Walking away from the altar

Walking away from the altar

by | 25 Sep, 2016 | Australia, demography, social issues

Almost a quarter of a million people will get married in Australia this year, and only a quarter of those will choose a religious minister to conduct their wedding.

Religion, it seems, has an ever decreasing role in Australian weddings.

reli-weds-23

Roughly speaking, Australians today are half as likely to have a religious wedding as their parents, and less than a third as likely as their grandparents[1].

Voter demographics, however, do not reflect those about to walk down the aisle (or whatever kids do at weddings these days).

reli-weds-3

  • 70% of people getting married are under 35
  • 70% of voters are over 35!

If current trends continue, weddings are less and less likely to be officiated by religious ministers.

Should a community with an outdated view of religion’s role in marriage have a say on what role it has in the future?

Sometimes the future is so obvious; to stand in its way seems little more than a petulant stomp.

 

Featured Image:
Mr & Mrs Beyer, circa 1876-1882
Author/Creator: Stewart & Co., photographer.
Date: ca. 1876-ca. 1882

Sourced from the Victorian State Library:

http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/search-discover/explore-our-digital-image-pool/view_image?record_key=2680419

 

Data:

  • 3306.0.55.001 – Marriages, Australia, various years (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3306.0.55.001)
  • 3310.0 – Marriages and Divorces, Australia, various years (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3310.0)
  • 2011 Australian Census (http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/Census?opendocument&ref=topBar)

 

[1] Broadly calculating the average, based on average age of weddings over the past 50 years, the average grandparent was married in the late 1950s.

Is a breast worth 15 lungs

Is a breast worth 15 lungs

by | 21 Sep, 2016 | Australia, cancer, mortality, philanthropy

Lung cancer is by far the biggest killing cancer in Australia. In 2014 it claimed the life of over 8,200 people. That’s almost as many as the next three cancers combined (prostate 3 102 + breast 2 844 + pancreas 2 547 = 8 493).

lungs-1

In popstats format, that’s one Australian death every hour.

Fortunately, much like pop, lung cancer’s mortality rate peaked in the early 80s, and has been declining steadily since.

 

Women catching up on the wrong race

This decrease, however, has been entirely gender lopsided.

While the anti-smoking initiatives have helped halve the mortality rate of men’s lung cancer since 1981, women’s has increased by 60% in the same period.

lungs-2

 

The increase in women dying of lung cancer has been so drastic that it has overtaken breast cancer as the biggest killer of women among all cancers. Back in the 1970s, breast cancer killed 4 times as many women as lung cancer.

lungs-3

 

Yet, lung cancer seems to be largely ignored (relatively speaking).

Research conducted by Cancer Australia, shows that even though lung cancer kills about 3 times as many as breast cancer, it receives less than a fifth of the research funding. Similar comparisons can be made with prostate and other cancers.  The graph below from their 2016 Cancer Research Review[1] provides a great representation of the inequality of research funding distribution currently in the field.

lungs-4

 

Lungs don’t sell

The communities’ disdain for lung cancer is also clear in the organizations we support. The Australian Charity and Not-for-profit Commission’s register includes 18 organisations mentioning “Breast cancer” by name, and another 15 mentioning “prostate cancer”.  Yet not one combined the words “lung” and “cancer” in their name[2].

This is not to say that there aren’t any organisations working in the area, but rather suggests that highlighting their cause is not considered a draw card.

 

Who’s to blame

Many suggest the community ignores lung cancer sufferers because a many of them are somewhat responsible for their condition. After all, smoking is linked with about 80%-90% of lung cancer sufferers[3]. But since when have we been so spiteful?

We help countless who have had a hand in their demise.

When the injured arrive at Emergency, triage forms don’t cover culpability.

We help those who drove too fast for the unexpected just as much as careful drivers who became their victims.

We help young men who go clubbing in Sydney, even if they threw the first punch.

People take all sorts of risks. Yet help is at hand when things don’t work out the way they hoped.

If James Dean does it

lungs-6

Not to mention that around 4 out of 5 sufferers took up smoking before the Vietnam War[4]; smoking warnings were not even a thing[5], and ads were the epitome of cool.

 

Not to mention the other 15%

That’s all without even thinking of the roughly 1,500 sufferers who never touched a smoke!

 

Heal the world

This, by the way, is a global phenomena. Lung cancer killed 1.6 million people worldwide in 2014 [7], yet similar under funding occurs across the major economies (or at least the ones I could find on a quick google search). So, any impact local research has in Australia could potentially help millions across the world.

