Household Income And Wealth - Oecd
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE INCOME HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY INCOME INEQUALITY POVERTY RATES AND GAPS HOUSEHOLD WEALTH HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL ASSETS HOUSEHOLD DEBT NON-FINANCIAL ASSETS BY HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA While per capita gross domestic product is the indicator most commonly used to compare income levels, two other measures are preferred, at least in theory, by many analysts. These are per capita Gross National Income (GNI) and Net National Income (NNI). Whereas GDP refers to the income generated by production activities on the economic territory of the country, GNI measures the income generated by the residents of a country, whether earned on the domestic territory or abroad. Definition GNI is defined as GDP plus receipts from abroad less payments to abroad of wages and salaries and of property income plus net taxes and subsidies receivable from abroad. NNI is equal to GNI net of depreciation. Wages and salaries from abroad are those that are earned by residents who essentially live and consume inside the economic territory but work abroad (this happens in border areas on a regular basis) or for persons that live and work abroad for only short periods (seasonal workers) and whose centre of economic interest remains in their home country. Guest-workers and other migrant workers who live abroad for twelve months or more are considered to be resident in the country where they are working. Such persons may send part of their earnings to relatives at home, but these remittances are treated as transfers between resident and non-resident households and are recorded in national disposable income but not national income. Property income from/to abroad includes interest and dividends. It also includes all or part of the retained earnings of foreign enterprises owned fully or in part by residents (and vice versa). In this respect, it is important to note that retained earnings of foreign enterprises owned by residents do not actually return to the residents concerned. Nevertheless, the retained earnings are recorded as a receipt. As such, it is an imputation, and, since there is no actual transaction, it is necessary to impute an outflow of the same amount. The imputed outflow is treated as a financial transaction (a reinvestment of earnings abroad) and not as an outflow of property income. Countries with large stocks of outward foreign direct investment may be shown as having large receipts of property income from abroad and therefore high GNI even though much of the property income may never actually be returned to the country but instead add to foreign direct investment. Comparability All countries compile data according to the 1993 SNA “System of National Accounts, 1993” with the exception of Australia where data are compiled according to the new 2008 SNA. It’s important to note however that differences between the 2008 SNA and the 1993 SNA do not have a significant impact of the comparability of the indicators presented here and this implies that data are highly comparable across countries. However, there are practical difficulties in the measurement both of international flows of wages and salaries and property income and of depreciation. It is for that reason that GDP per capita is the most widely used indicator of income or welfare, even though, GNI is theoretically superior. Sources OECD (2012), National Accounts of OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. Further information Analytical publications OECD (2012), OECD Economic Outlook, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), Perspectives on Global Development, OECD Publishing. OECD (2003), The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. Statistical publications OECD (2011), National Accounts at a Glance, OECD Publishing. Maddison, A. (2003), The World Economy: Historical Perspectives, Development