<P> Panel data that track the same individuals over time are much more informative than statistical categories that do not correspond to specific people . The Treasury did a study in 2007 that tracked the same individual taxpayers over the age of 25 from 1996 to 2005 and found differing results from what the graph above shows . The results showed that during those years, half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile, with half of those in the bottom quintile moving to a higher one . About 60% of taxpayers in the top 1% in 1996 no longer stayed in that category by 2005 . </P> <P> On an absolute scale, the lowest incomes saw the greatest gains in percentage terms and the highest incomes actually declined . Half of those in the bottom 20% in 1996 saw their income at least double during these years, and the median income of the top 1996 top 1% declined by 25.8% . The reason that the results are so inconsistent with household income statistics is that household statistics do not track the same people over time; it is important to specify how many of the households in the top 1% in a given year were still there when looking at that category years later and gauging income gains . </P> <P> After the financial crisis of 2007--08, inequality between social classes has further increased . As William Lazonick puts it: </P> <Dl> <Dd> "Five years after the official end of the Great Recession, corporate profits are high, and the stock markets are booming . Yet most Americans are not sharing in the recovery . While the top 0.1% of income recipients--which include most of the highest - ranking corporate executives--reap almost all the income gains, good jobs keep disappearing, and new employment opportunities tend to be insecure and underpaid ." </Dd> </Dl>

What is middle class income for one person