General Discussion

pampango

(24,692 posts) Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:10 PM Jun 2014

Ratio of incomes of the top 10% vs. bottom 10%: 16-1 in US, 13-1 in Russia, 6-1 in Ukraine, Sweden,

Norway and Finland, 7-1 in Germany, 9-1 in Canada, 22-1 in China, 5-1 in Japan and 8-1 in South Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

The Scandanavian countries are not surprising. I think most of us expect them to be near the top in income equality.

I figured that the US and Russia would be near the bottom - big military budgets and regressive taxes. China is even worse than I would have thought. (All that new wealth is obviously highly concentrated.)

Ukraine surprised me. I would not have guessed that it on a par with the Scandanavian countries (although at a much lower income level I'm sure) in terms of equality. Those billionaire politicians you always hear about must not be a numerous as I would have thought.

Japan and South Korea were surprisingly very equitable.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ratio of incomes of the top 10% vs. bottom 10%: 16-1 in US, 13-1 in Russia, 6-1 in Ukraine, Sweden, (Original Post) pampango Jun 2014 OP

Map at link gives quick comparison, thanks nt Leme Jun 2014 #1

Don't at least 10% have close to zero income though? geek tragedy Jun 2014 #2

Not sure how the UN calculates it. I suppose the bottom 10% has some income, just not very much. n/t pampango Jun 2014 #3

tough methodology to apply universally, especially given the variation geek tragedy Jun 2014 #4

There are figures at the link for "before taxes and transfers" and after them. pampango Jun 2014 #5

Leme

(1,092 posts)

1. Map at link gives quick comparison, thanks nt

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:23 PM

Jun 2014

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

2. Don't at least 10% have close to zero income though?

Reply to pampango (Original post)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:28 PM

Jun 2014

Or does this exclude students, retired, unemployed etc?

pampango

(24,692 posts)

3. Not sure how the UN calculates it. I suppose the bottom 10% has some income, just not very much. n/t

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:47 PM

Jun 2014

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

4. tough methodology to apply universally, especially given the variation

Reply to pampango (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:50 PM

Jun 2014

in state-provided services and needs like healthcare, housing, food, etc.

Does SNAP count as income? How would one account for differences in Canadian vs US healthcare systems (though that disparity has been reduced significantly).

pampango

(24,692 posts)

5. There are figures at the link for "before taxes and transfers" and after them.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 4, 2014, 01:23 PM

Jun 2014

They use GINI figures rather than ratios of the richest and poorest 10%.

One of the interesting things is that, before considering taxes and transfer payments, income inequality in Germany is worse than in the US and France and the US are almost identical. Even the Scandinavian countries are not as much better than the US as you would think. Perhaps this proves, much to the chagrin of conservatives, that the incentive to earn even at high income levels, is not harmed by high taxes and a strong safety net. German and French high income earners do very well financially before you figure in taxes.

It is after taxes and transfer payments that Germany, France and other countries rank much higher than the US in terms of income equality. Perhaps a testament to the value of progressive taxes and a solid safety net. I am not sure how the UN values SNAP and its European equivalent or the value of more effective health care systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient.2C_before_taxes_and_transfers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#Gini_coefficient.2C_after_taxes_and_transfers

Reply to this discussion