Centre Studies, OECD Publishing. Overview Methodological publications Ranking countries according to GNI per capita, shows that on average GNI per capita is usually around 15-19% higher than NNI per capita. The country rankings are not greatly affected by the choice of income measure. The only countries that would be more than one place lower in the ranking if NNI per capita were used instead of GNI are Belgium, Hungary and Japan; the only countries that would be more than one place higher in the ranking if NNI per capita were used are Canada, Israel, Korea and the Russian Federation. GNI per capita does not differ significantly from GDP per capita. Usually, the differences are (significantly) smaller than USD 2 000. There are, however, four exceptions. For Luxembourg, GNI per capita in 2010, although still highest in the OECD, is nearly USD 25 000 lower than GDP per capita. In Iceland and Ireland, GNI is USD 6 000-7 000 lower. On the other hand, GNI in Switzerland is higher than GDP per capita by approximately USD 3 000. OECD (2000), System of National Accounts, 1993 – Glossary, OECD Publishing. United Nations, OECD, International Monetary Fund and Eurostat (eds.) (2010), System of National Accounts 2008, United Nations, Geneva. Online databases OECD National Accounts Statistics. OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Projections. Websites OECD Economic Outlook – Sources and Methods, www.oecd.org/eco/sources-and-methods. The World Economy (supplementary material), www.theworldeconomy.org. OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS Gross national income per capita US dollars, current prices and PPPs Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Euro area EU27 OECD Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation South Africa 1999 26 053 26 705 25 859 26 220 8 863 14 543 26 699 8 632 23 307 23 994 24 694 17 025 10 433 28 071 22 574 20 347 24 225 24 940 15 407 44 091 9 027 27 226 18 954 29 550 9 940 16 579 10 348 16 761 19 638 25 739 32 540 . 24 145 33 652 23 101 20 510 23 023 . . . . 5 661 6 254 2000 27 197 28 421 28 301 27 743 9 259 15 281 28 221 9 542 25 478 25 608 25 496 18 320 11 294 28 051 24 973 21 923 25 562 26 339 17 109 46 759 9 807 30 049 19 812 35 649 10 532 17 429 10 922 17 565 21 135 27 722 34 737 . 26 024 35 658 24 427 21 817 24 497 . . . 2 280 6 622 6 545 2001 28 299 28 408 28 981 28 502 9 693 16 362 29 017 10 255 26 494 26 972 26 405 19 894 12 720 29 482 26 063 22 351 27 093 27 008 18 109 47 898 9 925 31 015 20 869 37 118 10 922 18 035 12 066 18 477 22 214 28 021 34 515 . 27 732 36 410 25 608 22 938 25 253 . . . 2 458 7 234 6 716 2002 29 470 30 086 30 461 29 162 9 888 16 926 30 393 11 475 27 577 27 862 27 077 21 485 13 906 31 033 27 656 22 518 26 759 27 671 19 668 47 736 10 214 32 235 21 618 37 166 11 524 18 840 12 918 19 649 23 705 29 163 35 425 . 29 318 37 002 26 382 23 855 25 953 . . . 2 594 7 857 7 028 2003 30 973 31 016 30 753 30 530 10 159 18 115 30 243 12 678 27 407 27 554 28 114 22 392 14 630 30 294 29 764 21 309 27 082 28 429 20 197 47 079 10 690 32 066 22 299 38 501 11 869 19 268 12 924 20 358 24 468 30 795 36 724 . 30 258 38 307 26 863 24 449 26 715 . . . 2 712 8 951 7 276 2004 32 074 32 611 31 534 32 167 10 809 19 129 32 438 14 044 30 088 28 554 29 939 23 721 15 341 32 362 31 562 22 746 27 432 29 874 21 688 56 788 11 370 34 086 23 106 42 560 12 641 19 642 14 065 22 011 25 611 32 488 38 042 . 32 226 40 583 28 091 25 753 28 234 . 3 608 . 2 861 10 007 7 820 2005 33 527 33 310 32 415 34 448 11 629 20 372 33 659 15 902 30 849 30 017 31 469 23 994 16 058 33 731 33 553 23 012 28 288 31 150 22 762 58 720 12 243 35 281 23 570 47 967 13 516 21 052 15 717 23 273 27 003 32 936 40 027 . 33 281 43 063 29 380 26 933 29 762 . 4 121 . 3 051 11 531 8 429 2006 35 169 36 193 34 547 36 501 12 104 22 072 36 721 18 145 33 454 31 988 34 235 26 219 17 312 33 740 37 286 23 745 30 491 32 700 24 284 59 764 13 469 39 112 25 159 53 884 14 693 22 274 17 816 25 142 29 896 36 161 43 850 . 