Trends in Personal Wealth, 1976-1981

By Marvin Schwartz*

Preliminary estimates of the personal wealth ofindividuals in 1981 show that there were approximately4.5 million people with gross assets of $300,000 ormore. These "wealthy individuals", who comprised only2.0 percent of the nation's population, had net worth(total assets less liabilities) of nearly $2.4trillion. In contrast, during 1976, fewer than 2million people had a similar level of gross assets.The net worth of these 1976 top wealthholders was inexcess of $1.0 trillion, which was nearly 23 percentof the net.worth of all individuals in the country [1].

Wealthholders with Gross Assetsof $300,000 or More

Wealthholders Total Assets Net WorthYear (thousands) (billions) (billions)

1976 1,938 1,238 1,G431981 4,522 2,804 2,389

The number of top wealthholders with net worth of $1million or more showed a substantial increase from 1976to 1981, in contrast to the lack of growth in thenumber of millionaires between 1972 and 1976. Whilethere were approximately 180,000 individuals with networth of $1,000,000 or more in both 1972 and 1976,estimates show between 350,000 and 500,000 individualswith this same level of net worth in 1981. Theleveling off of the number of millionaires between 1972and 1976 is likely a result of the decline in the valueof corporate stock over that period [2]. As shownbelow, corporate stock declined both in value and as arelative share of the total assets of individuals withnet worth $1,000,000 or more between 1972 and 1976.

Corporate Stock Held by Top WealthholdersWith Net Worth $1,000,000 or More, 1972 and 1976

Corporate Total Corporate StockStock Assets As Percentage of

(billions) (billions) Total Assets

1972 215.1 448.9 47.91976 181.5 432.1 42.0

The sharp increase in the number of millionairesbetween 1976 and 1981 may in part be attributed toinflation. Using the Personal Consumption ExpendituresImplicit Price Deflator [3], $1,000,000 in 1981 hadthe equivalent value of $677,121 in 1976. Addition-ally, the rapid increase in the value of real estatemay also, in part, be responsible for the growth inthe number of millionaires.

ESTIMATING PERSONAL WEALTH FROM ESTATE TAX RETURNS

While there is great interest in measuring thepersonal wealth of individuals in the United States,the opportunities for such are limited since this

information is not required to be reported regularlyon any tax return or other public document. Thoughthe ideal alternative for measuring wealth would be acomprehensive survey of a representative sample of thepopulation, the reluctance of individuals to willinglyreveal personal financial information diminishes thereliability of the estimates that could be generated.The "estate multiplier technique" [4] (see "DataSources and Limitations" for a discussion of thistechnique), however, enables one to utilize admini-strative records, e.g., estate tax returns, for thepurpose of estimating the personal wealth of thatsegment of the population which holds a substantialportion of the total wealth of all individuals. Theestimates of the wealth for 1976 and 1981 of theseindividuals are derived from the application of thisestimating technique to data extracted from samples ofFederal estate tax returns filed during 1977 and 1982,respectively. The estimates of wealth includedherein, therefore, are limited to those living indi-viduals for whom an estate tax return would have beenrequired had they died during a one year periodextending from early 1976 to early 1977 or from early1981 to early 1982. These individuals are hereafterreferred to as "top wealthholders".

As the level of gross estate or gross assets requiredfor the filing of an estate tax return has increased,the concept of top wealthholders has likewise changed.The levels of wealth to which the estimates are limitedhave risen from the $60,000 which defined top wealth-holders in 1972, to $120,000 for returns filed in 1977,and subsequently to the $300,000 level for returnsf iled in 1982. Additionally, as a result of a changein the reporting requirements for estates of decedentswho died in 1982, asset detail for 1981 is presentedonly for those individuals with gross assets in excessof $500,000.

The wealth included on the returns selected duringeach of the sample years is centered around mid-yearof 1976 and 1981 and therefore reflects the wealth ofthe living population at that point in time. (Afurther discussion of the estimating technique isincluded under "Data Sources and Limitations".)

The gross estate criterion is a Federal estate taxconcept of wealth that does not conform to the usualdefinitions of wealth primarily because the face valueof life insurance is included in the wealth of thedecedent. Therefore, three measures of wealth havebeen used in this article: gross estate (or grossassets), total assets, and net worth.

Gross estate or gross assets reflects the grossvalue of all assets, including the full face value oflife insurance reduced by policy loans, but before anyreduction for indebtedness. This measure definesthose included in the top wealthholder group. Totalassets, a lower wealth value, is still essentially a

*Foreign Special Projects Section. Prepared under the direction of Michael Coleman, Chief. I

2 Trends in Personal Wealth

gross measure. This is obtained by using the cashvalue of the life insurance asset; that is, the valuethe insurance had immediately prior to death. Networth is the level of wealth after all debts have beenremoved and includes the cash value of life insurance.

PERSONAL WEALTH IN 1976

If the typical top wealthholder was encountered in1976, we would have found a married male under 50years of age whose net worth was less than $250,000.A significant share of his assets would have been inreal estate, likely the family home. The typicalfemale top wealthholder would also have been married,but would likely have been older and wealthier.Likewise, the primary asset in her portfolio, wouldhave been real estate. However, it would not haveconstituted as significant a share of her assets asfor her male counterpart.

