EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)

Transcription

1 16 November 2006 Percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty classified by age group, EU SILC 2004 and Age group EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2005 Percentage of persons at risk of poverty (60 threshold) in consistent poverty Average income per week gross household income (per household) disposable household income (per household) equivalised disposable income (per individual) EU-SILC EU-SILC Change Poverty threshold 60 of median equivalised income (per individual) Substantial drop in risk of poverty rate for elderly Published by the Central Statistics Office, Ireland. Ardee Road Dublin 6 Ireland Skehard Road Cork Ireland LoCall: (ROI) (UK/NI) Tel: Tel: Fax: Fax: Both offices may be contacted through any of these telephone numbers. CSO on the Web: and go to Labour Market and Earnings: Labour Market Director General: Donal Garvey Enquiries: Labour Market Statistics Direct Dial (021) labour@cso.ie Queries and Sales Information Section, ext 5032 information@cso.ie Central Statistics Office The contents of this release may be quoted provided the source is given clearly and accurately. Reproduction for own or internal use is permitted. In 2005 just over 20 of those aged 65 and over were at risk of poverty, representing a significant decline on the 27 recorded one year previously. Over the same period the rates for persons under 65 remained relatively unchanged. At an overall level 18.5 of the population were at risk of poverty, compared with 19.4 in See tables 1, 3 & graph opposite. The percentage of the population living in households that experienced some element of enforced deprivation, according to the eight basic deprivation indicators used in the survey, increased from 18.3 in 2004 to 19.2 in Those living in lone parent households had the highest deprivation levels in 2005, as in 2004, with almost 60 reporting deprivation in respect of at least one of the eight deprivation indicators. See table 6a & background notes. When the risk of poverty is combined with enforced deprivation the results show that the levels of consistent poverty remained relatively unchanged over the period, with rates of 6.8 and 7.0 in 2004 and 2005 respectively. See table 7 & background notes. The average gross household income in 2005 was just over 51,000 per annum or per week, an increase of 3.6 on The average net disposable income was per week, an increase of 4.8. After adjusting for household size and composition, the average equivalised disposable income across all individuals increased by 5.3 from just under 360 to almost 380 per week. See annex. For more information contact Kathryn Carty on or Caroline Barrett on Ref 206/2006 ISSN

2 The at risk of poverty threshold, set at 60 of median equivalised income, was just over 10,000 per annum or almost 193 per week in 2005, an increase of 3.9 from In practice this means that persons living alone with a net disposable income of less than 193 per week were considered to be at risk of poverty, while the threshold for households consisting of two adults and two children was See annex. At-risk-of-poverty-rates (60 threshold) classified by age group, EU SILC Age group Income excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Income including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Income including all social transfers (60 threshold) Social transfers reduce poverty rate by more than half If no account was taken of social transfers (such as unemployment benefits, child benefit and pensions) the risk of poverty would have been much higher at around 40 in both 2004 and The impact of their inclusion was to more than halve the risk in both years through a reduction of almost 22 percentage points in 2005 and 20.4 percentage points in See table 3. Social transfers play a particularly important role in reducing the risk of poverty for those aged 65 and over. The inclusion of pensions and survivors benefits reduced their risk of poverty from over 88 to just under 40 in 2005, while the inclusion of other social transfers brought the rate down by a further 20 percentage points to See table 3 & graph opposite. The impact of social transfers on those under the age of 65 was less pronounced. The at risk of poverty rate for children was reduced by 19 percentage points from 40 to 21.2, while for persons aged the rate fell by almost 15 percentage points from 32.3 to See table 3. No significant difference between male and female risk of poverty rates While females were found to have a higher risk of poverty than males in 2004, there was little or no observable difference in The rate for females dropped by 2.3 percentage points to 18.5 while the rate for males remained relatively unchanged over the year at The most significant decrease for females was among the elderly, where the poverty risk dropped from 28.2 in 2004 to 19.9 in See table 3. While the risk of poverty for males remained relatively static over the year there were some changes within the various age groups. The at risk of poverty rate for males aged 65 and over fell from 25.8 in 2004 to 20.3 in The rate for those aged showed a slight increase from 16.4 to 17.0 with a more significant increase evident for those aged under 15 where the risk of poverty increased from 19.5 to See table 3. Percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty classified by Principal Economic Status, EU-SILC 2004 and Significant decrease in poverty rates for lone parent households The at risk of poverty rate for persons living in lone parent households declined from 48.3 in 2004 to 40.7 in However, they were still a particularly high-risk group. Decreases in the risk of poverty rate were also evident among the 1 adult, no children households, a grouping predominantly composed of the elderly, where risk of poverty decreased from 35.7 in 2004 to 28.8 in See table 4. Other high-risk groups were the unemployed and the ill or disabled. Though the at risk of poverty rates for the ill or disabled have decreased consistently over the past 2 years, from 51.7 in 2003 to 40.6 in 2005, the unemployed have only shown a very slight reduction from 41.5 to See table 4 & graph opposite. At work Unemployed Student Home duties Retired Ill/disabled In 2005, almost 30 of adults who had no more than a primary level education were at risk of poverty. The risk was halved to 14.8 for persons with a higher secondary education, while just under 4 of persons with a third level degree or above were considered to be at risk. See table