 

So, why not?

Why not indeed.

In this age of cost-benefit analysis, we sometimes forget to put it into practice where it matters most. Lung cancer might be decreasing, but it sure isn’t going away. Smoking rates may have decreased, but they still haunt half as many as they did in the 80s[6]. At this rate, lunch cancer will still be the biggest killer for generations to come.

It’s time to stop victim blaming smokers, and put some money where are lungs are.

 

 

Disclosure:

The author is a reformed smoker… the worst kind.

 

Feature pic by hey_paul:

Human Lung Embroidery Wall Decor

 

References:

[1] https://canceraustralia.gov.au/system/tdf/publications/cancer-research-australia-2016-2018-opportunities-strategic-research-investment-summary/pdf/2016_research_review_highlights_final.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=4442

[2] Based on their 2014 data.

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

[4] Based on their age – over 65s in 2013.  And research showing 90% of smokers pick up the habit before the age of 20 (United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2014. ICPSR36361-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2016-03-22. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36361.v1.)

[5] http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/a12-1-1-history-health-warnings

[6] http://www.quit.org.au/resource-centre/facts-evidence/fact-sheets/smoking-rates

[7] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

 

Helping all – UK’s distribution of public funding

Helping all – UK’s distribution of public funding

by | 11 Sep, 2016 | consumption, economics, Europe, income, public funding, social issues, social security, tax

Redistribution of funds through tax can happen in one of two main ways:

  • you collect more from the rich than the poor and give everyone an equal share, or
  • you collect the same amount from everyone and distribute more to those in most need.

Gov Exp 1

 

But how much is the UK doing of either?

In short, relatively nothing on the first type of distribution, and not a lot on the second.

I say relatively nothing as households across the UK pay roughly the same percentage of their income on tax, no matter what their income. Obviously, those with higher incomes pay larger amounts, but as a proportion, it is not greater than what the poor pay.

On the second type, while the Government does provide greater benefits to the poorer sections of the community, the difference between benefits to the poor and rich is not way near as large as many would have you believe.

 

Collecting more from the rich

As discussed in a previous post, the amount of tax paid across the community is pretty much the same, relative to their income. So, while the rich contribute the most, they contribute the same percentage of their income that the poor do (when including income tax and indirect taxes).

 

Are we distributing more to the poor?

According to the latest UK Budget papers, the UK Government will spend roughly “£772 billion in 2016-17”[1].

The budget gets spent as follows:

  • £517 (67%) on services consumed by individuals, e.g. health, education, social security
  • £168 (22%) on untargeted national stuff, e.g. defence, paying debts, public order
  • £87 (11%) on services which may or may not support some over others, but it’s harder to ascertain its distribution, e.g. agriculture, industry, employment, transport

For the purposes of this post, I will ignore the 11%, as I can’t find reasonable distribution analysis, and what’s 11% anyway.

Gov Exp 11

So, how do targeted services get dispersed across the income groups?

Health

Health accounts for 19% of all UK Government expenditure, with the average household in 2013/14 consuming around £4,200 in services.  While obviously not every household consumes the same amount, the difference across income groups is surprisingly small.

Gov Exp 2

That’s to say, households from across the various income groups in the UK consume just over £4,000 worth of health services. Those with the lowest and highest incomes appear to consume slightly smaller amounts.

 

Education

Consumption of education services does vary. In 2013/14, the poorest 3 deciles consumed just over double what the richest 10% of households did.  This difference, however, appears to be largely driven by the number of students in the house, rather than their income.  Students (from primary school to university) are twice more likely to live in the poorest 30% of households than in the richest 10%.  After adjusting for number of students per household, education expenditure is remarkably similar across the income ranges.

Gov Exp 3

(As student estimates are rounded to 1 decimal place, the estimates graphed include an unrounded range, e.g.: the poorest households have 0.7 students per house, but are graphed from 0.65 to 0.75)

 

Social Protection & Personal social services

Unlike health and education, social protection and personal services are targeted based on income. But even these payments are possibly less lopsided than is expected.

The poorest half of the community receives 80% more than the bottom half. While the average household receives £6,000, the 2nd and 3rd poorest received the most, at £9,000. The richest and second richest deciles, on the other hand, received £2,400 and £3,500 per year respectively.

Gov Exp 35

 

When you add it all up

Other than social security, which is mostly targeted at the lower middle class, the majority of government spending is spread out quite evenly across the income groups. The end product, being one that while leaning towards supporting the lower middle class, provides a relatively equal distribution.