35 215 45 575 31 828 29 164 31 828 . 4 773 . 3 301 14 482 9 079 2007 37 098 37 614 36 025 37 860 13 034 23 640 38 129 20 151 36 183 33 722 36 171 26 928 17 611 35 338 39 365 25 414 32 039 34 489 26 150 68 022 14 219 41 412 26 474 55 698 16 160 23 433 20 224 26 639 31 481 39 355 44 724 . 36 234 46 675 33 557 30 801 33 217 . 5 589 . 3 571 16 335 9 599 Statlink 2008 37 531 39 692 37 564 38 493 14 226 24 659 40 472 20 970 38 244 34 769 37 590 28 604 19 122 31 011 36 897 24 962 33 008 34 699 26 888 67 210 15 030 42 017 27 012 61 049 17 660 24 048 22 728 28 248 32 243 40 995 44 368 . 36 665 47 209 34 547 31 943 34 012 . 6 210 . 3 844 19 673 10 065 2009 38 429 38 651 36 512 37 256 14 221 23 901 38 918 19 224 36 224 34 298 36 816 28 668 19 265 29 504 33 070 24 813 32 101 32 980 27 051 55 760 14 101 40 064 28 170 55 026 18 270 23 922 22 227 26 601 31 431 38 042 47 385 . 34 971 45 331 33 810 31 124 32 905 . . . 4 014 18 278 10 006 2010 39 136 39 972 38 396 38 372 15 058 23 557 41 128 19 376 36 847 34 910 38 124 27 668 19 555 29 365 33 552 25 764 31 751 34 645 28 834 61 346 14 982 41 838 . 57 945 19 239 24 616 22 945 26 544 31 437 40 136 51 537 . 35 844 47 195 34 381 31 772 . . . . 4 221 . 10 322 2011 . 41 988 39 374 . 16 336 24 285 42 237 20 825 37 846 35 796 39 944 26 077 . 30 759 . . 32 720 . 30 336 . . 43 277 . 62 954 . 24 431 23 564 26 950 31 736 42 253 . . 35 885 . 35 387 32 752 . . . . . . 10 743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706888 Gross and net national income per capita US dollars, current prices and PPPs, 2011 or latest available year Statlink OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706907
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS HOUSEHOLD DISPOSABLE INCOME Disposable income, as a concept, is closer to the concept of income generally understood in economics, than either national income or GDP. At the total economy level it differs from national income in that additional income items are included, mainly other current transfers such as remittances. For countries where these additional items form significant sources of income the importance of focusing on disposable income in formulating policy is clear. Another important difference between national income and disposable income concerns the allocation of income across sectors. At this level significant differences arise. In the main these reflect the reallocation of national income: from corporations and households to government, on account of income taxes; from households to government to reflect social contributions; and, from government and corporations to households to reflect social benefits other than social transfers in kind. It is mainly this reallocation of income that brings the concept of income closer to the economic concept. Disposable income can be seen as the maximum amount that a unit can afford to spend on consumption goods or services without having to reduce its financial or non-financial assets or by increasing its liabilities. of Australia where data are compiled according to the new 2008 SNA. It’s important to note however that differences between the 2008 SNA and the 1993 SNA do not have a significant impact of the comparability of the indicators presented here and this implies that data are highly comparable across countries. Real household disposable income Annual growth in percentage Definition Household disposable income is the sum of household final consumption expenditure and savings (minus the change in net equity of households in pension funds). It also corresponds to the sum of wages and salaries, mixed income, net property income, net current transfers and social benefits other than social transfers in kind, less taxes on income and wealth and social security contributions paid by employees, the self-employed and the unemployed. The indicator for the household sector includes the disposable income of non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH). The price deflator used to obtain real