Male wealthholders. represented approximately 66.5percent, or 5.8 million of the 8.7 million top wealth-holders (defined as individuals with gross assetsgreater than $120,000) in 1976. The average net worthof these men was $192,000. Though far fewer in number,the 2.9 million female top wealthholders were generallywealthier with average net worth of $261,000.

Over 83 percent of the male top wealthholders weremarried,,while less than 5 percent were widowed. Thiscompares with 47 percent of the females who weremarried and 33 percent who were widowed. Thesepercentages-are-probably-reflective-of-the-age-composition of the top wealthholders with nearly 33percent of the female top wealthholders and only 17percent of the male top wealthholders 65 years of ageor older.

As shown in Figure A, real estate valued at $771billion was the largest single. asset item held by thetop wealthholders. However, corporate stock valuedfor all wealthholders at $531 billion, still comprisedthe greatest share of the assets of those wealthholderswith net worth of $500,000 or more. These ran~ingsreflect- the relative importance of real property tothat of 'stock in the asset portfolio of many indivi-duals. In addition, they also reflect the effect of.inflated housing values which were enough to cause manyindividuals to be classified as top wealthholders in1976.

The concentration of wealth among the very topwealthholders was almost as skewed as that for thegeneral population. As shown in Figure B, nearly 23percent of the total assets of all top wealthholderswas held by individuals with total assets of $1 millionor more. These 227,000 individuals represented lessthan 3 percent of the top wealthholders.

Wealth and Asset Composition

As wealth increased (see Figure C), the relativeimportance of real estate for both male and female topwealthholders declined sharply. Conversely, corporatestock and certain types of bonds became increasinglysignificant as the amount of wealth increased. Inlight of the special tax treatment afforded the incomefrom State and local bonds, these assets were espe-cially attractive to those "well off" individualsseeking to lessen their income tax burden.

Types of Wealth Held by Men and Women.

The summary of the composition of wealth shown inFigure D indicates the differences between the holdingsof men and women. Proportionally more men than women

ure AAsset Composition of Top Wealthholders, 1976Percent of Each Asset to Total Assets

_24%Corporate

35% Stock ,RealEstate

$2-2TTdllion&nll,on

13%Cast

121%of 6%,Other BondsAssets2%Life 41%

insurance Notes andEquily Morigages

owned real estate, noncorporate business assets, andlife insurance; however, more women owned bonds andcorporate stock. The overall differences in holdingswere large for only a few items. In their traditionalrole as the head of the household, about 89 percent ofthe men had life insurance.to protect their families,~hereas only about 53.percent of the women held lifeinsurance. Noncorporate business assets were held by27 percent of the men, but only 14 percent of thewomen. This may be reflective of a female spouse'stendency to dispose of the family business upon thedeath of her husband, combined with the shorter lifeexpectancy of males.

Men had a relatively heavier debt burden than womenwith 19 percent of their total assets owed as debtsand mortgages compared with nearly 10 percent forwomen. The large difference in debts was related tothe fact that proportionally more men owned assetswhich are typically mortgaged or debt-financed, suchas real estate and business assets.

Age and Wealth

The average net worth of male top wealthholdersappeared to be closely correlated with age. As ageincreased (see Figure E), the average net worthincreasedfrom $119,000 for men under 50 years of ageto $395,000 for men 85 years or older. On the otherhand, women under age 50 were 43 percent wealthier interms of total assets than their male counterparts,but showed a less rapid increase than males in theiraverage net worth until their early 601s.

Nearly 48 percent of the male top wealthholders wereunder 50 years of age, while only 29 percent of thefemale too wealthholders were in that age group. This

Trends In Personal Wealth

I _-i

Figure BPercent of Top Wealthholders and Total Assets of Top Wealthholders,By Size of Total Assets, 1976

30 20 10Percent of Top Wealthholders

I

Size ofTotal Assets

Under $100,000

$100,000 Under$150,000

$150,000 Under$250,000

$250,000 Under$5W'000

$500,000 Under$110001000

$1,000,000 Under$5,000,000

$5,000,000or More

relatively low proportion of female top wealthholdersunder 50 years of age is an indication of the factthat many wealthy women may acquire their wealth uponthe death of their spouse.

Predictably, younger top wealthholders had a debtburden considerably heavier than that of their elders,declining as age increased. The amount of indebted-ness of males under 50 years of age was equal to 33percent of their total assets. However, for femalesin this same age group, the debt burden was only 21percent. As with the younger individuals, the debtsof females of each age group was significantly lowerthan that of males in the same age group. This may bea reflection of the insurance protection provided moreoften by males that is used to pay off debts.

PERSONAL WEALTH IN 1981

Of the 4.5 million top wealthholders in 1981,redefined to include only those individuals with grossassets of $300,000 or more, 65 percent were men.However, as in 1976, the average net worth of femaletop wealthholders was considerably higher than that oftheir male counterparts, $637,000 compared to $471,000.

Figure F shows that, again, a relatively high portionof the female top wealthholders, 28 percent, werewidowed. This compared to the mere 4 percent of themales who were widowers. Likewise, 83 percent of themen and 52 percent of the women were married. As in1976, this piobably mainly reflected the agecomposition of the male and female top wealthholders

0Percent of Total Assets

10 20 30

3

and the difference in their life expectancies. In1981, 48 percent of all male wealthholders were under50 years of age as opposed to just 29 percent offemale top wealthholders.

