0. 6 2c.ec 1 ! /i t QiZ/toJ- lA *
Si/^irn’ W7 'Cs'e* c - &
y
In the following, incomes of property owners will be
treated as a whole. The distribution of the 'Ipxotit rate*^
or conditional distribution of inc^ome^ therefore includes
earned income here. The regression of property owners' total
income on their wealth can be studied on the basis of Dutch
datal) (fig.3). The regression is linear^ -aaad- the correlation
coefficient is 0,5, f v \e regression coefficient^corresponds to
our k. That k 1 can be explained in the first place by the
presumed fact that with increasing wealth earned income is less
/V and less important; in the second place perhaps by the fact that
income from shares which dominates for the larger wealth does not
contain the undistributed profits.
Since the Paret© coefficient for wealth was 1,38 in 1962/63,
we should expect it to be 2,20 for income on the basis of
the theory. In reality it was 2,08. A better correspondence
is hardly to be expected, since the independance condition holds
only very approximately.
A simular calculation with Swedish data /20/ gives ^^pporently very
bad results, although the regression of income on wepLjath is linear.
To take an example: For married couples, both ^&X#5(in 1971, the re-
gression coefficient of income aed wealth is 0,49, the Pareto coeffi
cient for income ought thus to be 3,4, but it is in reality 2,5.
The explanation is that the standard deviation of income increases