values is consistent with that used to deflate the final consumption expenditure of households and NPISH. Comparability All countries compile data according to the 1993 SNA “System of National Accounts, 1993” with the exception Statlink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706964 Sources OECD (2012), National Accounts of OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), National Accounts at a Glance, OECD Publishing. Further information Statistical publications Overview In average over the period 2008-10, household disposable income in real terms increased for all OECD countries with some notable exceptions. In Greece, Hungary and Estonia, household disposable income fell by 9-13% in the three year period. Of the 28 OECD countries where information is available, decreases in disposable income were also recorded in Italy, Mexico, Portugal, the Netherlands and Austria. All other countries saw increases in real household disposable income in the period 2008-10. Chile, New Zealand, Norway and the Slovak Republic showed increases of over 10% for this three year period. Across OECD countries, comparisons of growth of real household disposable income over the three years to 2010 compared to growth in the three years to 2001 show a rather consistent picture, with most countries showing slower growth. An exception is Japan, where moderate growth rates in the recent period compare to an average fall in the three years up to 2001. OECD (2012), Taxing Wages, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), OECD Pensions at a Glance, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing. Methodological publications OECD (2007), Understanding National Accounts, OECD Publishing. OECD (2000), System of National Accounts, 1993 – Glossary, OECD Publishing. United Nations, OECD, International Monetary Fund and Eurostat (eds.) (2010), System of National Accounts 2008, United Nations, Geneva. Online databases OECD Social Expenditure Statistics. OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS Real household disposable income Annual growth in percentage Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Euro area EU27 OECD Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation South Africa 1999 3.4 4.0 2.5 2.9 -0.9 2.0 -3.8 -1.9 4.5 2.7 1.8 . 1.5 . . . 1.5 -0.4 2.8 . . 2.1 7.8 2.5 3.5 6.6 -1.3 3.5 . 2.9 3.0 . 2.7 3.1 . . . . . . . . 2.0 2000 3.3 1.8 1.8 4.8 3.5 2.0 0.5 11.2 0.6 3.1 0.9 . 1.2 . . . 0.1 -0.9 0.4 . . 2.2 -4.1 3.8 1.7 3.6 2.0 4.5 . 5.1 2.7 . 4.7 4.8 1.7 2.2 . . . . . . 3.7 2001 3.5 -0.5 3.1 2.8 3.2 2.3 3.7 5.9 3.2 3.1 1.7 4.1 5.2 . . . 3.0 -2.1 0.9 . . 5.6 3.7 0.0 4.1 1.6 3.0 4.6 3.1 6.5 2.9 . 5.4 2.5 2.8 3.5 . . . . . . 2.8 2002 1.1 1.5 -0.2 1.8 2.2 3.0 2.0 7.0 2.2 3.5 0.0 2.6 6.4 . . . 1.2 1.0 3.4 . . -0.6 -0.5 8.0 -1.0 1.0 5.1 3.2 3.0 3.1 -1.3 . 2.4 3.6 1.4 1.6 . . . . . . 3.5 2003 4.3 1.8 -0.2 2.1 3.4 4.0 2.4 7.3 6.0 0.5 0.7 4.7 5.5 . 0.3 . 0.5 0.0 4.9 . . -2.5 8.4 4.6 1.2 0.3 -0.7 0.6 3.7 0.9 -0.8 . 3.2 2.9 1.0 1.6 . . . . . 7.7 4.0 2004 4.0 2.6 -0.2 3.8 7.8 1.8 2.7 2.0 4.8 2.1 0.6 3.1 4.0 . 5.8 . 0.9 1.1 4.7 . 4.0 0.6 5.8 3.3 1.7 1.7 3.9 3.9 2.7 1.3 2.3 . 0.4 3.1 1.6 1.5 . . . . . 9.4 5.8 2005 4.5 2.8 0.1 2.5 7.7 5.1 2.2 11.0 1.0 1.1 0.4 1.9 3.6 . 7.8 . 0.6 0.9 2.3 . 4.6 -0.3 2.4 7.8 1.5 0.7 6.2 4.1 3.8 1.9 2.2 . 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 . . . . . 11.9 5.0 2006 5.5 2.7 2.7 5.7 7.0 5.6 1.8 10.8 2.7 2.4 1.2 2.9 1.7 . 4.3 . 0.9 0.8 2.6 . 5.5 0.5 2.1 -6.4 4.5 -0.4 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.7 . 1.1 4.0 1.7 1.8 . . . . . 13.6 6.9 2007 2.7 2.6 2.2 3.8 7.1 3.8 0.1 11.8 3.6 3.0 0.0 9.4 -3.0 . 6.9 . 1.0 0.8 2.7 4.0 3.4 2.6 . 6.3 4.6 1.9 9.1 4.5 3.2 5.5 4.1 . 1.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 . . . . . 14.1 5.2 Statlink 2008 6.9 0.7 2.1 4.2 4.9 2.1 -0.2 0.4 2.4 0.2 1.0 -4.5 -1.8 . 5.0 . -1.4 -1.2 1.3 4.2 1.0 -0.3 . 3.9 4.0 1.6 5.0 2.7 3.0 2.3 0.1 . 1.3 2.7 0.4 1.1 . . . . . 8.0 0.3 2009 . -1.5 2.8 1.1 7.4 1.3 0.2 -6.7 1.9 1.2 -0.7 1.7 -4.3 . -2.0 . -3.0 1.3 1.6 1.4 -7.7 -1.1 . 