3 Non-Irish nationals had a much higher risk of poverty than Irish nationals. In 2005 almost 27 of non-irish nationals were at risk of poverty, compared with 18 for Irish nationals. See table 4. Debt problems high among households with children Percentage of persons that experienced deprivation classified by household composition, EU-SILC 2004 and adult, no children 2 adults, no children 3 or more adults, no children 1 adult with children 2 adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Total In 2005, one in ten persons were in households that reported experiencing debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses. This has been consistently the most common type of deprivation reported since 2003 and is particularly prevalent among households with children. In 2005, almost 40 of persons in lone parent households reported having debt problems, along with 15.3 of persons in other households with children and 10.2 of households with 2 adults and 1-3 children. Among households without children, the proportions ranged from 4.5 for 2 adult households to 6.3 for households with 3 or more adults. See table 5a. Almost 7 of persons were in households that reported being unable to afford new (rather than second-hand) clothes and 6.5 went without heating at some stage in the past year due to lack of money. See table 5a. Almost 20 of all persons reported experiencing difficulties in respect of at least one of the eight basic deprivation indicators in Persons living in lone parent households were most likely to experience more than one form of deprivation with almost 40 reporting difficulties in respect of two or more of the indicators. This compares with less than 5 for persons living in households with 3 or more adults and no children. In general, deprivation levels were higher among households with children compared to those without children. See table 6a & graph opposite. Consistent poverty higher among females than males In 2005, 7.5 of females were in consistent poverty, compared to 6.4 of males. A similar gender differential was evident in 2004, with rates of 7.4 and 6.2 respectively. In terms of age, children aged 0-14 had a much higher consistent poverty rate than persons aged (10.2 compared with 6.5) in 2005, while the consistent poverty rate for the elderly was significantly lower than both at 3.7. See table 7. Members of lone parent households were again the most significantly at risk group, with over 27 in consistent poverty. Over 21 of persons living in rented or rent-free accommodation were in consistent poverty, as were almost 22 of the unemployed. Other high-risk groups were the ill or disabled (17.4), non-irish nationals (13.1), children under 16 years of age (10.6) and adults with no more than primary level education (10.1). See table 7. Composition of population in consistent poverty classified by household composition, EU SILC 2005 Other households with children adults with 1-3 children adult, no children adult with children adults, no children ormoreadults, no children 12.1 Over one third of persons in consistent poverty are children While children under 16 years of age account for just 22.5 of the overall population they represent almost 27 of those at risk of poverty and a significantly higher 34.3 of persons in consistent poverty. In contrast, persons aged 65 and over accounted for over 11 of the population but less than 6 of those in consistent poverty. See table 8. Over half of persons at risk of poverty and almost two-thirds of persons in consistent poverty lived in households with children. Members of lone parent households made up almost 15 of persons in consistent poverty, despite representing less than 4 of the population. See table 8 & graph opposite. Persons living in rented or rent free accommodation made up over 43 of persons at risk of poverty and over two-thirds of persons in consistent poverty, while representing less than 22 of the overall population. Over half of persons at risk of poverty and nearly two-thirds of persons in consistent poverty lived in urban areas. See table 8. 3