Gov Exp 4

*not including 11% spent on Agriculture, Transport, Industries, etc.

 

Sources

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2016-documents/budget-2016

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datalist?filter=datasets

Parliament photo by : luxstorm – https://pixabay.com/en/users/luxstorm-1216826/

Equality: what progressive income taxes giveth, consumption taxes taketh away

Equality: what progressive income taxes giveth, consumption taxes taketh away

by | 29 Aug, 2016 | consumption, economics, Europe, income, politics, social issues, tax

There are two broad types of taxes: direct and indirect.

Direct taxes are charged directly by governments, usually on income. This facilitates progressive targeting, taking more from high earners and alleviating the  burden on the poor.

Indirect taxes (e.g. VAT, GST, fuel and tobacco levies) are charged by anyone providing a good or service upon consumption. And the 7–Eleven down the street doesn’t know whether you are rich or poor. So a chocolate bar will incur a 20% tax, whether you earn £10,000 or £100,000.

 

How much does this matter?

The impact of indirect taxes depends on how much you earn. Unfortunately, the less you have the more it impacts.  While income tax progressively increases as your income increases, consumption taxes are regressive. As a result the poorest 10% of UK’s households spend a third of their income on indirect taxes.  The richest 10% on the other hand only spend £1 of every £10 they earn in indirect taxes¹.

Indirect Tax UK 1

The impact of these regressive indirect taxes are such that they cancel out the progressiveness of the income taxes.  That is, once both sets of taxes are considered; households across the UK’s income spectrum contribute the same amount relative to their income. In fact, the poorest 10% of households contribute 10 percentage points more than any other income group.

This trend grew drastically from the late 70s till 2002, and appears to have plateaued since. But it does not appear to be disappearing.

Indirect Tax UK 2

 

But, what if…

…  the UK got rid of indirect taxes. What if it raised the same revenue as it does today entirely through income taxes, using its current progressive pattern?

Using this ‘what if’ scenario, some measures of inequality would be almost halved:Indirect Tax UK 4

To put the Gini value in perspective, the estimated 0.26 value would put the UK among the most equal countries, alongside Norway, Finland (based on UNDP figures²).

 

Indirect Tax UK 3

Removing the VAT by itself would make a significant impact, as it accounts for almost half of all indirect taxes.

 

Reality check

Granted, moving to an entirely direct revenue raising system is neither likely nor simple. But this ridiculous scenario does highlight just how unequal the indirect taxing system is, and what impact it has on equality.

It also suggests that every new or increased indirect tax implemented continues to drive a wedge between the haves and the have-less. This includes the increases in VAT from 15% to 17.5% to 20% over the past 25 years, and any additional levy.

Similarly, if a key aim over the coming years is to decrease inequality, then there may be worse places to start than by lowering VAT, and compensating where necessary with increased income taxes.

 

Sources:

[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/averageincomestaxesandbenefitsbydecilegroupsofallhouseholds

[2]  http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-gini-coefficient

UK auto disqualified after poor lifting

UK auto disqualified after poor lifting

by | 10 Aug, 2016 | Europe, income, Inflation, politics, social issues, social security, tax

In the aftermath of Brexit, the pointy finger of blame has fallen squarely on the rise of conservative patriotism, racism and the stench of economic stagnation among the working poor.

But when analysing the economic situation of UK’s households over the last few decades, it’s hard to see what Brexiters are complaining about.

While American working class wages got stuck in the 1970s, the UK’s have been rising steadily, especially since 1990. In fact since Thatcher lost office, the poorest 40% of households have seen their disposable income increase at twice the rate of the rest of the country.

PoorPoms1

(I use disposable income as it’s a more complete measure of a household’s situation than wages.  It includes all income (private and government cash benefits) and removes direct taxes (income tax).  It’s the money which lands in people’s pockets.)

After adjusting for inflation, household disposable income grew by 71% for the poorest 20% of households, and 59% for the 2nd poorest since 1990.  The rest of the UK only grew by 34%.

The poor are not only getting richer in absolute terms, but also in relative terms.

PoorPoms2

Firstly, absolute growth

The poorest quintile has seen their disposable income increase from £7,200 in 1990 to £12,300 in 2014/15 (after inflation). The second poorest quintile increased from £12,400 to £19,800. No matter how hard life is today for poor households, it would be a lot worse with £6,000 less a year.