3.9 4.8 1.8 2.2 -0.4 2.2 2.2 1.5 . 1.5 -2.1 -0.1 0.5 . . . . . -1.4 1.8 2010 . -0.2 -1.3 3.5 5.9 0.2 3.8 -2.7 2.5 0.9 0.9 -10.3 -4.0 . -2.2 . -0.9 2.5 4.1 . 4.1 -0.1 . 3.5 2.7 1.3 3.2 0.3 -4.6 1.2 1.8 . 0.5 2.2 -0.6 -0.4 . . . . . . 5.8 2011 . . -1.1 . . . 1.1 . 0.0 0.6 . . . . . . . . 0.9 . . -0.2 . 4.2 . -4.6 . . . 3.0 . . . . -0.1 -0.1 . . . . . . . http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706926 Real household disposable income Average annual growth in percentage Statlink OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706945
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS Household saving is the main domestic source of funds to finance capital investment, which is a major impetus for long-term economic growth. Household saving rates vary considerably between countries because of institutional, demographic and socio-economic differences. For example, government provisions for oldage pensions and the demographic age structure of the population will all influence the rate at which populations save (older persons tend to run down their financial assets during their retirement to the detriment of saving). Equally the availability and price of credit, as well as attitudes towards debt, may also influence choices made by individuals regarding whether to spend or save. Definition In the national accounts, household saving is estimated by subtracting household consumption expenditure from household disposable income plus the change in net equity of households in pension funds (since this component is also a determinant of household disposable income but with an opposite sign). Household disposable income consists essentially of income from employment and from the operation of unincorporated enterprises, plus receipts of interest, dividends and social benefits minus payments of current taxes, interest and social contributions. Note that enterprise income includes imputed rents “paid” by owner-occupiers of dwellings. such as agricultural products - the values of which are also included in income. The household saving rate is calculated as the ratio of household saving to household disposable income. Comparability All countries compile data according to the 1993 SNA “System of National Accounts, 1993” with the exception of Australia where data are compiled according to the new 2008 SNA. It’s important to note however that differences between the 2008 SNA and the 1993 SNA do not have a significant impact of the comparability of the indicators presented here and this implies that data are highly comparable across countries. Saving rates may be measured on either a net or a gross basis. Net saving rates are measured after deducting consumption of fixed capital (in respect of assets used in unincorporated enterprises and in respect of owneroccupied dwellings), from saving and from the disposable income of households, so that both saving and disposable income are shown on a net basis. Most countries publish ratios on a net basis. However some countries publish these ratios on a gross basis; which causes an upward bias compared to net ratios. Household consumption expenditure consists mainly of cash outlays for consumer goods and services but it also includes the imputed expenditures that owner occupiers pay, as occupiers, to themselves as owners of their dwellings and the production of goods for own-final use Sources OECD (2012), National Accounts of OECD Countries, OECD Publishing. Overview Household saving rates differ significantly across countries. In 2011 or the most recent available year (2010 in most cases), saving rates of above 10% were recorded in France, Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland and the Russian Federation. Savings rates were slightly negative in Denmark (minus 0.2%), whereas Greece reported a negative savings rate of 11.1% in 2010. Of the 27 countries where data is available for 2010, more than two thirds saw decreases in their