4 Composition of gross household income classified by income decile, EU SILC Total direct income Decile Total social transfers Social transfers account for almost 20 of gross household income The proportion of gross household income received from social transfers increased from 18.7 in 2004 to 19.5 in Social transfers represented over 91 of gross income in the lowest decile and almost 81 of the second lowest decile in In contrast, just 5.5 of income in the top decile was generated from social transfers. See table 13 & graph opposite. Households in the lower deciles tended to be composed of persons not economically active, while persons at work were more prevalent in the upper deciles. Almost 80 of persons living in households in the lowest decile were either not economically active or unemployed, compared with just 17 in the top decile and just over one-third overall. See table 13. Top income group had almost five times more income than the bottom In 2005 the income quintile share ratio shows that persons in the top income quintile had almost 5 times the equivalised income of those in the bottom income quintile, indicating no significant change over the past 3 years. Another measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, increased slightly over the period from 31.1 in 2003 and 31.8 in 2004 to 32.4 in There was also a slight increase in the relative at risk of poverty gap between 2004 and 2005 (19.8 in 2004 compared with 20.8 in 2005). See table 1. Just under 22 of average gross income in the lowest equivalised income decile and less than 30 in the second lowest decile was generated from direct income. The average net disposable equivalised income in the lowest income decile was almost 127, while it increased to almost 180 in the second decile. This compared with an average income of just over 960 in the top decile and approximately 380 overall. See table 14a. Over half the elderly had incomes close to the poverty threshold Over half of all persons aged 65 and over were in the second and third deciles, indicating that their income, mainly from pensions and survivors benefits, was close to the poverty threshold. A further 7.5 were in the bottom decile with the result that close to 60 were in the bottom three deciles compared with 30 for the population overall. See table 14c. Almost 60 of members of lone parent households were also in the bottom three deciles but their income situation was more severe in that the majority, representing almost a third of all persons in such households, were in the bottom decile. In contrast, just under 6 of persons living in households with 2 adults with 1-3 children were in the lowest income decile and just over 20 were in the bottom three deciles. See table 14c. Just over 12 of the lowest equivalised income decile were members of lone parent households, compared with 3.8 in the State. A high proportion of persons in the lowest income decile were living in other households with children (29.8) or households with 3 or more adults, no children (18.5). The second income decile contained a greater proportion of members of 1 adult, no children households (20.5) which was linked to the high occurrence of elderly also in this decile. Just over 27 of persons in the second decile were aged 65 or over, compared with 11.2 of the overall population. Persons in the two lowest deciles, accounting for 20 of the population, approximate quite closely those at risk of poverty at the 60 level. See table 14b. 4

5 Almost a quarter of persons with a chronic illness at risk of poverty In 2005, almost one in four of those with a chronic illness or disability were at risk of poverty, representing a decrease from the 2004 figure of just over 30. Those with a chronic illness had a significantly higher risk of poverty than those without a chronic illness (15.3), and they were almost twice as likely to be in consistent poverty (9.5 compared with 4.8). See table 11. It is estimated from the survey that in 2005 almost 32 of the population were covered by a medical card. The average equivalised income among those covered was almost 12,000 per annum, compared to over 23,000 for those without a medical card. Almost 41 of persons with a medical card were at risk of poverty compared with just over 44 in There was virtually no change in consistent poverty for those with a medical card between 2004 (18.1) and 2005 (18.2). See table 11. EU25 at-risk-of-poverty rate (60 threshold) including all social transfers, Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovak Republic Finland Sweden UK Data for Malta is currently not available An estimated 48 of the population surveyed were covered by private medical insurance in The average equivalised income for this group was 25,549 per annum, compared with 14,523 for those without cover. The at risk of poverty rate for those without private health insurance was much higher than for those with insurance (28.8 compared with 7.1). They also had a substantially higher consistent poverty rate (12.6 compared with 0.7). Almost 25 of the population were not covered by either private medical insurance or a medical card. These persons had a lower than average at risk of poverty rate (12.1) and consistent poverty rate (3.6), while their average equivalised income was 18,119. See table 11. Smokers at higher risk of poverty The survey estimated that almost one in four of the population aged 16 and over smoked in Smokers had an average equivalised income of 17,937, almost 3,000 less than their non-smoking counterparts. The at risk of poverty rate for smokers was 21.4, compared to 16.1 for non-smokers, and they were over 2.5 times more likely to be in consistent poverty than non-smokers (10.9 compared to 4.2). Smoking was most common among members of lone parent households (53.9), the unemployed (48.6) and the ill or disabled (37.6). See tables 11 & 12. Irish at risk of poverty rate one of the highest in the EU Using the internationally comparable EU definition of income, the at risk of poverty rate in Ireland in 2005 was 19.7 compared with 20.9 in The latter was one of the highest rates in the EU, matched only by Portugal and the Slovak Republic and was significantly higher than the EU-25 at risk of poverty rate of 16. When all social transfers were excluded, the at risk of poverty rate in Ireland was 39 in 2004, the 7 th lowest of the 25 EU countries. However, the inclusion of social transfers only reduced the Irish risk by 18 percentage points, compared with an average 25 percentage points across the EU as a whole. See tables 2, 10, graph opposite and background notes. 5