With the continued increase in its value, realestate, as shown in Figure G, valued at $593 billion,was the largest single asset item held by topwealthholders in 1981 with gross assets in excess of$500,000 [5]. Corporate stock valued at $484 billion.was the next most commonly held asset. Together thesetwo asset items accounted for 55 percent of the totalassets held by those top wealthholders.

DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS

The estimates of personal wealth contained hereinare based on information reported on Federal estatetax returns filed during 1977 and 1982. The sampledreturns primarily reflect deaths that occurred duringa one year period extending from early 1976 to early1977 or from early 1981 to early 1982. However,because an extension,of time for filing the estate taxreturn can be obtained, the estimates of personalwealth for 1976 and 1981 are also based on a limitednumber of returns for decedents who died before 1976or bz-.fore 1981, respectively.

As indicated previously, the wealth included on thesampled returns is centered around mid-year of 1976and 1981 and represents the wealth of the living popu-lation at that time. While the Federal estate taxreturn is an exceptional source of economic infor-

4

Size of Net Worth

Under $100,000

F-1$100,000 under $250,000

D $250,000 under $1,000,000

* Less than 0.05 percent

Men Women

Trends in Personal Wealth

Men

Men

Men

omen

Women

Women

Men

Men

FederalSavings Bonds

VVemen

Women

0.3 _1'1_0,8 0.2 0.4 rl,'60'8- 0.2

Men Women

I

Trends in Personal Wealth

Figure D.--Composition of Wealth for Male and Female Top Wealthholders, 1976

(3)

[All figures are estimates based on estate tax return samples--numbers of top wealthholders are in thousands; allmoney amounts are in billions of dollars]

Item

Total assets.....................

Debts..........................

Net worth ........................

Types of assets:Cash ...........................Corporate stock................

Bonds, total ...................

Corporate and foreign ........Federal savings ..............Other Federal ................State and local ..............

Life insurance equity ..........Notes and mortgages ............Real estate....................Noncorporate business ..........Other assets ...................

NOTE: Detail may not add to total

Male top wealthholders

NumberPercentof totalmales

Amount

(1)5,782

5,324

5,782

5,5373,883

2,012817

1,227279294

5,1501,5115,1371,5695,539

(2)

100.0

92.1

100.0

95.867.2

34.814.121.24.85.1

89.126.188.927.195.8

because of rounding.

mation, the accuracy of the estimates of personalwealth for a particular point in time is limitedsomewhat by the time span during which the sampledestates are valued. For assets such as corporatestock, the timing of the valuation can be quitesignificant. However, nearly 78 percent of the estatereturns sampled during 1982 were for decedents who diedin 1981 and 81 percent of the estate returns sampledduring 1977 were for decedents who died during 1976.

The "estate multiplier technique," which has beenused since the beginning of the twentieth century(financial records were used as early as 1864 toestimate total personal wealth by a related technique)[6,7,81 enables conclusions to be drawn about thewealth of the living population through the knowledgeof the wealth of the deceased. The underlying assump-tion in making these estimates from estate tax returnsis that death draws a random sample of the livingpopulation. However, in actuality, death is not arandom event and therefore not necessarily represent-ative of the living population under consideration.

The probability of "death's selection" of an individualdepends on the particulars of one's life. Age and sexare usually taken as gross indicators of these condi-tions. By knowing the mortality rate and the numberof deaths for each age and sex group, the populationof wealthholders can be derived, by multiplying theinverse of the mortality rate by the number of deathsin each group.

However, vital to the estimates of personal wealthis the use of a mortality rate appropriate to the topwealthholder population. This is essential to theestimates in that there is much evidence that themortality rate of the wealthy is more favorable thanthat of the population as a whole [9], that is, socialclass also is a determinant in the "selection of thesample". Therefore, an adjustment to the generalmortality rate is necessary. The basic assumptionmade to prepare the estimates was that the probability

1,368

260

1,108

159324

64149

1723

3856

50383

141

Percent

of totalassets

1 (4) -

100.0

19.0

81.0

11.623.7

4.71.00.71.31.7

2.84.1

36.86.1

10.3

Number

(5)

Female top wealthholde

Percentof totalfemales

2,913

2,569

2,913

2,7462,014

1,314643651286254

1,558894

2,394400

2,676

(6)

100.0

88.2

100.0

94.369.2

45.122.122.39.88.7

53.530.782.213.791.9

Amount

(7)

845

84

761

122207

6614

82123

431

26816

131

rs

Percentof totalassets

(8)

100.0

9.9

90.1

14.424.5

7.81.61.02.52.8

0.53.7

31.71.9

15.5

of death for those at or above the minimum level ofgross assets or gross estate included in the estimatesfor 1976 and 1981 is approximately constant for eachage and sex.

The mortality rates assumed to approximate that ofthe wealthy are generated utilizing data prepared bythe Metropolitan Life Insurance Company [101. Threesets of age-specific multipliers for male and femaledecedents for 1976 were produced utilizing the insur-ance experience between 1973 and 1976. The samemultipliers were used to generate the estimates for1981.