savings rate compared to 2009. These differences are partly due to institutional differences between countries. These include the extent to which old-age pensions are funded by government rather than through personal savings, and the extent to which governments provide insurance against sickness and unemployment. The age composition of the population is also relevant, as the elderly tend to run down financial assets acquired during their working life. This implies that a country with a high share of retired persons will usually have a low household saving rate. Considering the years covered in the graph, household saving rates in Japan decreased markedly in 2001, with a much more moderate decrease in the following years. Saving rates have also decreased in Canada, although to a much lesser extent. Rates have remained broadly stable in Germany and France, at rather high levels of 10-12% and 11-13%, respectively. The United States saw a rather stable development of its household saving rate in the period 1999-2007; after that year, the household saving rate started to pick up and is now above 5%. Further information Analytical publications Fournier, J. and I. Koske (2010), “A Simple Model of the Relationship between Productivity, Saving and the Current Account”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 816. Harvey, R. (2004), “Comparison of Household Saving Ratios: Euro Area/United States/Japan”, OECD Statistics Brief, No. 8, June, www.oecd.org/std/statisticsbrief. Hüfner, F. and I. Koske (2010), “Explaining Household Saving Rates in G7 Countries: Implications for Germany”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 754. de Laiglesia, J. and C. Morrison (2008), “Household Structures and Savings: Evidence from Household Surveys”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 267. Statistical publications OECD (2011), National Accounts at a Glance, OECD Publishing. Websites OECD Economic Outlook – Sources and Methods, www.oecd.org/eco/sources-and-methods. OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME AND SAVINGS Household net saving rates As a percentage of household disposable income Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Euro area EU27 OECD Brazil China India Indonesia Russian Federation South Africa 1999 2.8 10.0 13.2 4.1 6.8 4.7 -5.6 -5.4 2.4 11.3 9.6 . 7.8 . . . 10.0 10.2 16.1 . . 9.0 1.0 4.7 10.5 3.9 6.2 4.5 . 1.6 10.6 . 0.9 3.2 9.2 7.2 . . . . . . 1.2 2000 2.6 9.4 12.5 4.8 6.1 5.8 -4.0 -3.0 0.5 11.0 9.4 -4.5 6.2 . . . 7.9 8.8 9.3 . . 6.9 -4.6 4.3 10.0 3.8 6.0 7.8 6.1 3.1 10.6 . 0.1 3.0 8.2 6.3 . . . . . . 1.0 2001 2.6 7.6 13.8 5.3 6.6 5.2 2.1 -4.0 0.3 11.7 9.5 -5.5 6.7 . . . 10.0 3.8 5.2 . . 9.7 -3.6 3.1 11.9 3.8 3.8 9.8 5.9 7.3 11.2 . 1.6 2.8 8.9 7.3 . . . . . . 0.4 2002 0.2 8.0 13.1 3.5 6.4 5.2 2.1 -6.4 0.4 13.0 10.1 -7.6 5.3 . 0.4 . 10.8 3.3 0.4 . . 8.7 -9.1 8.2 8.3 3.3 3.3 10.5 5.8 7.1 9.9 . -0.1 3.7 9.4 7.1 . . . . . . 0.7 2003 -0.9 8.8 12.3 2.7 6.1 4.1 2.4 -7.1 1.4 11.9 10.4 -6.2 2.9 . -0.6 . 10.3 2.7 5.2 . 11.4 7.6 -6.9 8.8 7.7 3.6 1.1 8.2 6.7 5.9 8.6 . 0.3 3.8 9.2 6.9 . . . . . . 0.6 2004 -1.5 9.2 10.7 3.2 6.8 2.9 -1.3 -12.8 2.7 12.2 10.6 -6.9 5.4 . 0.9 . 10.5 2.3 9.2 . 10.1 7.4 -5.6 6.9 5.5 2.8 0.3 9.5 5.2 4.7 8.0 . -1.7 3.5 9.2 6.3 . . . . . . 0.4 2005 0.4 9.7 9.9 2.2 6.7 4.8 -4.2 -10.8 0.9 11.1 10.7 -1.7 6.7 . 1.7 . 10.2 1.6 7.2 . 10.1 6.4 -7.6 9.6 5.9 2.7 1.1 11.2 4.8 4.0 8.8 . -1.5 1.7 8.6 6.0 . . . . . 11.0 0.1 2006 1.3 10.4 10.7 3.6 7.3 6.1 -2.3 -13.1 -1.1 11.2 10.8 -3.1 7.2 . -0.9 . 9.5 1.3 5.2 3.8 10.1 6.1 -8.0 -0.5 6.1 0.4 0.1 11.7 3.9 4.9 10.7 . -2.5 2.7 8.2 5.6 . . . . . 12.4 -0.8 2007 0.5 11.7 11.4 2.9 7.3 5.7 -4.0 -8.2 -0.9 11.7 11.0 2.2 3.3 . -0.1 . 8.9 1.1 2.9 4.3 9.6 6.9 . 0.8 4.6 -0.7 2.2 10.3 4.0 7.2 12.5 . -3.1 2.4 8.6 5.5 . . . . . 12.1 -1.2 Statlink 2008 4.5 11.5 11.5 4.0 6.0 4.8 -3.7 -2.6 -0.3 11.7 11.7 -6.5 2.7 . 5.5 . 8.5 0.5 2.9 5.0 8.9 5.9 . 3.4 -0.3 -0.8 1.1 9.4 7.5 8.9 11.7 . -1.8 5.5 8.7 5.9 . . . . . 10.1 -1.1 2009 8.9 10.7 13.3 4.7 10.9 6.1 -0.4 5.7 4.2 12.6 11.1 -3.4 4.5 . 