Top Individual Income Rates (%) 2000

2000 by Country

Top Individual Income Tax Rates (%) 1990

1990 by Country

Top Individual Income Tax Rates (%) 1985

1985 by Country

Top Individual Income Tax Rates (%) 1980

1980 by Country

In number:
Country /1980
Korea 89
Sweden 87
Portugal 84
Britain 83
Belgium 76
Japan 75
Norway 75
Turkey 75
US 73
Italy 72
Netherlands 72
Finland 68
Average 68
Denmark 66
Spain 66
Germany 65
Canada 64
Iceland 63
Australia 62
Austria 62
NewZealand 62
France 60
Greece 60
Ireland 60
Luxembourg 57
Mexico 55
Switzerland 38

Electricity by Nuclear: OECD 2008

Nuclear % by Country

OECD: Gini/Income Inequality in Mid-2000s

Country: Gini in mid-200s

Denmark: 0.232
Sweden: 0.234
Luxembourg: 0.258
Austria: 0.265
Czech Republic:  0.268
Slovakia: 0.268
Finland: 0.269
Belgium: 0.271
Netherlands:  0.271
Switzerland: 0.276
Norway:  0.276
Iceland: 0.280
France: 0.281
Hungary: 0.291
Germany: 0.298
Australia: 0.301
OECD-30 0.311
Korea: 0.312
Canada: 0.317
Spain: 0.319
Japan:  0.321
Greece: 0.321
Ireland: 0.328
New Zealand: 0.335
UK: 0.335
Italy: 0.352
Poland: 0.372
USA 0.381
Portugal: 0.385
Turkey: 0.430
Mexico:  0.474

*One thing i notice is that the number as above is not quite tally with the number I got from national statistics bureau. For example in Sweden: the gini listed above is only 0.234 but the number i have gotten earlier for year between 2000 to 2006 is ranged between 0.27 to 0.31. So, why there is a discrepancy?

Source: OECD

Sweden: Median Income 1980 – 2006

Median

Sweden: Average Income 1980 – 2006

Mean

Sweden: Gini 1980 – 2006

gini

Pew Global 2007: % Positive about Foreign Companies

In Pew Global 2007, the % of people who agree that foreign companies are having a positive impact on their country…

Foreign Companies by Country

OECD: Corporate income tax rate 2008

Corporate income tax rate comparison among OECD countries:

Country / Corporate income tax rate – 2008
Japan — 39.5
United States — 39.3
France — 34.4
Belgium — 34.0
Canada — 33.5
Luxembourg — 30.4
Germany — 30.2
Australia — 30.0
New Zealand — 30.0
Spain — 30.0
Mexico — 28.0
Norway — 28.0
Sweden — 28.0
United Kingdom — 28.0
Italy — 27.5
Korea — 27.5
Portugal — 26.5
Finland — 26.0
Netherlands — 25.5
Austria — 25.0
Denmark — 25.0
Greece — 25.0
Switzerland — 21.2
Czech Republic — 21.0
Hungary — 20.0
Turkey — 20.0
Poland — 19.0
Slovak Republic — 19.0
Iceland — 15.0
Ireland — 12.5

Source: OECD Tax Database

Malaysia Survey 2007: Perceptions on Income/Economic Condition

In Asian Barometer Survey conducted in Malaysia year 2007, the respondents reported their perceptions on their income and assessment on economic conditions:

a. Income perceptions:
Income covers well, can save – 20.1%
Covers well, no difficulties – 37.3%
Does not cover well – 32.3%
Does not cover, great difficulties – 8.6%
Decline to answer – 1.7%

b. Economic conditions in Malaysia:
i. Individual :-
Very good – 6.7%
Good – 34.5%
So-so – 41.2%
Bad – 11.2%
Very bad – 4.7%

ii. Family :-
Very good – 4.5%
Good – 30.4%
So-so – 58.0%
Bad – 5.4%
Very bad – 1.5%

c. Assessment of past and future economic conditions:

Economic conditions assessment  Individual    Family  
 Past    Future    Past    Future  
 Much Better   16.4 21.8 14.6 23.8
 Little Better   35.9 34 37.6 37.1
 About Same   26.9 20.1 32.8 23.2
 Little Worse   15.4 8.6 12.3 4.1
 Much Worse   4.5 4.4 2.3 0.6
 Can’t choose   0.7 10.8 0.2 10.7
 Decline Answer   0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6

On top of that…
* 53.4% respondents own landline phone.
* 86.4% respondents own handphone.
* 73.2% respondents own car

Source: Asian Barometer – Bridget Welsh, Ibrahim Suffian, and Andrew Aeria. 2007. Malaysia Country Report. Second Wave of Asian Barometer Survey 

ESS 2006: Immigration bad or good for country’s economy

In Europe Social Survey 2006, the following question is asked:

Would you say it is generally bad or good for [country]’s economy that people come to live here from other countries?