While the estimates of wealth for 1976 and 1981 arebased on estate tax returns sampled during a specificfiling year, the returns selected during 1982 wereselected as the first part of a new sample design.Returns selected during 1977 primarily reflected deathsthat occurred during 1976, but also deaths from 1977and 1975 and several preceding years. Therefore, theestimates were arrived at utilizing values determinedover an extended period of time. In order to moreaccurately reflect the wealth at a particular point intime, a "year of death" basis for the selection of thesample was utilized in 1982. Returns selected for thesample are based on decedents dying in 1982. These areaugmented by a sample of all other returns, as well asthe selection of all returns, regardless of the yearof death of the decedent, for wealthy and young dece-dents. This sample will be selected for a three yearperiod through December 1984 to estimate personalwealth in 1982. Since the estate tax return is not dueuntil nine months after the death of the decedent, alimited number of returns for decedents dying in 1982were filed. Therefore, the preliminary nature of theestimates which primarily reflect the wealth of dece-dents dying in 1981.

Because the data presented in this article areestimates based on a sample of Estate tax returnsfiled with the Internal Revenue Service, they are

6 Trends- in Personal Wealth

Figure EAverage, Net Worth and'Debt; Burden,By Age and Sex, 1976

Average Not Worth

(in 100 thousands)500r- -

300

200

100

Age

Male Female

Under 5060 65 To 7~

8050

Ur

idL

f

under und~,r ue~der undrr under

60 65 7D 7~, t1i 65

Debts as Percentageof Total Assets

more

subject to sampling, as well as nonsampling, error.To properly use the statistical da

'ta provided, the

ma.gnitude of the potential sampling error must be

known.

The table below, presents rough preliminary estimatesof the coefficients of variation (CV's), for frequencyestimates. The approximate CV's showh' here, areint.e.nded only as a general indication of the relia-bility of the data. For a. number ~other* than thoseshown below, the correspondi-hg CV's can be estimatedby i

,nterpolation.

I ApproximatedNumber of Coefficient of Variation

Wealthholders 1976 1981

6,600,000 .01 N/A*

4,500,000 ..012 .023,000,000 .015 .0251,500,000 .02 .035

800,000- .03 .05300,000 .05 .08200,000 .06 .1065,000 ..10. .1745,000 .12 .2021,000 .18 '. 309,000 .27 .45

*N/A Not Applicable

The reliability of estimates based on samples, and,the use of coefficients of variation for evaluatingthe :precision of sample estimates, are discussed inthe Appendix.

Nonsampling error of the estate tax return data wascontrolled during statistical processing by a varietyof methods. Among them was a systematic verificationat the field

'processing locations of the manual data

editing. As a further check on the quality of theediting small subsamples selected after field verifi-cation -were reprocessed in the National Office. Keyentry of the data at the processing locations was alsosubjected to 100 percent verification.

Prior to tabulation, numerous computer tests were ap-plied to each return record to check for inconsisten-cies. Lastly, prior to publication, all statistics andtables were reviewed.for accuracy and reasonableness.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

[11 Ruggles, Richard and Nancy D., Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey ofCurrent Business, "Integrated Economic Accountsfor the Unit-e-d-Rates, 1947-80,11 May 1982, Volume62, Number 5.

(21 Ibid.,,-p. 53

[3] Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department ofCommerce, Survey of Current Business, July 1982,Vol. 62, No. 7. For discussions of the deflator,see the Survey of Current Business, March 1978,Vol. 57, 3, and March 1979, Voi. 58, No; 11.

[4]-For a detailed explanation of the EstateMultiplier Technique, see Internal Revenue

Service, Statistics of Income--1972 PersonalWealth, Washington, DC 1976. .

(5] As pre~viously , stated, asset detail for 1981 is

unavailable for those individuals with grossassets.of $500,000 or less because of a change in

the reporting requirements for the estates ofdecedents who died in 1982.

[6] Atkinson, A.B., "The Distribution of Wealth inBritain in the 1960's--the Estate Duty MethodReexamined," Studies in Income and Wealth,National Bureaj of-Economic Research, -no. 35?,IM, pp. 277-319.

(71 Lampman, Robert J~, The Share of Top Wealthholdersin National Wealth, 1922-56, Princeton UniversityMeTs-, 79677

Trends in Personal Wealth

Figure F.--All Top Wealthholders With Gross Assets $300,000 or More, by Marital Status, Age, and Sex, 1981

[All figures are estimates based on estate tax return samples--numbers of top wealthholders are in thousands; allmoney amounts are in millions of dollars]

Number ofTotal Debts and mortgages Net Estate tax return statistics

Item top wealth-assets worth Number of Gross Net

holders Number Amountreturns estate worth

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

All top wealthholders,total..................... 4,521.7 2,803,800 4,058.9 415,022 2,388,778 60,342 45,894 41,889

Married.................. 3,278.7 1,955,121 2,961.5 324,695 1,630,426 35,623 27,349 24,183Single ................... 408.1 245,481 323.2 25,276 220,205 4,180 3,127 2,965Widowed.................. 555.4 384,909 498.8 24,623 360,286 18,897 13,892 13,410Other .................... 279.5 218,288 275.3 40,427 177,861 1,643 1,527 1,331

Under 50 ................. 1,869.7 953,053 1,740.8 281,030 672,023 3,163 2,059 1,16950 under 65 .............. 1,608.9 1,065,351 1,453.9 102,300 963,051 11,830 8,647 7,12865 and over .............. 955.9 740,575 796.9 31,027 709,549 44,273 34,623 33,045

