1987 33,189 12,368 4,480 2,809 7,118
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I read the text on PDF pp.28-29 and Table B4 (p.115). Col (6) 'Total pay average 100' is 4,665 / 7,118 / 6,393, and col (3) 'Total pay rank 10' is 6,562 / 12,368 / 12,756 for 1986-88. Rank 50 and rank 100 rise less (3,575 to 4,422; 2,470 to 2,880). The text does not say which series or figure it means. On the paper's own table, 'does not seem to increase sharply' is hard to square with these increases, so I am raising it as a wording query.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording A1 says "Since 1944 ... the fraction of tax units actually filing has generally been around 90-95%" and before WWII "usually around 10-15%", but Table A0 col (3) is below 90% in most years from 1944 to 1965 (e.g. 80.0 in 1944, 85.6 in 1948) and 6-9% for much of 1925-1935.
- p. 37 A1
the fraction of tax units actually filing has generally been around 90-95%
- p. 85 Table A0 col (3)
1948 60,825 52,072 85.6
Judge's note: I checked Table A0 col (3) on pp.85-86 (upright images). From 1944 to 1960 the values are 80.0, 84.6, 89.1, 91.7, 85.6, 84.2, 85.0, 87.9, 88.8, 90.0, 87.4, 88.8, 89.3, 89.4, 87.5, 88.4 and 88.9, and 1961-65 is 87.9-90.4. Only from about 1966 is the series generally 91-96%. Before the war, 1925-1935 runs 6.4-9.0%. The word 'generally' softens the claim, so this is a loose summary rather than an error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording A2 says "variant 2 top income shares are always below variant 3 top income (see Figure 4B)", but for P99-100 Table A3 (variant 3) is below Table A2 (variant 2) in 1918 (15.97 vs 16.00) and 1932 (15.56 vs 15.57).
- p. 40 Appendix A2
variant 2 top income shares are always below variant 3 top income (see Figure 4B)
- p. 89 Table A2, 1918, P99-100
16.00
- p. 91 Table A3, 1918, P99-100
15.97
Judge's note: I read Table A2 (p.89) and Table A3 (p.91) in the upright images. P99-100 in 1918 is 16.00 in A2 and 15.97 in A3; in 1932 it is 15.57 in A2 and 15.56 in A3. In 1913-1915 the two are equal. The gaps are tiny, so 'always below' overstates the case rather than misstating it, and 'almost always' or 'never below' would fit the tables.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Footnote 74: "for year 1925, our multiplier is (6/7)*multiplier 1924 + (1/7)*multiplier 1932"; linear weighting between 1924 and 1932 would give 7/8 and 1/8.
- p. 42 Footnote 74
For example, for year 1925, our multiplier is (6/7)*multiplier 1924 + (1/7)*multiplier 1932, etc.
- p. 42 footnote 74
for year 1925, our multiplier is (6/7)*multiplier 1924 + (1/7)*multiplier 1932
- p. 42
For example, for year 1925, our multiplier is (6/7)*multiplier 1924 + (1/7)*multiplier 1932
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The text on p.42 says final estimates use 'a moving average of the multipliers based on years 1924, and 1932'. 1925 is 1 of 8 years from 1924, so linear weights would be 7/8 and 1/8. Weights in sevenths would fit a 7-year span. The weighting rule is not stated, so only the authors can say whether the example or the scheme is meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Table B2/B3 insert lines say the tables cover "each of the years 1927 to 1998", but Table B2 has no rows for 1953, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1963 or 1965.
- p. 51 Insert line for Table B2
of the years 1927 to 1998.
- p. 111 Table B2 year column
1952
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: In the Table B2 image (p. 111) the year column runs 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966. Rows 1942-1945 are present. I searched Appendix B and the footnotes and found no statement explaining these gaps. The Appendix A tables do include those years. The authors should either explain the missing years or change the coverage statement.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Appendix C1 lists only four years without dividend estimates ("we do not provide estimates for these four years", 1942-45), but Table C1 also has no rows for 1953, 1955, 1957, 1959, 1963 and 1965.