To put this growth in perspective, we can compare today’s poor households to that of people in the past.  Today’s 2nd poorest quintile earns the same as the middle quintile earned in 1990. And going back a bit further, they earn the same that the 2nd richest quintile did in 1977, just before Thatcher took office. So, the economic situation of the working class today is similar to that of the upper middle classes when the (Royal variety) Queen celebrated her Silver Jubilee, and Queen (of the Freddy Mercury variety) released “We are the champions”.

 

Secondly, relative growth

As the poor households’ earnings grew faster than the rich ones, the relative gap has decreases considerably. The disposable income ratio of richest to poorest was 7 at the end of the Iron Lady’s regime. Today that figure is 5.4. Likewise, the ratio between the 2nd richest and 2nd poorest quintiles dropped from 2.4 times to 2.0. Of course, the ratio is still too large, but a 23% drop is worth noting.

 

Since GFC

The figures above look at the UK since the departure of Lady Thatcher in 1990, but what about a more recent focus?

Well, the picture is even rosier (relatively speaking) for the lowest quintile over the past 7 years.  While the richest 2 quintiles dipped between 5-10% around 2011-12, and have only just returned to pre-crisis levels, the poorest quintile now earns 11% more than they did in 2007/08, and never went behind pre-crisis levels over the period.  The 2nd lowest earners hovered steadily, but over the past 2 years increased to a small increase over pre-crisis levels.

PoorPoms3

A historical lens

A longer search shows that this was not always the case. The last dark age for the lower classes was clearly under Thatcher.  During Margaret’s 11 year regime, the disparity between rich and poor climbed steeply.  While the richest households in the UK experienced a 46% increase in real disposable income, the poorest 2 quintiles only increased by 11 and 13%. This resulted in the income ratio of richest to poorest to rise from 4.9 to 7 in an 11 year period.

PoorPoms4

It’s taken the following 25 years to bring this disparity back to pre-Thatcher levels for 2nd richest to 2nd poorest, but the Richest to poorest ratio is still much higher than it was in the late 70s.

PoorPoms5

Show me the money

Here’s where it gets super interesting. It would be easy to assume that seeing as the end of Thatcherism marked the turning point for income distribution; government handouts would be somewhat responsible for the change. But that is far from the truth. The income growth for the poorest has been largely driven by increases in private income. Since 1990, private income for the poorest has increased by 168%, while Government support only increased 22%! The opposite was surprisingly true under Thatcher, when the bulk of the poor’s income increases came from government benefits.

PoorPoms6

Since 1990, Government support has increased the least for the poorest quintile, in relative AND absolute terms.  While the government now gives the poorest quintile £1,400 more than they did in 1990 (after inflation), they also give middle income earners an extra £3,400, and the richest quintile an extra £1,700 per year, after inflation.

PoorPoms7

Brexit due to a lack of jobs available

Yeah, nah. Unemployment has not been lower than current rates since the mid-70s. Sure there was a momentary blip from the 2008 crisis, but not only did that not reach the unemployment levels seen in the 80s and 90s, it also finished a year ago. People should be high on finding employment at the moment.
PoorPoms8

It’s not you, it’s tax

Even income tax hasn’t been lower in the last 40 years. The poorest households now pay 5 percentage points less in tax than they did 25 years ago, and the middle and upper middle classes have dropped around 3 percentage points. The only section of the community paying more tax (per household) are the richest 20%, and even they only pay less than 1 percentage point more than they used to.

PoorPoms9

So, what the heck are Brexiters complaining about?

Overall the economic situation in the UK has been favourable across the community, and in particular the poorest sections.

  • Income is considerably up
  • Inequality is slightly down
  • Unemployment is at its lowest point in the last 40 years, and
  • Brits have not paid less in taxes in at least 40 years.

Furthermore, the government is increasingly supporting the middle and upper classes through direct cash benefits, so they can hardly complain about the support being handed out to those (arguably) more deserving.

What’s that leave us with

If Brexit was a vote of discontent at the current economic situation, it was a result of perception more than reality. More likely, it was a vote from fear. A xenophobic reaction to the constant hysteria bombarded at the populous, misleading on the current situation. The world is not getting worse. Neither from within, economically, nor from outside evils.

Time for more reasoned responses, from a better informed community.

 

 

Sources

All data is sourced from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) UK.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2015

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsx/lms

The death of dying

The death of dying

by | 19 Jul, 2016 | Australia, demography, health, mortality, social issues

Life is getting longer.