Male....................... 2,950.5 1,707,993 2,709.7 319,310 1,388,683 39,105 30,623 27,175Married .................. 2.462.4 1,375,840 2,246.8 255,923 1,119,917 30,050 23,515 20,580Single ................... 190.4 115,239 182.7 19,762 95,477 2,564 2,072 1,945Widowed.................. 121.5 73,053 106.4 10,616 62,437 5,418 3,931 3,724Other .................... 176.3 143,862 173.9 33,010 110,851 1,074 1,106 925

Under 50 ................. 1,417.8 679,001 1,386.9 224,415 454,585 2,773 1,836 997

50 under 65 .............. 968.2 604,199 856.8 74,382 529,817 9,023 6,596 5,21265 and over .............. 517.2 403,644 437.3 20.233 383,410 26,733 21,924 20,713

Female..................... 1,571.2 1,095,806 1,349.2 95,711 1,000,095 21,237 15,271 14,714

Married .................. 816.3 579,281 714.7 68,772 510,509 5,573 3,834 3,~603Single ................... 217.7 130,243 140.5 5,515 124,728 1,616 1,055 1,019

Widowed .................. 433.9 311,856 392.5 14,007 297,849 13,479 9,961 9,686Other .................... 103.3 74,426 101.5 7,417 67,010 569 421 406

Under 50 ................. 451.9 274,053 353.9 56,614 217,438 390 223 172

50 under 65 .............. 640.7 461,153 597.1 27,917 433,236 2,807 2,051 1,917

65 and over .............. 438.7 336,932 359.7 10,792 326,139 17,540 12,700 12,333

NOTE: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Age unknown are not shown separately above. However,-they are included in the appropriate total.

Figure G.--All Top Wealthholders With Gross Assets Greater Than $500,000, Assets by Sex, 1981

[All figures are estimates based on estate tax return samples--numbers of top wealthholders are in thousands; allmoney amounts are in billions of dollars]

Total

Item

Total assets ...........................

Debts ................................

Net worth ..............................

Types of assets:Cash.................................

Corporate stock ......................

Bonds, total .........................Corporate and foreign..............Federal savings ....................Other Federal ......................State and local ....................

Life insurance equity................

Notes and mortgages ..................Real estate ..........................Noncorporate business................Other assets .........................

Number oftop wealth-holders

(1)

1,838.6

1,770.2

1,838.6

1,776.61,477.2

736.5294.3218.7278.0461.6

1,412.6876.9

1,643.1827.6

1,780.7

Amount

(2)

1,954.5

293.9

1,660.6

167.4483.7

117.79.02.2

33.672.9

23.474.5

592.7122.1372.9

Men

Number oftop wealth-holders

(3)

1,237.7

1,211.6

1,237.7

1,217.41,022.0

444.3180.6136.0183.6244.8

1,131.5638.7

1,166.6611.4

1,205.7

Amount

(4)

1,216.9

235.2

981.7

89.7309.4

60.14.61.6

22.631.3

21.655.1

397.485.6

198.0

. Women

Number oftop wealth-holders

Amount

(5)

600.9

558.7

600.9

559.2455.2

292.3113.782.694.4

216.7

281.1238.2476.5216.2575.0

(6)

737.6

58.7

678.9

77'. 7174.3

57.64.50.6

11.041.6

1.819.4

:195.336.5

174.9

NOTE: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.

8 . Trends In Personal Wealth

[81..Smith, James 6nd Calvert, Staunton, "Estimatingthe Wealth of Top Wealthholders from Estate TaxReturns," 1965 American Statistical AssociationProceedings, Business and Economics Statistics'=eclon.

(91 Caldwell, Steven and Diamond, Theodore "IncomeDifferentials in Mortality: Preliminary ResultsBased on IRS-SSA Linked Data," Statistical -4Jses ofAdministrative Records with Emphasis on Mortalityand M-9-551IIty Research, UTTIce OT Research andStatistics. U.S. Social Security Administration,1979.

(10] We are extremely grateful for the continuedsupport we have received from the MetropolitanLife Insurance Company, beginning with the lateMortimer Spiegelman and continuing most recentlywith . Mrs. Frances Baffa, who 'provided themortality data used in the present computation ofthe estate multipliers.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Greenwood, Daphne, "A Method of Estimating theDistribution of Wealth Among American Families in1973

1"Statistics of Income and Related Administrative

Record, arch; Internal Revenue Service, 1981.

Kitagawa, Evelyn M., and Hauser, Philip M..,Differential Mortality in the United States: A Study-

in socioeconomic Epidemiology.. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity.Press, 1973.

Mendershausen, Horst', "The Pattern of Estate laxWealth

'"' . Volume III of 'Raymond W. Goldsmith's A Study

of Savings in the United States. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1956.

Natrella, Vito, "Wealth of Top Wealthholders--1972,"1975 American Statistical Association Proceedings,r3Usiness and Economic Statistics Section.

Oh, H.L., and Scheuren, Frederick, "Some PreliminaryResults from a Validation Study of the EstateMultiplier Procedure," - 1976 Proceedings AmericanStatistical Association, Social Statistics Section,pp..650-654.

Rosen, Sherwin and Taubman, Paul, "Changes .. in theImpact of Education and Income on-'Mortality in theU.S.", Statistical Uses of Administrative Records withEmphasis on Mortality and Disability Etsearch, Offir-Pot Research and Statistics, U.S. Social SecurityAdministration, 1979.