0 Bad for the economy

10 Good for the economy   

The participants from 19 countries answered the question above and here is the mean score value of the result:

Country / Immigration bad or good for country’s economy
Switzerland – 5.92
Spain – 5.67
Bulgaria – 5.56
Norway – 5.51
Poland – 5.51
Denmark – 5.40
Finland – 5.39
Sweden – 5.37
Portugal – 4.90
Germany – 4.72
Estonia – 4.69
France – 4.68
Belgium – 4.66
Slovakia – 4.65
UK – 4.50
Slovenia – 4.29
Cyprus – 3.91
Russia – 3.68
Hungary – 3.42

Source:
1. Europe Social Survey 2006

ESS 2006: Government should reduce differences in income levels

In Europe Social Survey 2006, the following question is asked:

Please say to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels

1 Agree strongly   
2 Agree   
3 Neither agree nor disagree  
4 Disagree   
5 Disagree strongly

The participants from 19 countries answered the question above and here is the mean score value of the result:

Country / Government should reduce differences in income levels
Denmark – 2.92
UK – 2.54
Norway – 2.43
Germany – 2.37
Switzerland – 2.29
Sweden – 2.27
Belgium – 2.25
Slovakia – 2.07
Finland – 2.07
Estonia – 2.04
Poland – 2.00
Slovenia – 1.95
Cyprus – 1.91
France – 1.91
Spain – 1.89
Russia – 1.88
Portugal – 1.78
Hungary – 1.66
Bulgaria – 1.55

Source:
1. Europe Social Survey 2006

ESS 2006: How satisfied with present state of economy in country

In Europe Social Survey 2006, the following question is asked:

On the whole how satisfied are you with the present state of the economy in [country]?

0 Extremely dissatisfied   

10 Extremely satisfied   

The participants from 19 countries answered the question above and here is the mean score value of the result:

Country / How satisfied with present state of economy in country
Denmark – 7.60
Norway – 7.08
Finland – 6.78
Switzerland – 6.55
Sweden – 6.00
Cyprus – 5.72
Estonia – 5.57
Belgium – 5.45
Spain – 5.32
UK – 5.18
Slovenia – 4.95
Slovakia – 4.73
Germany – 4.25
Poland – 4.08
France – 3.70
Russia – 3.52
Portugal – 3.20
Hungary – 2.89
Bulgaria – 2.60

Source:
1. Europe Social Survey 2006

OECD: Hours Worked 2005

Hours worked (hours per year per person in employment), which is deduced from the total numbers of hours worked over the year are divided by the average numbers of people in employment in OECD countries for year 2005:

Country 2005
Norway – 1360
Netherlands – 1367
Germany – 1437
Belgium – 1534
France – 1546
Denmark – 1551
Sweden – 1587
Ireland – 1638
Austria  – 1656
Switzerland – 1659
United Kingdom – 1672
Portugal – 1685
Finland – 1714
Australia – 1730
Canada – 1737
Spain – 1769
Japan – 1775
Iceland – 1794
Italy – 1801
United States – 1804
New Zealand – 1809
Greece – 2053
Korea – 2354

If translates it into weekly hour work, it would be…

Norway – 26.2
Netherlands – 26.3
Germany – 27.6
Belgium – 29.5
France – 29.7
Denmark – 29.8
Sweden – 30.5
Ireland – 31.5
Austria – 31.8
Switzerland – 31.9
United Kingdom – 32.2
Portugal – 32.4
Finland – 33.0
Australia – 33.3
Canada – 33.4
Spain – 34.0
Japan – 34.1
Iceland – 34.5
Italy – 34.6
United States – 34.7
New Zealand – 34.8
Greece – 39.5
Korea – 45.3

Source: OECD Factbook 2007 – Labour market, Employment

OECD: Gender vs What is important in Job

Earlier on, the opinion of people think about what is important in job is compared among selected OECD countries. This time, it is interesting to have a brief look at the comparison between gender (male vs female) in their job selection criteria (what is important in job), again, from the 24 selected OECD countries.

How the data was extracted? In the World Values Survey, the participants were asked how important the criteria, e.g. good pay, in a job. The percentage of participants mentioned the criteria is compared between male and female, as the example below shown:

Important in Job: Good Pay

Australia [1995]   Male    Female
No Mentioned:      339        465
Mentioned:           670        574
——————————————-
% Mentioned:       66.40    55.25     (Difference Male – Female= “+11.15”)
——————————————-

Japan [2000]   Male    Female
No Mentioned:    114      117
Mentioned:           519    612
——————————————-
% Mentioned:    81.99    83.95   (Difference Male – Female= “-1.96”)
——————————————-

To make it a fair comparison between how male and female view each criteria is important in a job, the difference of “% mentioned” between male and female within the same country is used. “+” value means that there are higher % of male responded/affirmed to the question compared to female in that country, and “-” means the otherwise.

Next, the result of 18 job criteria conducted in the survey is listed in the table below. Mean value means the average number on “difference male – female %” of all 24 countries (some positive, some negative). Median shows the middle point of all the data points. As shown in the table below, the blue block arrow on the right means the male has higher % in mentioning such criteria in their survey, while the pink block arrow shows the otherwise.