6

7 Table 1 Key national indicators of poverty and social exclusion National/NAPS Indicators using alternative national scale At-risk-of-poverty rate Equivalised total disposable income: Including all social transfers (60 threshold) Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Including all social transfers (40 threshold) Including all social transfers (50 threshold) Including all social transfers (70 threshold) Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap Gini coefficient Income distribution (income quintile share ratio) Percentage of persons in 'consistent poverty' using median income threshold Less than 50 of threshold Less than 60 of threshold Less than 70 of threshold Percentage of households in 'consistent poverty' using mean income threshold Less than 40 of threshold Less than 50 of threshold Less than 60 of threshold See background notes. Table 2 Key indicators of poverty and social exclusion (EU definition of Income and modified OECD scale) EU (Laeken Indicators) using modified OECD scale At-risk-of-poverty rate Equivalised total disposable income: Including all social transfers (60 threshold) Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Including all social transfers (40 threshold) Including all social transfers (50 threshold) Including all social transfers (70 threshold) Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap Gini coefficient Income distribution (income quintile share ratio)

8 Table 3 Indicators of poverty and social exclusion classified by age and gender Age group Total Total Males At-risk-of-poverty rate Equivalised total disposable income: Including all social transfers (60 threshold) Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Including all social transfers (40 threshold) Including all social transfers (50 threshold) Including all social transfers (70 threshold) Gini coefficient Females At-risk-of-poverty rate Equivalised total disposable income: Including all social transfers (60 threshold) Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Including all social transfers (40 threshold) * Including all social transfers (50 threshold) Including all social transfers (70 threshold) Gini coefficient Total At-risk-of-poverty rate Equivalised total disposable income: Including all social transfers (60 threshold) Including old-age and survivors' benefits but excluding all other social transfers (60 threshold) Excluding all social transfers (60 threshold) Including all social transfers (40 threshold) Including all social transfers (50 threshold) Including all social transfers (70 threshold) Gini coefficient * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 8

9 Table 4 At-risk-of-poverty rate (after social transfers, 60 threshold) Male Female Total Male Female Total Total Age group Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student Home duties * * Retired Ill/disabled Other * * * 35.7 Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other * * * * * * Children under 16 years of age Nationality 1 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 1 See background notes. 9

10 Table 5a Percentage of persons reporting deprivation classified by household composition adult, 2 adults, 3 or more 1 adult, 2 adults, Other Total Deprivation Indicators no no adults, no with with 1-3 households children children children children children with children No substantial meal on at least one day in the past two weeks Without heating at some stage in the past year Experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes Unable to afford a roast once a week Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat No substantial meal on at least one day in the past two weeks Without heating at some stage in the past year Experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes Unable to afford a roast once a week Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat Table 5b Percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty and reporting deprivation classified by household composition adult, 2 adults, 3 or more 1 adult, 2 adults, Other Total Deprivation Indicators no no adults, no with with 1-3 households children children children children children with children No substantial meal on at least one day in the past two weeks 2.5 * * Without heating at some stage in the past year * Experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses 2.0 * Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes Unable to afford a roast once a week Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day * Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat * * * No substantial meal on at least one day in the past two weeks Without heating at some stage in the past year Experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes Unable to afford a roast once a week Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 10