Sailer, Peter, Kilss, Beth, and Cr'abbe, Patricia,"Occupation Data from Tax Returns: Another . ProgressReport," paper to be presented at American StatisticalAssociation Meetings, Toronto, Canada, 1983.

Scheuren, Frederick, "Historical Perspectives on IRSWealth Estimates with Prospectives for Improve~nents,llpaper presented at the May 2, 1975, National --Bureau -ofEconomic Research Workshop on Estate MultiplierEstimates.

Smith, James, "White Wealth and Black People, TheDistribution of Wealth in Washington, DC in 1967,"-Studies in' Income and Wealth, National Bureau ofEconomic Research, No. 39,. 1976, pp. 329-363.

"inith, James D. and Franklin, Stephen '...D. , "TheConcentration of Personal Wealth, 1922-1969," AmericanEconomic Review 64 (May 1974): pp. 162-167.

Steuerle, Eugene, "The Relationship Between RealizedIncome and Wealth", Statistics of Income Bulletin,Volume 2, Number 4, pp-_75-_32~7-

Is--§

zgtl

""

9S

UC

M9Z

§S

tHM

9Z

-0!!

WW

MS

Z

''

''

§U

HH

§§

§§

R-H

OW

:R

IIII

IR

imIS

TS

S8:

.!!9

n-

gig

:It

r,H

M:

c

...

.........

..........

A,41

CD

C0

~00

iDiD

bD~D

iDbD

iDZ

ab

)L

numNsUg

R&

h)cD

w..

mo

w&

mb,

i.L-

lob~

L,

bo

cD

r.st

p"I

im

Mot

wo

..

..

..

zz

P.

p

SL~w

cbL)'

~w

-w,w

NN

ww

M-V

I.N

IN

RaU

;IN

2

CiNIQ

Pt

PtcR

lpE

Pvi

~

IN14

0ty

4N

N

rl~P'tq

'tCR

qq

qPt

VN........

"i'dRC%

VA-8v

C6 APUMIZ19

'rF

IS

Nd

~.;gc;

0N

NI

&0-

-Mm

4-0R

M

quilviq

rltq

dg

gg

cj

e,

P't

N9

19

P:A;;9

14

00

2F03

RVnIq

qIQ

qq

N~

!rl:

at't

vs

ozilql

N...

WO-3

Ims

"ggng

T

4.6

b,6:.

.

Ig

Itoll'"

488009i

TIP

.P

.M,

50

i.A

CH

Ao

~000000~4

"NNW-

z

t0V

TAt

0~80801

0~4

00

440

00

iDiD

5~i;10802

V88

8

"8

:2owc

NO

w

-C

O

9t

s-

745"!

4P

--m

ow

........... 0

1

SDP

i

10HBO"

~Do"WMWWOO

s

9

rtin

Tgpi

...........

c!QRqQqP't

am

qvggeoo

vm

r-w

Noo-

R-A

TD;RAVI

II

ctov

MU

FF

-

FI

IP

c;

ow

cmq

INcR

Iq

qc4',t-R

cj11

"

MPH

cRW

I Ftqp

Mg-

ai-

j

..........

st......

.............

iAR

M1

1iA

Ugg

1

tilt

MUM

882

C1

1S12

611BU

b,-1

-1-S

-~-8

.It

(On-

.0

p.,F

a

704

MU

M:1

la T z

ESHM

U8A

~kl

bDL,

1,

k.

0 -

wo

;

I

HU

M11

fl

.ilia

illit'l.1

-w :C

HE

1

h)

C.

~,j

b.

1.

bb!q

-,)

j;~P

's-:

-P!-

:-

Co

wo P

$0:1

14p

SL

..........

-4(D

ST

ICT

T98Z

WE

E

qC

2,1

111W

cc

ccc

Egg

:T

IC8.

HU

I:

..........

13io

b,b,

L~L,

:k.

4-T

IbD

bi~

L)b

bb

00

~.:

lp

...

SOP

....

P

iDb

~im

,w0

co

w

b.b

:.L~

wz

l~

lug

rlofll

AI

HM

OS

tgU

wo

rol

as

z

w

zz

7~P

P.."Wo~w

M

ji

LU

A

cn

too

U"_w

9

idb

i.~

4~

4b

,io

%4

in

z

".Owo.m

74wm~mww&c

"W

74000

-i

§§ .H

iPff.

H- ilia

ccc

§§

wot

0

iDL,

ibiD

~4~4

^W0000-0

HU

PP

,M

cccifig

HIS

S tt

To

. ai_

"i

Ciok

m

N,

0O

0MON

fei

z

ND

NOON

vooo

C

NNVW

atIq1%z

cliwi16.6ci

0-V-

60

i0

18

V;N

ItRo

vIq

lq,.tCR'It

qcq,.tLq

~pN

lp

0NO-00

NN

o

o:: .

caeqC6

IZq

Inq

qq

IQq

N;W

vw

oo

o-

mw

vo

ww

w

..........

Ili

Bn

Sa

:211

1.Im

SD

9z i

5"H

A

z Itt!w

~

MA

iJb

ib~4

610

44~4

L-

Toot!,

t'wt-fVR

:2

a -

SU

ME

Z

sl

..

.

~1-2et

MS.