Now, I am very tempted to explain the difference viewpoint between gender on the criteria which is important in a job by using evolutionary psychology EP (hehey, just my hobby, not my profession :P). Male will value more on good pay, good chances for promotion is quite consistent with EP outlook because earning livelihood and be ambitious translates into resourceful (?) and therefore good for survival and reproduction strategy. However, I am a bit surprise to note that good job security does not show significant difference between male and female because I am counting that male will be more anxious about losing their job (translation: losing their resources). The same would go to job that you can achieve something: male appears not to be much more ambitious than female.

On the other hand, the job criteria like meeting people and pleasant people to work with is consistent with female EP outlook: female emphasizes on people-orientated (?). A useful job for society is quite aligned with female/mother charity character-like (?). Lastly, good hours make perfect sense because female tend to spend their time with family/children instead of work.

Well, all the above mentioned theory is not exactly proven science or something like that. It is more like my pet theory 😛 But after typing these words out, I got the worry feeling: would it be politically incorrect to mention such thing? Well, of course there are other possible explaination for the results above and I would love to hear and learn more. 🙂

OECD: Population vs GDP, Gini

Out from nowhere, I have a curious check to see if the population (in log10 form) will have any correlation with GDP and Gini in OECD countries.

a) Population vs GDP per capita [2001]

Rsquare=0.145 at p=0.0546.
If the so-called 2 outlier points (the “+” is iceland, “x” is US) are excluded from the graph, the Rsquare will increase to 0.301 (moderately strong) at p=0.0055, as shown below:

Note: The colour of each point represent the GDP bracket: red – GDP <$ 15,000, black- $15, 000 <GDP <$25,000, blue -GDP> $ 25,000

b) Population vs Gini [2000]

Rsquare=0.162 at p=0.051. However, let’s say if Luxembourg’s point is excluded, the rsquare will increase to 0.280 (p=0.009), as shown below:

So, is there any reason for why higher population has lower GDP per capita and higher Gini, i.e. income inequality? Or should there be any explanation at all? Could it be that if the population is small, it will be more managable? I mean it could not be that because a country’s GDP is low, therefore they want higher population? Any input?

Source:

1) Population: World Bank, 2000
2) GDP per capita: OECD
3) Gini 2000: OECD

OECD: Important in Job – Summary

After 5 posts on the series of important in job, the summary of what each OECD country participants’ view on the important criteria in a job can be concluded as below:

Job criteria – Average % say yes (Standard Deviation)
Important in a job: good pay – 79.2 (11.5)
Important in a job: a job that is interesting  – 70.0 (10.2)
Important in a job: good job security – 69.7 (14.3)
Important in a job: that you can achieve something – 66.6 (14.2)
Important in a job: a job that meets one´s abilities  – 62.5 (13.7)
Important in a job: an opportunity to use initiative  – 55.5 (10.9)
Important in a job: good hours – 54.0 (14.0)
Important in a job: a responsible job – 53.5 (13.2)
Important in a job: a respected job – 46.8 (16.2)
Important in a job: not too much pressure – 40.0 (17.0)
Important in a job: generous holidays – 34.8 (16.9)

So obviously money, or the good pay is distinctively important among all the job criteria. After all, people need money to survive in the developed society. However, it is interesting to see if the factors such as a) GDP, b) tax and c) income inequality (Gini measure) correlate to how people think good pay is important in job.

a) GDP [2000]

b) Tax (Total tax wedge on average wage in year 2000)

c) Income inequality (Gini 2000)

OECD: Important in Job – Opportunity to use Initiative, Can achieve Something, and a Job that Meets one’s Abilities.

In the World Values Survey, the interviewees in the selected countries were asked how important these aspects in the job. In this last post on this series, 3 questions were listed like below:

a) An opportunity to use initiative
b) A job that you can achieve something
c) A job that meets one’s abilities

As for the result, the value in the graphs show the percentage (%) of the interviewee mentioned who mentioned that the criteria is important in a job:

a) An opportunity to use initiative:

80.8% Koreans think that it is important in a job as the opportunity to use initiative, followed by 72.5% New Zealanders, 64.5% Italians, 63.1% Icelanders and 62% Dutch. On the other hand, only 29.7% Czech think that this crtieria is important, so do 35.4% Portugese, 39.2% British, 42.3% Mexican and 42.8% French.  

b) A job that you can achieve something

Koreans are highly critical about the job criteria on what you can achieve in the job (91.8%), followed by Americans (83.8%), New Zealanders, Icelanders and Hungarians. On the other hand, only 38.1% of Czech people think that criteria is important, so do 40% Dutch, 46.7% Belgian, 48.1% Portugese and 49% Spanish.

c) A job that meets one’s abilities

High percentage of Korean, Japanese, Hungarian, Italian and Dutch think that it is important to have a job which meet one’s abilities. On the other hand, only handful of British (UK), Swedish, Australian, Portugese and Norwegian think it is important.

« Older entries