11 Table 6a Percentage of persons classified by the number of deprivation indicators reported and household composition Number of deprivation indicators experienced 1 adult, 2 adults, 3 or more 1 adult, 2 adults, Other Total no no adults, no with with 1-3 households children children children children children with children Total Total Table 6b Percentage of persons at-risk-of-poverty classified by the number of deprivation indicators reported and household composition Number of deprivation indicators experienced 1 adult, 2 adults, 3 or more 1 adult, 2 adults, Other Total no no adults, no with with 1-3 households children children children children children with children * * * * Total Total * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 11

12 Table 7 Percentage of persons in 'consistent poverty' at 60 level using basic life-style deprivation indicators Male Female Total Male Female Total Total Age group Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed 21.9 * Student Home duties * * Retired 4.2 * Ill/disabled Other * * * * * 15.2 Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other * * * * * * Children under 16 years of age Nationality 1 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 1 See background notes. 12

13 Table 8 Composition of population, at-risk-of-poverty and consistent poverty At-risk- In consistent At-risk- In consistent Population of-poverty poverty Population of-poverty poverty Total Sex Male Female Age group Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student Home duties Retired Ill/disabled Other Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other Children under 16 years of age Nationality 1 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 1 See background notes

14 Table 9 Profile of population and persons below the poverty threshold Below 50 Between 50 and Below 50 Between 50 and of median 60 of median of median 60 of median equivalised equivalised equivalised equivalised Population income income Population income income Total Sex Male Female Age group Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student Home duties Retired Ill/disabled Other Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other Children under 16 years of age Nationality 1 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals See background notes

15 Table 10 Key indicators of poverty and social exclusion (EU definition of Income and modified OECD scale) in EU member states 1, 2004 At-risk-of-poverty-rate (Equivalised total disposable income) (60 threshold) Including old-age and Income survivors' benefits Including all Including all Including all Relative at- distribution Including all but excluding all other Excluding all social transfers social transfers social transfers risk-of- Gini (income quintile Region social transfers social transfers social transfers (40 threshold) (50 threshold) (70 threshold) poverty gap coefficient share ratio) EU _ EU _ Eurozone _ Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta _ Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovak Republic Finland Sweden United Kingdom Source: Note: Eurostat EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). 1 Trends in some member states may be affected by changes in methodology. 2 Data is not available at present. 3 Eurozone consists of EU15 states with the exceptions of Denmark, Sweden and United Kingdom. 4 Data for Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and United Kingdom relates to 2003 as updated detail is not available at present. 5 Relative at-risk-of-poverty gap data for the Slovak Republic relates to 2003 as updated detail is not available at present.

16 Table 11 Key national indicators of poverty and social exclusion classified by health-related variables Average annual Average annual equivalised income At-risk- In consistent equivalised income At-risk- In consistent Population after social transfers of-poverty poverty Population after social transfers of-poverty poverty 16 Total population Medical card Yes , , No , , Private medical insurance Yes , , No , , Covered by either medical card or private medical insurance Yes , , No , , Population aged 16 years and over Chronic illness or disability Yes , , No , , Limited activity Strongly limited , , Limited , , Not limited , , Health Status Very good , , Good , , Fair , , Bad/very bad , , Smokes Yes , , No , ,

17 Table 12 Health-related variables classified by various socio-demographic categories Total Population aged Total Population aged Total population 16 years and over Total population 16 years and over Has a Has a Has a Has private chronic Has a Has private chronic medical medical illness or medical medical illness or card insurance Smokes disability card insurance Smokes disability Total Sex Male Female Age group n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student Home duties Retired Ill/disabled Other Children under 16 years of age n/a n/a n/a n/a Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other * * * * * * * * Children under 16 years of age n/a n/a n/a n/a Nationality 2 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals * Sample occurrence too small for estimation. 1 n/a refers to 'not applicable'. 2 See background notes

