The actual raw data is here: http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2010

My first thought was to think, Wow this really provides a strong counterargument to people who keep touting the fact that 47% of US citizens don't pay any income taxes (other than FICA). Also I was shocked to see that "The 1%" included essentially anyone making over $200K. [edit: i originally made a mistake and said $100K]

But in looking more closely, I can't tell if the numbers are based from individual W2s (meaning a single individual with two jobs might contribute two separate data points), on individual taxpayers, or individual tax filings (maybe a family).

I suspect it's one of the first two. And if that's the case, these numbers can't directly be applied to stats about poverty levels or the "99%" and the "1%" and the "47%" figures being slung around these days.

For instance, these numbers include part time workers, such as teenagers with after-school jobs. At minimum wage, working 4 hours a day for 6 days a week for 50 weeks, this person might earn ~$8K.

So it's likely that some part of that first 25% on the chart are part-time workers.

That's not to say that there aren't some families doing everything they can to make just $8K in a year, but rather that the percentages would sound different if we built the chart using only data from tax returns (not W2s) and stripped out everyone who was not attempting to work full time to support themselves or a family.

Can someone provide insight that would either debunk or validate my assumptions above?

To those who say "someone can do two jobs and make more" and such... These stats are compiled on SSN basis by the Social Security Administration. Thus, I think they include any number of jobs a person may hold at any time over the course of the year.

Further, this data does not include dividends, capital gains or interest. Should be fairly obvious which end of the curve gets the lion's share of that.

So with all of this top x% talk that is going on I decided to see where I was on the scale. It was pretty pathetic. Not because I was low on the scale but rather very high. I don't consider myself to be very wealthy at all. Don't get me wrong I am doing well for myself. I worked hard to get what I have and I am good at what I do, but I should not be in the top 3%. I am not trying to brag, I think it is stupid and wrong that I am that high up on the scale. I'm not saying I earn too much (I am actually underpaid according the the industry i am in.) It is just that I can't believe that others are being paid that much less.

Some 30% of Americans have a Bachelor's Degree or higher.

According to the Census, the median income for people with a Master's Degree is $54K (for ages 25-64), while those with only a High School diploma get $22K.

We need to improve our education situation 15 years ago, IMHO.

Edit: I'm going to edit this because people seem to think I'm suggesting a causal relationship here. I'm not. People with Master's Degrees tend to be highly trained in their field. It's not particularly surprising they tend to earn more.

If you invest the time to make yourself less replaceable, you will earn more money.

I do think that looking at all workers is a valid metric of how we're doing as a nation, but it is important to remember that all workers does include those working part time. It is a valid metric because there are many people out there who would like to be working full time who are not, but it can be misleading because it sort of looks like everyone took a pay cut. But that isn't the case. Some people took a pay cut. Some people had their hours cut. Some people got laid off and could only find a part time job to replace their full time job with.

It's a lot scarier once you realize that only 45% of Americans are workers. What this actually means is that 87.5% of Americans are earning less than $26,000.

I'd like to see this data over a longer time period. Or compared to a similar time span around the Great Depression. Similarly, I'd like to see data on a global scale. I'd imagine the gap is continuously widening. Markets constantly shift, this may be a second re-adjustment from the dot.com bubble, just the "99 percent" are adjusting as the 1% goes the other way.

This is one of those charts that is great for grant writing (if you get your local area data) or making a point in an article, but doesn't really tell you the whole story. It doesn't list all the income and really doesn't give you a real picture based on family make-up. Don't get me wrong, its useful data, but it can be used in a very poor manner.

These figures are interesting, but you really need to take into account cost of living to get an accurate picture of poverty. $26,000/year would barely cover my rent for a tiny one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, whereas in other places, it's enough to live somewhat comfortably.

This is only for income reported on a W2, i.e. employees. So the "top 1%" is the top 1% of individuals paid by a company, not the actual owners themselves (although I suppose they could be the same). The top 1% include a ton of business owners.

I am the 50%

Here in Ontario, minimum wage is $10/hour. Assuming you work 9 hours a day, 6 days a week:

10 * 9 * 6 * 52 = $28,080 / year

No, I don't think 54 hours / week is too much to ask. I'm sure most people making over the 26k probably work more than that. Yes, I know this is Canada, but it's just an example.

going to the linked pages, I find this part a little more interesting (National average wage index):

  2006	38,651.41
  2007	40,405.48
  2008	41,334.97
  2009	40,711.61
  2010	41,673.83

Not to take away from the point, but I'm always initially skeptical of statistics.

For example, this is also true:

50% of all taxpayers make less than the median EVERY DAY

These numbers seem implausibly low. How are they derived?

It says they come from W-2 filings. But do they bother to match up different W-2 filings from the same person? i.e. if I work two part-time jobs, are those added up? Or even if I switch jobs part way through the year?

Of course it doesn't include income from non-work sources (investment income etc), though that shouldn't change the median that much since people in the lower half don't have all that much in passive income.

Of course it doesn't include tips either (or it can -- reporting of tips on W-2s is, as I understand it, complicated and whatever the law is, it isn't followed).