Bottom 10% Income Up 72+% Between 1999-2013

[easy2012]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Percentile_points_for_income_of_individuals_before_tax

Pretax Income change between 1999 to 2013

Very Bottom 1% £4600 -> £8430 [ +83% approximately ]

Bottom 10% 5,630 -> £9690 [ +72% approximately]

Median : 14,400 -> 21300 [+48% approximately]

90% : £33000 -> 50,500 [+53% approximately]

1% : £96400 -> £156000 [+61%]

Obviously if the trend continues then in about two century presumably the income gap would be closed completely.

So, the top 1% is, in percentage term, actually not doing as well as the bottom 1% ( I know they would have lots of housing wealth, but on income term, the story may not exactly be what we were told - we have always been led to believe that the top 1% are zooming off in a rocket while the bottom's income 'hardly moved at all in real term'.

The squeezed middle appeared to have done the worse.

Note: Obviously the people in each percentile group would have changed hugely over the period.

Please Discuss

Edited June 6, 2013 by easy2012

[Ulfar]

Well it is true what the say about statistics.

The problem with using the percentages this way is it gives a false impression that the gap in wealth is closing when in fact it is still widening.

[Executive Sadman]

Do they use imputed rents and all that other BS like with the GDP?

I guess if they count housing benefits, the poor have done real well. Except they rent the same house and dont see the money themselves...

[easy2012]

Do they use imputed rents and all that other BS like with the GDP?

I guess if they count housing benefits, the poor have done real well. Except they rent the same house and dont see the money themselves...

Source provided. I don't think they do - I think it comes from tax returns (including PAYE etc auto reporting)

[richc]

Source provided. I don't think they do - I think it comes from tax returns (including PAYE etc auto reporting)

If you follow the source, the after tax income figures don't make any sense. I think the more important numbers are after tax income, but the total share of income figures don't add up to anywhere near 100% for the past few years. I'm I reading it right, or is HMRC publishing complete gibberish?

[SuperChimp]

Obviously if the trend continues then in about two century presumably the income gap would be closed completely.

So, the top 1% is, in percentage term, actually not doing as well as the bottom 1% ( I know they would have lots of housing wealth, but on income term, the story may not exactly be what we were told - we have always been led to believe that the top 1% are zooming off in a rocket while the bottom's income 'hardly moved at all in real term'.

The squeezed middle appeared to have done the worse.

Note: Obviously the people in each percentile group would have changed hugely over the period.

Please Discuss

Wealth is more important.

The wealthy own a large percentage of the housing stock which has increased dramatically over the same period.

Also those at the top of the income scale will have fantastic pensions and share options which also have to be taken into account,.

[interestrateripoff]

I'd rather have 50% increase on £1m than 75% on £10k a year.

[easy2012]

If you follow the source, the after tax income figures don't make any sense. I think the more important numbers are after tax income, but the total share of income figures don't add up to anywhere near 100% for the past few years. I'm I reading it right, or is HMRC publishing complete gibberish?

Why it wouldn't make sense?

Pertax income = income before taxes, post tax income = income after taxes + redistribution ( I think only those administered by HMRC such as tax credits are included)

I think pretax income is important - the point is that the income of the top 10% are not on a rocket booster to infinity and the bottom 10% income are not shrinking to slavery.

Middle income got squeezed hard though.

[easy2012]

Wealth is more important.

The wealthy own a large percentage of the housing stock which has increased dramatically over the same period.

Also those at the top of the income scale will have fantastic pensions and share options which also have to be taken into account,.

Of course wealth is important, and a large chunk of that is housing wealth.

The point is that the older richest get rich very fast through asset price inflation, not by working though.

[SuperChimp]

The point is that the older richest get rich very fast through asset price inflation, not by working though.

Which has nothing to do with their income.

The idea that there will inevitably be a convergence of wealth over time within the current economic paradigm is in my opinion nonsense.

[alexw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Percentile_points_for_income_of_individuals_before_tax

Pretax Income change between 1999 to 2013

Very Bottom 1% £4600 -> £8430 [ +83% approximately ]

Bottom 10% 5,630 -> £9690 [ +72% approximately]

Median : 14,400 -> 21300 [+48% approximately]

90% : £33000 -> 50,500 [+53% approximately]

1% : £96400 -> £156000 [+61%]

Obviously if the trend continues then in about two century presumably the income gap would be closed completely.

