14 
h lders int fur gr -ups ( o u lea where b th have wealth- couples wh re 
ne • nly has wealth, single men and single r .men ), •‘■'he reducti n in 
sample 3ise Impairs the regularity f the data and I have therefore 
aggregated the four int two groups i married c uples and single 
pees ns. 
The calculated ftoet> coefficients for income of wealth woe 
wners are much higher than the actual ones ( ^able 1), 
These calculated c efficients c >rrespond more nearly to those of 
all income receivers including the wealthless ones -t e great 
majority. They correspond also more nearly to those of the 
conditional income distribtti >ns in all wealth classes except the 
last three. In fact, if we exclude the open wealth class 
fr g the income distribution ( which might perhaps be motivated 
by the argument that it is not contained in the calculation of AT 
either ) the we get Pareto coefficients entirely in line with 
the calculated ones ( Table 1). The motivation is not enti el^ 
convincing and the results are inconclusive. 
9inde the conditional income distributions in the 
wealth classes have been referred to several times. * give in the 
fallowing data for couples where b th husband and wife have wealth. 
conditional inc me distributi n 
Wealth in ~ K mean Pareto coefficient 
150.175 
474 
4.06 
175-2' - 
4 76 
3-55 
2 ^-250 
4-79 
3 03 
250-30 
4 04 
392 
3 -4o 
4.88 
3.69 
4 0.5,00 
4-95 
3-34 
5 -75 
5.01 
3.29 
75-1 r 
5. 9 
3.0 
10 -2 0 
5.10 
3.47 
2 0-5 0 
5.38 
2.19 
5'00- 
(5.74) 
1.17 
All 
2.68 
All without open 
wealth class 
3.16