10.1 . 6.9 2.3 4.6 6.4 8.9 5.6 . 6.6 6.8 3.2 . 9.1 13.0 11.2 11.4 . 3.1 5.3 9.7 8.1 . . . . . 13.6 -0.7 2010 9.2 8.3 10.1 4.9 8.1 5.7 -0.2 3.7 3.3 12.1 11.3 -11.1 2.5 . 8.9 . 5.1 2.3 4.3 . 8.4 3.4 . 6.1 6.4 2.4 . 10.0 7.7 8.5 11.3 . 2.7 5.5 8.2 6.7 . . . . . . -0.3 2011 . . 8.8 . . . -0.2 . . 12.3 . . . . . . . . 3.1 . . 5.0 . 8.0 . 1.8 . . . . . . . . 7.9 6.1 . . . . . . -0.1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932706983 Household net saving rates As a percentage of household disposable income Statlink OECD Factbook 2013 OECD 2012 - Preliminary Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932707002
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND WEALTH INCOME INEQUALITY AND POVERTY INCOME INEQUALITY Income inequalities are one of the most visible manifestations of differences in living standards within each country. High income inequalities typically imply a waste of human resources, in the form of a large share of the population out of work or trapped in low-paid and low-skilled jobs. Definition Income is defined as household disposable income in a particular year. It consists of earnings, self-employment and capital income and public cash transfers; income taxes and social security contributions paid by households are deducted. The income of the household is attributed to each of its members, with an adjustment to reflect differences in needs for households of different sizes (i.e. the needs of a household composed of four people are assumed to be twice as large as those of a person living alone). Results refer to different years. “Late-2000s” data refer to the income in 2008 in all countries except Japan (2006); Denmark, Hungary and Turkey (2007); and Chile (2009). “Mid-1990s” data refer to the income earned between 1993 and 1996. “Mid-1980s” data refer to the income earned between 1983 and 1987 in all countries for which data are available except Greece (1988); Portugal (1990); and the Czech Republic (1992). “Mid-1980s” data refer to the western Lander of Germany. “Late-2000s” data for Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are based on EU-SILC and are not deemed to be fully comparable with those for earlier years. For non-OECD countries, 2008/9 Gini coefficients are not strictly comparable with OECD countries as they are based on per capita incomes except India and Indonesia for which per capita consumption was used. Income inequality among individuals is measured here by four indicators. The Gini coefficient is based on the comparison of cumulative proportions of the population against cumulative proportions of income they receive, and it ranges between 0 in the case of perfect equality and 1 in the case of perfect inequality. The P90/P10 ratio is the ratio of the upper bound value of the ninth decile (i.e. the 10% of people with highest income) to that of the first decile; the P90/P50 ratio is the ratio of the upper bound value of the ninth decile to the median income; and the P50/P10 ratio is the ratio of median income to the upper bound value of the first decile. Comparability Data used here were provided by national experts applying common methodologies and standardised definitions. In many cases, experts have made several adjustments to their source data to conform to standardised definitions. While this approach improves comparability, full standardisation cannot be achieved. Also, small differences between periods and across countries are usually not significant. Sources OECD (2011), Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, OECD Publishing. Overview There is considerable variation in income inequality across OECD countries. Inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient is lowest in Slovenia, Denmark and Norway and highest in Chile, Mexico and Turkey. It is above-average in Israel, Portugal and the United States, and below-average in the remaining Nordic and many Continental European countries. The Gini coefficient for the