So, the top 1% is, in percentage term, actually not doing as well as the bottom 1% ( I know they would have lots of housing wealth, but on income term, the story may not exactly be what we were told - we have always been led to believe that the top 1% are zooming off in a rocket while the bottom's income 'hardly moved at all in real term'.

The squeezed middle appeared to have done the worse.

Note: Obviously the people in each percentile group would have changed hugely over the period.

Please Discuss

It's income not wages, so unless you somehow think the gov topping up income to a livable level is a good thing I don't see what there is to crow about. Moreover most of that is via housing benefit which the recipients don't actually see.

If we look at real wages using a RPI measure to adjust for inflation then between 1975-2010 -

Bottom 10%, real wages +8%.

Bottom 50%, real wages +30%

Top 1%, real wages +130%

http://www.livingstandards.org/features/pay/

I don't know why you try and peddle the nonsense that the poor have done really well, they have not. Walk down any poor part of any UK town and you'll see that. Then do the same with the area's the wealthy live in and you'll see my numbers borne out in reality, not yours. The wealth/income gap has widened dramatically and continues to do so.

Though peddling this nonsense does fit your right wing agenda.

Edited June 6, 2013 by alexw

[alexw]

Do they use imputed rents and all that other BS like with the GDP?

I guess if they count housing benefits, the poor have done real well. Except they rent the same house and dont see the money themselves...

Yes they do, it's income not wages. So it includes benefits also.

[easy2012]

Which has nothing to do with their income.

The idea that there will inevitably be a convergence of wealth over time within the current economic paradigm is in my opinion nonsense.

Certainly not indeed if they keep QEing and the current rent seeking regimes continue.

Again - those headlines that says the top 1%'s incomes are zooming to the moon and those at the bottom 10% are falling like a lead ballon is misleading.

[richc]

Why it wouldn't make sense?

Pertax income = income before taxes, post tax income = income after taxes + redistribution ( I think only those administered by HMRC such as tax credits are included)

I think pretax income is important - the point is that the income of the top 10% are not on a rocket booster to infinity and the bottom 10% income are not shrinking to slavery.

Middle income got squeezed hard though.

I think you should look at the source more carefully before coming to any conclusions. All of the increase in the share of income for the bottom 25% comes from the years that are estimates based on government projections, not actual data. I wonder what's driving that?

And the bigger problem is that the total share should always add up to 100% when 100% of the population is included. That holds true until 2009/10, but not afterwards for the after-tax data. There's something wrong with their numbers.

[easy2012]

Yes they do, it's income not wages. So it includes benefits also.

Read the HMRC Data - then make claims/conclusion.

Pretax income is pre-redistribution obviously.

I suspect the post tax number is only on benefits administered by HMRC, adding in housing benefit, the bottom are not doing that badly.

The middle slice is really be squashed, of course.

[easy2012]

If we look at real wages using a RPI measure to adjust for inflation then between 1975-2010 -

Bottom 10%, real wages +8%.

Bottom 50%, real wages +30%

Top 1%, real wages +130%

Obviously we are talking about a different reference starting point here 1975-2010 vs 1999 -2013.

[alexw]

Read the HMRC Data - then make claims/conclusion.

Pretax income is pre-redistribution obviously.

I suspect the post tax number is only on benefits administered by HMRC, adding in housing benefit, the bottom are not doing that badly.

The middle slice is really be squashed, of course.

Do I need to restate my data?

If we look at real wages using a RPI measure to adjust for inflation then between 1975-2010 -

Bottom 10%, real wages +8%.

Bottom 50%, real wages +30%

Top 1%, real wages +130%

How exactly are the bottom doing ok or well? Using my longer term numbers please explain that to me.

[easy2012]

Do I need to restate my data?

If we look at real wages using a RPI measure to adjust for inflation then between 1975-2010 -

Bottom 10%, real wages +8%.

Bottom 50%, real wages +30%

Top 1%, real wages +130%

How exactly are the bottom doing ok or well? Using my longer term numbers please explain that to me.