Life expectancy in Australia grew from 50 years in the late 1800s, to 70 in the 1960s, to 82 or so today. And we’re nowhere near finished.  But while many are aware of this, not many appreciate the magnitude of this achievement, nor its continuous impacts.

Perhaps there’s a lack of newspaper headline moments claiming “1,000 people did not die yesterday”.  Or perhaps it’s because people think lives are merely being elongated when we’re at our worst, forcing us into a dependent cycle of medical attention from which the doctors gain more than the patients.

Yet, neither of these is entirely true.

Making headlines every day

While 154,000 Australians died in 2014 (latest data available), the figure would have been closer to 176,000 (22,000 more deaths) had the mortality rate not improved in the last 10 years. (And 10 years is hardly a long time. In today’s currency, it’s barely 5 Prime Minsters ago.)  Improvements since 2004 are saving an extra 2,200 people each year, on average.  To put it in perspective, around 230 people are murdered in Australia each year. So mortality improvements, which rarely rate a mention, are saving 10 times the number murdered more every year than the last!

Seeing as murders are front page material, mortality improvements should have their own weekend section.

 

Saving lives at all stages

Unlike popular opinion, extending life expectancy is not about delaying death while holding people to ransom, feeding them mashed cauliflower through transparent tubes.  Death rates for teenagers and kids under 5 year-olds have both decreased by a third.  Basically, we’ve saved 1 in 3 of the teenagers (and babies) who would have died had the improvements not occurred.

Had we saved a third of the price of electricity Josh Frydenberg would have declared it a national holiday.

All ages decreasing

 

These decreases were not a once off, nor were they specific to one group.  Improvements across the younger years have been pretty steady over the past decade.

constant decreast young

 

Improvements in mortality rates translate into less people dying than would have under the previous rates.

Deacreading death is people

 

As expected, the majority the decrease in deaths occurs at the latter stages of life.  Though surprisingly, the only cohort with an increasing mortality rate are those over 95 years of age.  And yet, the improvements are so large that even though the younger cohorts make up smaller percentages, they are still newsworthy. Without the improvements of the last 10 years, 2014 would have seen the death of around:

  • 376 more kids under 5
  • 124 more teenagers
  • 426 more people in their 20s
  • around 3000 more working aged folk (15-65 year-olds)

Instead, our attention is focused on gruesome anecdotes of villains and victims.  A hero cowardly king-hit, a young family destroyed by a murder-suicide, three teenagers overdosing on ice behind the local servo, or a joy ride gone awfully wrong.  Without balancing these out with the constant excitement of decreasing mortality and longer lives, we fall into a pessimistic spiral of despair.  We fail to recognise the huge progress made and foster a sense of nostalgia for times which were in fact significantly worse.

Shit’s never been this good. We’re just too busy reading the headlines to realise it.

 

Source:

Death figures sourced from : ABS Deaths Publication, 2014 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3302.0

Converted to rates using ERP by age

More charity at home, less in Parliament House

More charity at home, less in Parliament House

by | 10 Jul, 2016 | development, income, philanthropy, politics, public funding, social issues

While Australians are increasing their personal donations, as a country they’ve been giving less and less to foreign aid.

Charity vs ODA

Is this suggesting a misalignment of sentiments between the community and its leadership? Is there a growing desire to support those closest to us, donating to support local causes, while diminishing our desire to help those abroad?

The period graphed included 9.2 different Prime Ministers so it’s hard to pin point the blame the Australian Government’s diminishing willingness to fund foreign aid. And while the coloured timeline suggests that upon winning office Labour increases and Liberal decreases Australia’s Official Development Assistance, the overall picture is clearly trending south. So much so, that Foreign Aid didn’t even rate a mention during the 2016 election campaign.

Australia’s generosity, as individuals and as a country however, leaves much to be desired.  Australians donate around 34 cents for every $100 earned, and the country spends $1.30 in foreign aid for every $100 spent in the federal budget.

But if charity is starting to take off at home, there’s hope it may influence the political agenda.

 

 

ODA vs Budget not ODA vs GNI

The graph shows foreign aid expenditure as a percentage of the total federal budget.  Most analysis compares foreign aid to Gross National Income (GNI), with governments stating they’re aiming to reach 0.5%. However, as suggested by Angus Barnes[1] the federal budget, which is within the government’s control, is “a more appropriate denominator”.

Either way the line is almost identical, with the only difference being magnitude – 1% of budget is roughly 0.4% of GNI.

