11
only one has wealth, single men and single women. The
reduction of the sample impairs the regularity of the data
and I have therefore aggregated the four into two
groups,married couples and single persons. The calculated
Pareto coefficients for income of wealth owners are much
higher than the actual ones.These calculated coefficient
correspond more nearly to those of all income receivers
including the wealthless ones. We get,however, also a
reasonably good correspondence with the actual income data
for wealth owners if we exclude the open size class from
the calculation. This might perhaps be motivated by the
argument that the open size class does not enter the
calculation of Kt either. The motivation is not entirely
convincing and the results are somewhat inconclusive.
Since the conditional income distributions in the various
wealth classes have been referred to several times I give
in Table 2 these data for the couples where both husband
and wife have wealth.
Table 2
Wealth in 000 K CONDITIONAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION $
Mean In income Pareto coefficient
150 
175
4.74
4.06
175 
200
4.76
3.55
200 
250
4.79
3.83
250 
300
4.84
3.92
300 
400
4.88
3.69
400 
500
4.95
3.34
500 
750
5.01
3.29
750 
1000
5.09
3.00
1000
 2000
5.18
3.47
2000
 5000
5.38
2.19
5000

(5.74)
1.17
All
2.68
All without
open wealth class 3.16
The conditional distributions have all Pareto tails
although the fit is bad (only 4 values can be used).The
Pareto coefficient is between 3 and 4 in all except the
last two size classes where it is very low,and it is 2.68
for the whole income distribution.lt appears that the
distribution as a whole is decisively influenced by the
last two wealth classes where the income distribution is
very unequal owing to the wide range of wealth in these
classes. In this way the peculiar result arises that the
total income distribution is more unequal than almost all
of the conditional income distributions.