most unequal country (Chile) is double the value of the most equal country (Slovenia). Overall, the different measures of income inequalities provide similar ranking across countries. From the mid-1980s to the late-2000s, inequality rose in 15 out of 19 countries for which longer-run data are available. The increase was strongest in Finland, New Zealand and Sweden. Declines occurred in France, Greece, and Turkey. Income inequality generally rose faster from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s than in the following period. With measurement-related differences in mind, nonOECD countries have higher levels of income inequality than OECD countries, particularly in Brazil and South Africa. Further information Analytical publications OECD (2011), How’s Life? Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing. OECD (2011), Society at a Glance: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing. OECD (2010), Tackling Inequalities in Brazil, China, India an
household income and income and savings national income per capita household disposable income household savings income inequality and poverty income inequality poverty rates and gaps household wealth household financial assets household debt non-financial assets by households
1.2 The Scope of our Wealth Management Services 1.3 Components of Wealth Management 1.4 Process of Wealth Management 1.5 Need for Wealth Management 1.6 Expectation of Clients 1.7 Challenges to Wealth Management in India 1.8 Code of Ethics for Wealth Managers 1.9 Review Questions 1.1 Introduction to Wealth Management What is 'Wealth Management'?
Household net worth, or wealth, is known to exhibit a highly skewed distribution. Estimates of wealth concentration show that the top 0.1 percent of families held 22 percent of the wealth owned by U.S. households in 2012. 2 However, household wealth is a difficult concept to measure. In order to create
Household income: Includes income of the . householder and all other people 15 years and older in the household, whether or not they are related to the householder. Median: The point that divides the household income distribution into halves, one-half with income above the median and the other with income below the median. The median is based
Household income: Includes income of the householder and all other people 15 years and older in the household, whether or not they are related to the householder. Median: The point that divides the household income distribution into halves, one-half with income above the median and the other with income below the median. The median is based
Income Tax Act 2007 2007 No 97 BC 6 Income tax liability of filing taxpayer 106 BC 7 Income tax liability of person with schedular income 106 BC 8 Satisfaction of income tax liability 108 Subpart BD—Income, deductions, and timing BD 1 Income, exempt income, excluded income, non- 108 residents' foreign-sourced income, and assessable income
Off-farm income is included in the discussion of farm income at the household level at the end of this report. 1 For information on state-level farm income, see "U.S. and State Farm Income and Wealth Statistics," available as part of the Farm Income and Wealth Statistics, Farm Income and Costs, Farm Economy Topics, Economic Research
Abstract Background: Lower household income has been consistently associated with poorer diet quality. Household food purchases may be an important intervention target to improve diet quality among low income populations. Associations between household income and the diet quality of household food purchases were examined.
development of the International Standard and its recent publication, now, is a good opportunity to reflect on the body of information and guidance that is available a wide range of organisations. Whether you are trying to make sense of the variety of views on the revised International Standard, prepare for your transition or to keep up with the latest developments in Environmental Management .