HN

w

-

SL

Aco

ek&i;-zale:

PCIL

l

qul4q

NLQ

IRIR

oo

..

.99

4

tt

cli

mg

Poec.;1:

cioo

ci6

cec;rzcicj

ciN12

1ff

oNvo

IvRM

v

qIR

NP~P~N

:ul

tq

'I'SNNoN

mo

Qvw

-wcD

wq

,m

.Dc

..........

AM

U1-

AH

Ni.

gssl

!a~Ps

ba

aa

aa

.021

g

Za""a

ZS

aau

ISago

as

C4

"Iqq

cl".t

NV~

ll~~N

NMmW!R

11It

6

a

q:14

Nr,~

N-:IR

cqtM

0w

w

Ct

NM

CIL0

C.9M'1

PNZ

h:IR

clq

rt1%

0%0I-t

oo

:"

im-.

CMa

q,~

q~vq

qw

~1

~j1

CY

N-

N4p

qIQ

~In

q

72.r.N~on

COYCNIL

C%;vav

am

m.o

C4q

qrl~

ORrl~

q

clo.

Ac6

-~cF

NM

ci

10

M1:

g,f

1~aq

7q

q4:q

q00

pM

V9

MS

N

-D

-N

MR

9i

RI

999

HV

§§I

OO

OO

i.a&

Olg

aI

Hill

IIf

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

'L)iD

iALl

~46

%46

~9100!~

ow

c",II

~ol

~Db

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

-4

q74

81

=A

E,

10

9.

..

..

FD

P

L.6

ipL.

b42

SL

80

4"-

Mm

ibi.

:bl

P-E

01

WS

!Aic

0T

t

WW

zz

z

o-

W

1G)

9.:

,~b

90"-l'-W

ww

HU

gE

ioim

L,b

".

z

CL

22T

iendsIn

Personal

Wealth

UN

Ci=NO

a-1

Si

i

r*:wI

mc4

lqGR

c!c!

Rc4

Nc!

RIq

aRc4

c.*j1.1i

1~10

01*

4d1*

10

SH

UfV

SH

HIR

FR

1~-

-p

gpin

Ruve

CY-

a0

m

RCR

96

vI

pIj

~M-4

'Alm

-c!c!

nt

w!'4

.t q2--R

-

M92

HH

&W

IVR

j~V

pa

':6

14

as,9

a~39

FIVI

FIM

MI

HH

EI

~:da

-:~i;f.;a

.-iaf.;

c6-:.f

ad

fd

CR`tc

iNqR

IRw

w-

0wI

V0.I'S

Op

pH

M2,42~

.igg-

AgR

,;;

AV

IES

1V

UR

HE

RR

MIR

INS

H5

1T

IM~

:.iaZ

;g-~

~fa

gf.;e

.:a:fx

ma

aR

Va

a0

cjc

q.:

pi-sV

AV

MV

.00M

-0

WL

;q-R

IRN

19IQ

7IR

IR14

"q

IT11

19IR

qOR

q.11

1:

mS

3%

;;x~:I

18

isQ

WE

DI

1QM

!a

a~:

v-

-O

Va

1:

0co

MP0

vgleavs".6.Z0 C;

99

_'z

gead-

wi"

C4.q

vmO

MM

NN

Vu!

R-R

~R:!

....

9.

.14

-:9910,m

g&p

yR

RO

FW;

via

IciiRM0.M

U0

C"~V2

--D;,

0VH

IPB

RU

UM

i~:1111--011;

UM

P%q

xw

kk

Ragm

AcSc'TVNosvw

fv&N

accr

mv

-r'ai

aN

a't

Lq1

0P~t

P%'~

q"tc4

c4R

c4C!q

cc!'TR

PtPt'~vi

qC4

'ItIR

N'

R11:1

1N

2R

ON

IM

-0;:

wR

AR

AN

O9

LS':

C6a

ifa;3

"CY49

UP

-:aii

-61F

a.

.L

.

C'

qP~:cq

cq(R

'tc!

c4w

qR

cRc!0

w1:

1(R

Rq

qjR

vw~j

mm

on

k~

:;!qA

---

COd

aNvF

ro4wg!

'~

I

Trends

InP

ersonalW

ealth

~g

!VE

!;00-

-g

~§g

~I

IB

WW

if

~U

M:M

VP

14-a

aa

eq(4ea

in-

0-

~cq

cj.6

cj0

REikR

pRIm

pH

igac6N

MNmN

00-

dC6

w1volHU~R.;

ed.;

H0911'ic;

00~591fd

--rNARH6or

aH

1wo

MW

Rpm

dpz.:d~

flpge

Mp

pu

Of171~

t;g

av

C4Le

0L'i

d.-.

R~R

IRR

-i

IRR

po

-RIR

RCR

-:,R,4

-C,'K

-K-

&10

0m

N

I;M7

aco

RLq

8!?

cqH

AR

vgig

'QR

..6-,-t

OS

t'I

qq'~

tS

-~

v-0

IV4,:~

:Md

RL4

94

w-

coC)

Rq-4

-!~Is

om

.

P99G

ip.:C

;cj

f0

Rk~

53

qp

p0)

q4

q

1'd

!.q

Y-Im

C6CIF

....4

Him

c4j;w

O011!