18 Table 13 Average size, activity composition and household income classified by gross household income deciles, 2005 Decile Weekly threshold ( ) < Number of households in sample Adjusted number of households in sample Household size (persons per household) Activity composition (persons per household): Not yet at school At school At work Unemployed Not economically active Average Weekly Household Income ( ) Direct Income Employee income Employer's social insurance contributions Cash benefits or losses from self-employment Other direct income Total direct income Social Transfers Unemployment benefits Old-age benefits Family/children related allowances Housing allowances Other social transfers Total social transfers Gross Income Tax and Social Contributions Tax on income and social contributions Employer's social insurance contributions Regular inter-household cash transfers paid Total Tax and Social Contributions Net Disposable Income

19 Table 13 (cont'd.) Average size, activity composition and household income classified by gross household income deciles, State Decile , , , >1, Weekly threshold ( ) ,085 Number of households in sample ,085 Adjusted number of households in sample Household size (persons per household) Activity composition (persons per household): Not yet at school At school At work Unemployed Not economically active Average Weekly Household Income ( ) Direct Income , , Employee income Employer's social insurance contributions Cash benefits or losses from self-employment Other direct income , , , Total direct income Social Transfers Unemployment benefits Old-age benefits Family/children related allowances Housing allowances Other social transfers Total social transfers , , , , Gross Income Tax and Social Contributions Tax on income and social contributions Employer's social insurance contributions Regular inter-household cash transfers paid Total Tax and Social Contributions , , , Net Disposable Income 19

20 Table 14a Equivalised income classified by equivalised income deciles, 2005 Decile Weekly threshold ( ) < Number of persons in sample 1,548 1,788 1,655 1,565 1,459 Adjusted number of persons in sample 1,557 1,559 1,554 1,560 1,546 Average Weekly Household Income ( ) Direct Income Employee income Employer's social insurance contributions Cash benefits or losses from self-employment Other direct income Total direct income Social Transfers Unemployment benefits Old-age benefits Family/children related allowances Housing allowances Other social transfers Total social transfers Gross Income Tax and Social Contributions Tax on income and social contributions Employer's social insurance contributions Regular inter-household cash transfers paid Total Tax and Social Contributions Net Disposable Income

21 Table 14a (contd.) Equivalised income classified by equivalised income deciles, State Decile > Weekly threshold ( ) 1,556 1,384 1,431 1,578 1,575 15,539 Number of persons in sample 1,554 1,555 1,548 1,555 1,551 15,539 Adjusted number of persons in sample Average Weekly Household Income ( ) Direct Income Employee income Employer's social insurance contributions Cash benefits or losses from self-employment Other direct income , Total direct income Social Transfers Unemployment benefits Old-age benefits Family/children related allowances Housing allowances Other social transfers Total social transfers , Gross Income Tax and Social Contributions Tax on income and social contributions Employer's social insurance contributions Regular inter-household cash transfers paid Total Tax and Social Contributions Net Disposable Income 21

22 Table 14b Composition of equivalised income deciles, 2005 Decile Weekly threshold ( ) < Number of persons in sample 1,548 1,788 1,655 1,565 1,459 Adjusted number of persons in sample 1,557 1,559 1,554 1,560 1,546 Compostion of deciles () Sex Male Female Age Household composition 1 adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student On home duties Retired Ill/disabled Other Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other Children under 16 years of age Nationality 1 Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals Total See background notes. 22

23 Table 14b (contd.) Composition of equivalised income deciles, State Decile > Weekly threshold ( ) 1,556 1,384 1,431 1,578 1,575 15,539 Number of persons in sample 1,554 1,555 1,548 1,555 1,551 15,539 Adjusted number of persons in sample Sex Male Female Age Compostion of deciles () Household composition adult, no children adults, no children or more adults, no children adult with children adults with 1-3 children Other households with children Tenure status Owner Rented or rent free Region Border, Midland and Western Southern and Eastern Urban/rural location Urban areas Rural areas Principal Economic Status (aged 16 and over) At work Unemployed Student On home duties Retired Ill/disabled Other Children under 16 years of age Highest education level attained (aged 16 and over) Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Other Children under 16 years of age Nationality Irish nationals Non-Irish nationals Total 1 See background notes. 23