They are doing not as badly as the left wing press keep proclaiming - that their income are dropping like a lead baloon and the top aren't not on a rocket to moon either.

Why long term number - the most recent 13 years would be more relevant. Rather then trying to understand why - you just can't stop invoking this left wing right wing and the word that begins with n**** can you ?

[alexw]

Obviously we are talking about a different reference starting point here 1975-2010 vs 1999 -2013.

Why exactly pick 1999 as your starting point? Why not use all the available data?

[easy2012]

Why exactly pick 1999 as your starting point? Why not use all the available data?

Because HMRC don't published them.

Why 1975 - 2013 rather than 1945 to 2013?

Actually I think the inflation in the 1976 - 199x may have something to do with this - high inflation hurts the poor while those in the top can ride the high inflation.

[alexw]

They are doing not as badly as the left wing press keep proclaiming - that their income are dropping like a lead baloon and the top aren't not on a rocket to moon either.

Why long term number - the most recent 13 years would be more relevant. Rather then trying to understand why - you just can't stop invoking this left wing right wing and the word that begins with n**** can you ?

Because your post is clearly based on your political alignment?

[easy2012]

I think you should look at the source more carefully before coming to any conclusions. All of the increase in the share of income for the bottom 25% comes from the years that are estimates based on government projections, not actual data. I wonder what's driving that?

And the bigger problem is that the total share should always add up to 100% when 100% of the population is included. That holds true until 2009/10, but not afterwards for the after-tax data. There's something wrong with their numbers.

I think the two middle columns add to 100. Those on the left of the middle "bottom" are breakdown of the 'bottom 50%' and the right hand the 'top 50%'.

So, for 1999-0 data,

Top 50% holds 76.2% and within this the top 25% holds 53.4% of total income If you add the top 49.99% to top 25.001%'s income, that gives you the 76.2%. The same applies to the bottom pile.

Could you point out the error that you think is there?

And yes, conclusion must be made carefully after understanding the data. I started to get interested in this when I stumbled on the wiki page.

[easy2012]

Because your post is clearly based on your political alignment?

You just can't resist from making many issues wing-biased can you?

The numbers are from posted by HMRC. You could argue on the time-range pick, but you have failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why those numbers are flawed given the time range. The most recent 13 years is a fairly reasonable period of time.

Have you tried this sort of argument at scientific conferences, i.e. "I don't agree with your numbers as they don't fit my political bias and therefore it must be n**** and that you must be a r****"" ..

I invite you to point out flaws in the 13 years number in ways where a highly qualified scientist would do.

Of course InterestRipofpoint of 10% on £1m is better than 20% on £10k is very valid, but the numbers do not show that the bottom pile income are falling like a lead balloon.

Edited June 6, 2013 by easy2012

[alexw]

You just can't resist from making many issues wing-biased can you?

The numbers are from posted by HMRC. You could argue on the time-range pick, but you have failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why those numbers are flawed given the time range. The most recent 13 years is a fairly reasonable period of time.

Have you tried this sort of argument at scientific conferences, i.e. "I don't agree with your numbers as they don't fit my political bias and therefore it must be n**** and that you must be a r****"" ..

I invite you to point out flaws in the 13 years number in ways where a highly qualified scientist would do.

Of course InterestRipofpoint of 10% on £1m is better than 20% on £10k is very valid, but the numbers do not show that the bottom pile income are falling like a lead balloon.

Ok then.

Its based on RPI which is the average inflation rather than the inflation felt by the poor.

Now what has happened to the price of all the fundamental basics the poor spend the majority of their incomes on in the past 13 years? Food, utilities, housing.

What then for the "real" incomes of the poor over the past 13 years?

[easy2012]

Ok then.

Its based on RPI which is the average inflation rather than the inflation felt by the poor.

Now what has happened to the price of all the fundamental basics the poor spend the majority of their incomes on in the past 13 years? Food, utilities, housing.

What then for the "real" incomes of the poor over the past 13 years?

This is much better.

This is fair enough and that aligns the thesis that high inflation in the 1975 - 90x must have been most brutal to those at the bottom pile and the subsequent low inflation improves things. And yet of course, the power to be wants more inflation.

Edited June 6, 2013 by easy2012