CR~4

;! Ra;

~.,jv

IRCY

ME

MH

im

W;

co9

ac

RR

NIR

qt

q-tN:

tP.:

C,Ci't

CR

W;v

1C,:

di

5ik

44

lm.

HI.-

gg.

IOici

MH

4m

cicjcjC6,6,:.

aH

TR

EP

10 A-R R

um

0C6

l

LQCR

eI

IQq

LMR

RIR

RIR

rl:Fjv

v

-R~

6M

!n

noqw

lW

C40

M~

cj;:6

'i

C66P

IF

5W

R

-~p

R1:

IRR

R't

'NoC-.1

'&RR

q-4

RCO

~RCS

4640

-:,Rg

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.I

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

23

zzzz

ffzz

11=1

Moi

l?[

2111

1

g-:~

Ig

jT

7....

...

C-2

am

~-;P

,-

4

h)

An

n.

-4g

O-

~2(A

fo-4

~4f

8ip

gft~

t~4

Ih

p.

4i~

b.

ic0

(D0

L4I

W-4

L'

Q-M

Q.

*

0

''

WON

WWO80

000~

08--

i38

009W4-A

0M

OM

U89tI

4E

1.P

.itH

tZt

~t

~aH

gV

b'~

"-

~0

bin

'M

r)0:,

~w

NS

-p

5p

"8

8;~

~I

'=

'so -

Am

p0

wp'

.;,T

tP

Pt~

882

Ati..

"w

wa;~

81

isH

Ca

g8=

,r

~m

..

."

..

..

."b

..

..

.

29M

A013

4

ON

NP

2R

-0-!

ps

,1

bt

C-0

?89

q-2

88

40 ~4

bt8~~g

.4w

tswmg

(A

CI)

b ,sj3

0TM::0

toV,

gE

!44

t~

4!1.!

2

,00008

~,;

31~-

O&W80

9"M

-~

MR

"NN

A-0

410

0(A

09

&8

-49

a1041,

W~SIO

NO

s"d

w~M

W~-281

AIM

,2"Es

99-'

N

-a

a

cr r-r,, ou x 0 6 m m "n

CLM

(Am U

)

CL

m

mz 0

f-

.

zzzz

if

II",

.11H

[III

HIP!N

""If .!

10,

ll:::

PIP!!::P

:l

:01111

[fill

SL

AO~s

:s:)

421a

tZA

T:j

zillil

is-8

81ifflt

ig-u!

ti2n.

PU

:-

CIM

M,

0-:

:!Q

QC

DN

UC

OM

-"

---

1018

T-:is-

"P

IPIP

pp

op

p

!an

!il

V.H

1w

.H

:,:,

alu

0HEREMH

MEEH";

92811MEN

,EE

!2.

;14~

-AO

5~Z

AA

8:3

.8&

8V

:tam

Z1

~2:!

W-A

MO

-I

ibb6~

4~

16

!je!!

!j!

A

1§114uhl

uffi-bC-ig

hift

i8fl

iig

i~i

fi-b--

aji

diWin

t~w

p~

!39.1

4a.=

189

M-04p~"mPa

nh~Nu!2n

ui!

fliinu

.7--ih

nih

fthu

:11

pN

lkini

Tagil,

-a-flu

f0lj

l4dai

UN

AW

HP

-03

-"

A

919HMH

t2last

ME

N::V

ftP

MW

ZU

e--

,Mat

0029

H

VH

M~

'IaT

YT

M.A

t.14"M

C-Ig

mn~2-i

2wghhwh4MM

lalI.-

0)

WC

DI

9,p

.!3

.4

~9P

:4F.

.I

..

.~a

~4ix

:~L4

ftm

L-,

a

H~W8"~8

--AA~

I-N-8

2-89-

N-ft-

=-=m=

=---=

M=421--

:tsa-=~

nsL

RT40

I

I I

I

I

I I I I I I

i IE

=82-

,65

~~

Wm

w919

'IEEE

31M

28!2

82--

4zj

pul

tg-f

~it

-n-

:--s-A

t-:3j

I"

ST

Ta

IWO-0

OV"m

mm

;am~

2

o1'

~Z46..

il

WH

IN

PH

I9

U

0---

gift

mfc

EXCE

Mmrig

IMHMO

I p

wum

3390

.p

io~,

4ia

~piQ

a0,

in4):

"

41w

CD-0,

50

MH

t

N..=

t's

Ah

Z-h

i2t

~O

cm

."88Z

~~

-Q

mL,

ipb~

0"W

m6b

k,

L.

1~0

0-4

mol

~4o(A

wU

MM

H

Now-o

c.w

woo"o

~"w~m

~w

w-

toio

:-k2

~2io

i-iQ

:-4

~4~D

~DiO

~DiA

L-

4-1

~4~4

t4iP

b~

No

,.-tip

a~

..

..

.

Vol

wH

=w

w~

!:ao

~8o

om

m---

L-

b,

L-

6i~

j~i'lb

,

..

.-

--

--

wah

no

gt

r~t

~m-,~

HE

M,"

~2.

,4m

oo

wE

czi

tmo

...

..

...

...

IR9;

i§9

i1

mm

ARZIM;

MEEHUM

Lwt

W191

si,29i

!UEH

;.. -N-N

m11

,§

112,

E:-,1

gtt

s.8!A

,w.UU,

1~El

lan~

Eftalig

29,82299

ASH9

9TaM

z z

z