Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income?
"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective.  However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth.  According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth.  The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common.  Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists.  I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners.   Quid's points are valid.  For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year.  These situations are normal and happen regularly.  The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank.  All of this exaggerates the effect of an ""emergency"" on one's net worth.    To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income.  How does one build wealth?  By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc...  Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises?  I believe so.  And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth.  If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base.  Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum.  Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!" There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human.  While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs.  The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners.  As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices.   There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency.  In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win.  In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit). In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero.  You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.
Reminds me when people complain about not being able to retire but they never invested in any indexes or have a 401K. Like no shit you have no money you didn't plan well, why should I be taxed higher bc I did.  I use dividends to reinvests back into stocks or indexes. Capital income isnt the problem its financial education. Dont be upset I know how to handle my money; people should be educated better on financial planning. Teach that in public schools and embrace people investing money, not make out the rich as some kind of criminal. I can agree inherited wealth is bullshit but being self made and investing well shouldn't be looked down upon because people struggle with the realism that its their fault they dont have money to retire. Life is a bunch of opportunities and choices and yes some people get spoon fed opportunities but it's still a choice to be financially responsible. Stop blaming the rich and educate the working poor and below poverty level how to financially plan their future. As the name says, its for income earned in a Foreign country. If you have been paying US income tax on this while living in the US, nothing is going to change here. You should be informing yourself on how to avoid double taxation in your new country of residence. Passive income earned abroad (dividends, interest) also do not fall under this exemption.  The purpose of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is to make it easy for expats who work abroad to avoid double income taxation without going through the complicated process of applying for tax credits. The US is the only industrial country that taxes its residents regardless of where they reside. That is also why it only goes to about $100,000 a year. If you are a high earner, they want to make it more difficult. Also as a side note, since you are going to be abroad for a year. I will point out that if you have more than $10,000 in foreign accounts at any point in the year you need to declare this in an FBAR form. This is not advertised as well as it should be and carries ridiculous penalties for non-compliance. I can't count the number of times I have heard a US expat say that they were unaware of this. "The following is from Wikipedia - Term life insurance (with very minor editing) Because term life insurance is a pure   death benefit, its primary use is to   provide coverage of financial   responsibilities, for the insured.   Such responsibilities may include, but   are not limited to, consumer debt,   dependent care, college education for   dependents, funeral costs, and   mortgages. Term life insurance is   generally chosen in favor of permanent   life insurance because it is usually   much less expensive (depending on the   length of the term). Many financial   advisors or other experts commonly   recommend term life insurance as a   means to cover potential expenses   until such time that there are   sufficient funds available from   savings to protect those whom the   insurance coverage was intended to   protect. For example, an individual   might choose to obtain a policy whose   term expires near his or her   retirement age based on the premise   that, by the time the individual   retires, he or she would have amassed   sufficient funds in retirement savings   to provide financial security for   their dependents. This suggests the questions ""why do you have this policy?"" also ""how many term life policies do you need?"" or ""how much insurance do you need?"" Clearly you will be better off investing the premiums in the market.  Your beneficiaries may be better off either way (depends when you die and to a lesser extent on market performance). If you are not able to retire now but expect to be able to later, you should strongly consider having sufficient insurance to provide income replacement for your spouse.  This is a fairly common why." Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check.  You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value.  It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on. You are implicitly making that assumption. It doesn't matter if the rich are taking and increasingly large percentage of the pie, as long as the size of the pie is growing fast enough that the absolute wealth of the poor is rising at a reasonable rate over time.  The correct and reasonable measure is to compare the wealth of the poor, today with the wealth of the poor in the past in terms of real buying power.  I understand what you're saying and I disagree with your analysis. I disagree that relative proportions have any meaningful impact of human well being. Don't you think the fact that most of the world's wealth is concentrated in that top 1% has *something* to do with that? The fact is neoliberal, supply side policy does not work in part because people horde capital. I do not blame anyone for banking money, but I do believe tax policy should reflect human behavior. http://www.economist.com/node/654077  There is a strong correlation but it is not a perfect one. Only 4% of dynasties survive 4 generations.   John Rockefeller was a rich man and his descendants are paupers.   https://www.earlytorise.com/how-the-worlds-richest-family-went-broke/  The father builds, the son maintains, the grandson destroys. There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars.  These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.