 

Sources:

[1] http://devpolicy.org/the-odagni-ratio-does-it-truly-reflect-a-governments-commitment-to-aid-20130521/

http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/statistical-summary-2013-14.pdf

http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/ministerial_statements/ausaid/html/ms_ausaid-10.htm

Australian philanthropy improving, yet miles behind

Australian philanthropy improving, yet miles behind

by | 10 Jul, 2016 | Australia, income, philanthropy, public funding, social issues

Australians are donating more money than ever.  Based on ATO data, tax deductible donations have increased from as $58 million in 1979 to a $2.6 billion in 2014[1].  This equates to an almost 4-fold increase in donations as a percentage of income. That been said, donations still amount to a tiny percentage of income.  On average, Australians only donate 0.34% of their income. That’s 34 cents for every $100 earned.   Also, while the percentage contributed increased steadily from 0.1% in the late 1970s, it seems to have plateaued over the last decade.

Increasing donations Australia

These figures make Australia look like the scrooge of the Anglo-world.  America’s philanthropic culture sees them donating 10 times as much as Australians do as a percentage of their income. The UK donates 8 times more, Canada 2.5 times, and NZ donates 50% more[2].

Anglophone world donations

(I compared Anglo countries as it was easier to find data online, and also due to the strong cultural aspects of philanthropy.)

According to analysis by the Fondation de France[3], British donors are the most generous in Europe.  But based on their measures of comparable concepts, other wealthy Europeans donate around half what the Brits do, which makes it around 4 times what Australians donate.  “Philanthropy in Europe” also suggests that countries with high taxes have lower individual contributions. High taxes suggest the government is looking after the needy, and thus individuals don’t have to.  It further highlights countries where tax revenue amounts to over 40% of GDP (such as France, Belgium and Italy) having lower donor participation. Yet, Australia’s tax burden is around 25% of GDP[4] and Australians donations are so miserly they round down to 0%.

No matter how many kilometres people run, bike or walk, nor how white, black or pink their ribbons are – Australians donate less than a deconstructed latte a week in $ terms.

Let’s hope they at least donate to the right causes.

 

Who are the givers?

While donations came from across the community, the super-rich gave the lion’s share.  Those with a taxable income over $1m (the top 0.1% of earners) gave 13% of all donations[5]. Those over $250k (the top 1.3%) gave 26% of all donations, and overall, half of all donations came from the top 15% of earners, those with a taxable income over $90k.

Who donates

On the other hand, while the lowest earners (under $6,000) donated small amounts, they gave by far the most as a percentage of their income, donating almost 5% of their income. This seems to be somewhat driven by retirees who may have low incomes but potentially amounted large wealth.

The middle and upper middle classes ($40k to $150k) contributed the least as a percentage of their income (0.25%).

 

 

__________________________________________

Reply to 1st comment:

Sources:

[1] Table 1:  https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2013-14/?page=4#Individuals_detailed_tables

[2] USA: Table 2.1https://www.irs.gov/uac/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income

UK: Table 2.6 – https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/charitable-donations-and-tax-reliefs-statistics

Canada: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/stts/t1fnl-eng.html

New Zealand:  http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/external-stats/revenue-refunds/donation-rebates/

[3]https://www.fondationdefrance.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/philanthropy_in_europe_2015_0.pdf (section D)

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

[5] Table 3: https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2013-14/?page=4#Individuals_detailed_tables

 

 

What India doesn’t have fills the world

What India doesn’t have fills the world

by | 5 Jun, 2016 | development, health, social issues

There are more people living without safe drinking water at home in India than the entire population of Europe… about 100 million more.

There are some fundamental things a home needs: clean drinking water, hygienic toilet, bathing facilities, a kitchen and electricity.  And while we’re aware that not everyone has all these things, it’s easy to underestimate the magnitude of the issue.

India has the second largest population in the world, estimated at 1,210,854,977 through the 2011 Census.  The percentage of this population without the fundamental facilities is enough to paint substantial sections of the rest of the world.

For example:

  • There are as many people living without an inside toilet in India as the entire population of Europe;
  • More live without electricity than the population of the USA and Canada combined;
  • More lack a kitchen inside the house than the population of Latin America;
  • More lack bathing facilities than the rest of Southern and West Asia; and
  • 4 times more people cook with cowdung than all of Australia… 

Beyond the fundamentals, another 215 million lived without a radio, TV, phones, computers, vehicles or even a bicycle.

Sources:

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/Houselisting-housing-PCA.html
http://esa.un.org/peps/index.htm”,”http://esa.un.org/peps/index.htm

Picture taken in Jaipur, India.