- p. 52 Appendix C1
Therefore, we do not provide estimates for these four years.
- p. 116 Table C1 year column
1954
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: In the Table C1 image (p. 116) the years run 1941, then 1946; then 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1966. Apart from an indirect hint on p. 53 ('no discontinuity from 1952 to 1954'), the text does not mention the other missing years.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 1 gives the P95-99 average income as "$143,000", but Table A4 (1998) has 143,647, which rounds to $144,000 under the rounding used in the rest of Table 1.
- p. 83 Table 1, row P95-99, col (5)
$143,000
- p. 94 Table A4, row 1998, col P95-99
143,647
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table A4 (p. 94), 1998, P95-99 = 143,647. All the other Table 1 cells are rounded to the nearest value; for example, 266,684 becomes 267,000. Only truncation would give 143,000. The discrepancy is small, but it is inconsistent with the table's stated source.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Table 2 notes put "clergymen" in both the Salaried Professions definition ("engineers, clergymen, public service") and the Independent professions definition ("authors, clergymen, lawyers and judges").
- p. 84 Table 2 notes
engineers, clergymen, public service: civil and military
- p. 84 Table 2 notes
architects, artists, authors, clergymen, lawyers and judges
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the notes under Table 2 on p. 84. The text on p. 15 allows individuals to fall into more than one group, but that does not explain why one IRS occupation category is assigned to two groups. Only the authors can say which group it belongs to.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table B2 nested wage shares do not add up for 1996-1998. 1998: P99.5-99.9 "3.91" + P99.9-100 "4.13" = 8.04 vs P99.5-100 "7.95"; P95-99 "12.80" + P99-100 "10.88" = 23.68 vs P95-100 "23.63".
- p. 112 Table B2, row 1998
1998 34.19 23.63 10.88 7.95 4.13 1.62 10.58 12.80 2.95 3.91 2.53
Judge's note: I checked the headers on p111 and the 1978-1998 rows on p112. In 1995 the nested shares add up exactly (3.61+2.91 = 6.52; 12.48+9.25 = 21.73). In 1997 and 1998 they are off by 0.02-0.09 points (1997: 3.84+3.66 = 7.50 vs 7.45). Footnote 92 (p.~45) explains how it happens: for 1996-1998, separate 5/10/20% multipliers were applied by fractile. It does not say the nested shares will then fail to add up, and the table does not reconcile them. The gap is small, so this is an observation.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Page 7 reads 'we are lead to make a number of adjustments'; it should be 'led'.
- p. 9 top of page 7
we are lead to make a number of
Judge's note: The crop of PDF page 9 shows 'lead' in the printed text.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Section 3.1 reads 'high wages loose in relative terms'; it should be 'lose'.
- p. 11 section 3.1, para 2
high wages loose in relative terms
Judge's note: The crop of PDF page 11 shows 'loose' in the printed text.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Section 4.3 cites 'Poterba and Feenberg (1993, 2000) looking at top income shares series ending in 1995'. The reference list and Section 3.1 have 'Feenberg and Poterba (1993, 2000)', with series 'ending in 1992 (and 1995 respectively)'.
- p. 28 Section 4.3
Poterba and Feenberg (1993, 2000)
- p. 56 References
Feenberg, Daniel and James Poterba (1993)
- p. 12 Section 3.1
Feenberg and Poterba (1993, 2000) looking at the top 0.5% income shares series ending in 1992 (and 1995 respectively)
- p. 28 Section 4.3
Poterba and Feenberg (1993, 2000) looking at top income shares series ending in 1995
Judge's note: The reference list on p.56 has 'Feenberg, Daniel and James Poterba (1993)' and '(2000)'. The p.12 crop uses Feenberg and Poterba with end years 1992 and 1995. The p.28 crop reverses the author order and gives 1995 for both. The works are still identifiable, so this is cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 25 reads 'explain a significant part of the WWIIecline in top income shares'; it should be 'WWII decline'.
