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