Accessible Version
Heterogeneity in the Marginal Propensity to Consume among U.S. Households, Accessible Data
Figure 1. Mean reported allocation of a one-month income windfall
| Spend | Save | Pay Debt | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Percent (%) | 22.35 | 47.31 | 30.30 |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 2. Distribution of the share of a one-month income windfall allocated to spending
| Percentage (%) | Share of Respondents |
|---|---|
| 0 | 47% |
| 5 | 1% |
| 10 | 5% |
| 15 | 1% |
| 20 | 6% |
| 25 | 7% |
| 30 | 9% |
| 35 | 0% |
| 40 | 2% |
| 45 | 0% |
| 50 | 11% |
| 55 | 0% |
| 60 | 2% |
| 65 | 0% |
| 70 | 1% |
| 75 | 1% |
| 80 | 1% |
| 85 | 0% |
| 90 | 1% |
| 95 | 0% |
| 100 | 4% |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 3. Mean Allocation by Income and Wealth percentile group
MPC (%) by Normal Income Percentile - 2025
| Spend | Save | Pay Debt | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bottom 10% | 28.3 | 45.6 | 26.1 |
| 10-20% | 25.0 | 48.4 | 26.6 |
| 20-30% | 24.9 | 45.5 | 29.5 |
| 30-40% | 23.7 | 43.9 | 32.3 |
| 40-50% | 22.7 | 45.0 | 32.2 |
| 50-60% | 19.4 | 45.0 | 35.5 |
| 60-70% | 20.5 | 41.8 | 37.6 |
| 70-80% | 19.8 | 43.5 | 36.6 |
| 80-90% | 19.2 | 53.5 | 27.3 |
| Top 90-95% | 22.2 | 53.0 | 24.7 |
| Top 95-99% | 18.4 | 66.6 | 15.0 |
| Top 1% | 14.0 | 77.5 | 8.5 |
MPC (%) by Net Worth Percentile - 2025
| Spend | Save | Pay Debt | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bottom 10% | 24.9 | 35.3 | 39.8 |
| 10-20% | 25.5 | 46.9 | 27.5 |
| 20-30% | 23.6 | 44.0 | 32.3 |
| 30-40% | 23.7 | 38.2 | 38.1 |
| 40-50% | 20.5 | 44.0 | 35.4 |
| 50-60% | 20.8 | 43.8 | 35.4 |
| 60-70% | 19.9 | 45.1 | 35.0 |
| 70-80% | 21.1 | 52.0 | 26.8 |
| 80-90% | 21.7 | 56.5 | 21.8 |
| Top 90-95% | 22.8 | 66.4 | 10.7 |
| Top 95-99% | 22.5 | 65.1 | 12.4 |
| Top 1% | 14.5 | 79.8 | 5.7 |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 4. Conditional MPC by hand-to-mouth status
| Conditional mean spending allocation (%) | |
|---|---|
| Not Hand-to-Mouth | 20.3 |
| Hand-to-Mouth | 22.9 |
Note: Figure plots the conditional marginal propensity to consume (MPC) based on whether a household does or does not have one-half month of normal income in liquid assets (“not hand-to-mouth” or “hand-to-mouth,” respectively), adjusting for normal income.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 5. Conditional MPC by hand-to-mouth status and wealth group
| Not Hand-to-Mouth | Hand-to-Mouth | |
|---|---|---|
| Low Wealth | 20.6 | 23.5 |
| High Wealth | 20.5 | 22.2 |
Note: Figure plots the conditional marginal propensity to consume (MPC) based on whether a household does or does not have one-half month of normal income in liquid assets (“not hand-to-mouth” or “hand-to-mouth,” respectively) and whether a household’s wealth is below the 30th percentile of the household wealth distribution (“low-wealth”). Conditional MPCs are obtained by regressing MPC on hand-to-mouth status, low wealth status, log normal income, log wealth, and the interaction of hand-to-mouth status with low-wealth status. The key from top to bottom identifies bars within each wealth group in order from left to right.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 6. Conditional MPC by whether a household spent within its budget constraint last year
| Conditional mean spending allocation (%) | |
|---|---|
| Below budget constraint | 19.7 |
| At or above budget constraint | 21.6 |
Note: Figure plots the conditional marginal propensity to consume (MPC) based on whether a household’s spending was below its income last year (“below budget constraint”) or a household’s spending exceeded or matched its income last year (“at or above budget constraint”), adjusting for normal income.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 7. Conditional MPC by income uncertainty
| Conditional mean spending allocation (%) | |
|---|---|
| Less certain | 21.7 |
| More certain | 20.1 |
Note: Figure plots the conditional marginal propensity to consume (MPC) based on whether a household has a good idea of next year’s income (“more certain”) or a household does not have a good idea of next year’s income (“less certain”), adjusting for normal income.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure 8. Conditional MPC by financial knowledgeability
| Conditional mean spending allocation (%) | |
|---|---|
| Less financially knowledgeable | 21.4 |
| More financially knowledgeable | 19.9 |
Note: Figure plots the conditional marginal propensity to consume (MPC) based on whether a household answered all three financial literacy questions in the SCF correctly (“more financially knowledgeable”) or a household answered any of the three financial literacy questions incorrectly (“less financially knowledgeable”), adjusting for normal income.