- p. 18 Footnote 25 (continued)
WWIIecline in top income shares
Judge's note: The fused word is visible in the p.18 page image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 40 reads 'whether top wage shares where higher in the first decade'; it should be 'were'.
- p. 26 footnote 40
top wage shares where higher in the first decade
Judge's note: The crop of footnote 40 shows 'where' in the printed text.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 65 cites "Historical Statistics of the U.S. – Colonial Times to 1970 (1976)", but footnote 58 and the reference list give the same source as 1975.
- p. 38 Footnote 65
Historical Statistics of the U.S. – Colonial Times to 1970 (1976)
- p. 58 References
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1975). Historical Statistics of
- p. 38 footnote 65
Colonial Times to 1970 (1976)
- p. 36 footnote 58
Colonial Times to 1970 (1975)
Judge's note: The page images show footnote 65 on p.38 with (1976), footnote 58 on p.36 with (1975), and the reference list on p.58 reading 'U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (1975)'. There is only one reference entry, so the date is inconsistent.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 59: "The magnitude of the correction was computed by using IRS tables by filling status." – 'filling' should be 'filing'.
- p. 37 footnote 59
IRS tables by filling status
- p. 37
The magnitude of the correction was computed by using IRS tables by filling status.
Judge's note: The page image of footnote 59 (p.37) shows 'filling status'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A2 (ii): "it is always the case than more than 10% of single tax units" – 'than' should be 'that'.
- p. 41 A2 (ii)
it is always the case than more than 10%
- p. 41
it is always the case than more than 10% of single tax units
Judge's note: The page image (p.41) shows 'the case than more than 10%'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 79: "the correction coefficient is about 15,4% (0.4x38.4=15.4)" – a decimal comma where the paper elsewhere uses a decimal point.
- p. 43 Footnote 79
the correction coefficient is about 15,4% (0.4x38.4=15.4)
- p. 43 footnote 79
about 15,4% (0.4x38.4=15.4)
Judge's note: The page image (p.43) shows '15,4%' next to '15.4' in the same parenthesis. The arithmetic itself is right: 0.4×38.4 = 15.36.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 80: "it has always been less than for 4% for the top decile" – stray 'for'.
- p. 44 footnote 80
less than for 4% for the top decile
- p. 44
it has always been less than for 4% for the top decile
Judge's note: The page image (p.44) shows 'less than for 4%'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A3: "these small categories never make more 2% of the total income of the top decile" – missing 'than'.
- p. 45 Appendix A3
small categories never make more 2% of the total income of the top decile
- p. 45 Appendix A3, top
never make more 2% of the total income
- p. 45
these small categories never make more 2% of the total income
Judge's note: The page image (p.45) shows 'never make more 2%'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo B2: "From 1927 and 1941, estimation of salary distributions below $5,000" – 'and' should be 'to'.
- p. 48 B2
From 1927 and 1941, estimation of salary distributions
Judge's note: The page image (p.48) shows 'From 1927 and 1941'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Stray word: "The ratio is above to 95% for brackets below $3,000." should read "above 95%".
- p. 49 top paragraph
The ratio is above to 95% for brackets below $3,000.
Judge's note: Checked the page image (p. 49, Appendix B): 'above to 95%' is printed as quoted, so this is not an extraction artefact.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Wrong word: "are not affected by entry of exit effects" should read "entry or exit effects".
- p. 51 Appendix B3
are not affected by entry of exit effects
Judge's note: The page image (p. 51, B3) shows 'entry of exit effects'. Two sentences earlier the same paragraph says 'Entry or exit effects such as...'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling in the Atkinson (2001) reference: "mimeo Nuffied College, Oxford" should be "Nuffield College".
- p. 55 References, Atkinson (2001)
mimeo Nuffied College, Oxford
- p. 55
mimeo Nuffied College, Oxford.
Judge's note: The page image (p. 55 references) shows 'Nuffied'. Both crops show the same entry.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
1 more finding is waiting for a second check and not shown.