Quote:
5 Those receiving the top 1% of income in New Zealand have an 8% share of total income(2009 to 2010), similar to France and Australia, and much lower than the UK(14%) and the US (17%).· Another way oflooking at inequality is to track the share of a country’s total income that isreceived by the top 1%. Such information is not reliably available in samplesurveys like the HES, but data based on tax returns is available forinternational comparisons.· From the 1920sthrough to around 2010, English-speaking countries have shown a U-shaped curvefor the income share of the top 1% with a lower flattish period from 1950 tothe mid 1980s (“the great compression”).
· The top 1% in New Zealand received around 8% of all taxable income in2009 and 2010 (before tax), more than in Denmark, Finland and Sweden (5 to 7%),similar to Norway, France and Australia, lower than Ireland (11%) and Canada(12%), and much lower than the UK (14%) and the US (17%). For most of thesecountries these proportions are all higher than in the 1980s (60 to 100%higher).
6 Wealth is distributed more unequally than income.· Wealth Giniscores are typically two to three times those for income. · In New Zealand,those in the top income decile receive close to 25% of gross income; those inthe top wealth decile hold 50% of the total wealth. · New Zealand’s top decile wealth share is similar to thosefound in many other OECD countries: Australiaand the UK (45%), Germany (52%), Canada(53%) and Sweden(58%). For the USit is around 70%.