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026).
Figure A1. Selected average MPC estimates from the literature
| Publication | Publication Year | MPC Estimate(s) (Shares) | Horizon (months) | Method | Shock |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japelli and Pistaferri | 2014 | 0.48 | N.A. | Survey | One month windfall |
| Christelis et al. | 2019 | 0.4, 0.37 | 12 | Survey | One/Three month windfall |
| Japelli and Pistaferri | 2020 | 0.47 | N.A. | Survey | One month windfall |
| Fuster, Kaplan, and Zafar | 2021 | 0.07 | 3 | Survey | $500 |
| Colarieti, Mei, and Stantcheva | 2024 | 0.12, 0.16 | 3 | Survey | $1,000, Ten percent income windfall |
| Colarieti, Mei, and Stantcheva | 2024 | 0.37, 0.46 | 12 | Survey | $1,000, Ten percent income windfall |
| Koşar and Melcangi | 2026 | 0.17 | N.A. | Survey | Ten percent income windfall |
| Puig | 2026 | 0.48 | N.A. | Survey | $500 |
| SCF MPC FEDS Note | 2026 | 0.22 | 12 | Survey | One month windfall |
| Johnson, Parker, and Souleles | 2006 | 0.2-0.4 | 3 | Natural Experiment | Realized 2001 Tax Rebate |
| Blundell, Pistaferri, and Preston | 2008 | 0.05, 0.64 | 12 | Statistical Decomposition | PSIED imputed from food expenditures in the CEX |
| Kaplan, Violante, and Weidner | 2014 | 0.18 | 3 | Statistical Decomposition | $500 with PSID among other data |
| Graziani, van der Klaauw, and Zafar | 2016 | 0.137, 0.36 | 12 | Survey/Natural Experiment | Realized 2011 payroll tax cut |
| Coibion, Gorodnichenko, and Weber | 2020 | 0.4 | N.A. | Survey/Natural Experiment | Realized CARES Act stimulus checks |
| Orchard, Ramey, and Weiland | 2021 | 0.28, 0.12 | 12 | Natural Experiment | DiD and macro counter-factuals with 2001 and 2008 rebates |
| Fagerang, Holm, and Natvik | 2021 | 0.35-0.71 | 12 | Natural Experiment | Norwegian lottery wins |
| Patterson | 2023 | 0.5 | 12 | Statistical Decomposition | CEX/PSID/LEHD |
| Bartik et al. | 2024 | 0.38-0.5, 0.18-0.24 | 36 | RCT | Unconditional cash transfer |
Note: Whiskers denote a range of estimates from a single study.
Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2026);2025 SCF, Johnson, Parker, and Souleles (2006); Blundell, Pistaferri, and Preston (2008); Kaplan, Violante, and Weidner (2014); Jappelli and Pistaferri (2014, 2020); Graziani, van der Klaauw, and Zafar (2016); Christelis, Georgarakos, Jappelli, Pistaferri, and van Rooij (2019); Coibion, Gorodnichenko, and Weber (2020); Fagereng, Holm, and Natvik (2021); Fuster, Kaplan, and Zafar (2021); Patterson (2023); Bartik, Rhodes, Broockman, Krause, Miller, and Vivalt (2024); Colarieti, Mei, and Stantcheva (2024); Orchard, Ramey, and Weiland (2025); Koşar and Melcangi (2025); Puig (2026).