Why Is Europe More Equal than the United States?

Online Appendix∗

Thomas Blanchet
Lucas Chancel
Amory Gethin

Abstract

This appendix supplements the paper “Why Is Europe More Equal than the United States?”
It provides supplementary material on data files, computer codes, detailed methodological
explanations and main results for each country covered by the paper.

∗
Thomas Blanchet, University of California, Berkeley: [email protected]; Lucas Chancel, World
Inequality Lab – Paris School of Economics, IDDRI: [email protected]; Amory Gethin, World Inequality
Lab – Paris School of Economics: [email protected]. We acknowledge financial support from the Ford
Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, the United Nations Development Programme, the European Research Council
(ERC Grant 856455), and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (EUR Grant ANR-17-EURE-0001).

1
Contents

1 Detailed Methodology 4
1.1 Aggregate Income Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Estimation of Incomes from Survey Microdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Harmonization of Other Survey Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Calibration of Survey Sources to Tax Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Distribution of Additional Income Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6 Auxiliary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7 Country-Specific Estimations of Top Shares from Tabulated Tax Returns . . . . . . 17
1.8 Indirect Effect of Top Marginal tax Rates on Pretax Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.9 Indirect Effect of Transfers on Pretax Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2 Additional figures and tables 27

2.1 Methodology and national accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2 Distribution of pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3 Distribution of taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.4 Distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.5 Distribution of posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.6 Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
2.7 Supplementary tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

3 Results by country – Countries covered in main paper 151

3.1 Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.2 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
3.3 Croatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
3.4 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.5 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
3.6 Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
3.7 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.8 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
3.9 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
3.10 Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
3.11 Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
3.12 Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
3.13 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
3.14 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
3.15 Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
3.16 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
3.17 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

2
 3.18 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.19 Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
3.20 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
3.21 Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
3.22 Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
3.23 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
3.24 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
3.25 Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487
3.26 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

4 Results by country – Countries not covered in main paper (no tax data) 515
4.1 Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
4.2 Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
4.3 Latvia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
4.4 Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
4.5 Malta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
4.6 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
4.7 Albania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602
4.9 Kosovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
4.10 North Macedonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620
4.11 Moldova . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
4.12 Montenegro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638

5 References 647

6 List of Figures 653

7 List of Tables 672

3
1 Detailed Methodology
This section describes in details the different steps of our methodology. We primarily focus on
methodological questions. For detailed information on the availability of sources by country and the
effect of the different adjustments, see section 3.

1.1 Aggregate Income Data

We collect data on key income aggregates, primarily from the system of national accounts, but also
using auxiliary data sources when necessary.

Aggregate National Income, PPP and Market Exchange Rates We use estimates of
national income, purchasing power parities (PPP) and market exchange rates from the World
Inequality Database (https://wid.world). GDP estimates for former Eastern European countries
come from the Maddison database (Bolt and van Zanden, 2020).

Decomposition of National Income We retrieve the decomposition of national income by

institutional sector from three main official sources: Eurostat, the OECD and the UN SNA. Eurostat
and the OECD arguably provide the highest quality data, so we use them in priority. However they
have limited coverage before 1995 or in certain Eastern European countries. We fill these gaps using
the UN SNA data, which are more complete, in particular because they include more countries and
also historical series from earlier iterations of the system of national accounts.

When combining these series together, we apply a systematic splicing procedure that looks at the
gap between two sources in the first year they overlap, and apply that same gap to the less recent
data series (i.e., we adjust its level but preserve its trend).

Imputed Rents In practice, the treatment of the imputed rents of owner-occupied dwellings is
not homogenous between countries in their current implementation of the SNA. In some countries,
the net operating surplus of the household sector is entirely made up of imputed rents, while in
other countries it includes both imputed and non-imputed rents. To fix that issue, we use the
supply-and-use tables published by the OECD, which explicitly identifies the imputed rents of
owner-occupied dwellings, to split the net operating surplus of the housing sector into imputed and
non-imputed rents when necessary.

Separation of Retained Earnings between Shareholders, Pension funds and Govern-

ment The income of the corporate sector can ultimately accrue to shareholder households, to
pension funds or to the government. To estimate that split, we rely on the OECD’s financial balance
sheets and pension fund statistics. The OECD pension funds statistics include the value of funded
pensions, and the share of these pensions that is invested in stocks. The financial balance sheets
contain the value of equity that is held by the household and general government sectors. We split

4
retained earnings between shareholder households, pension funds and the government in proportion
to their respective equity holdings.

We make one adjustment in Norway, where public shareholdings are very large due to its sovereign
wealth fund, but represent profits that are essentially made abroad and therefore are not included
in its domestic corporate income. For this reason, we subtract the value of Norway’s wealth fund
from its public shareholding before we do the computation. In other countries we assume that
government shareholdings are essentially made up of domestic companies.

Social Expenditures In the SNA, all social expenditures in cash (including social insurance
such as pension and unemployment on the one hand, and social assistance benefits in the other) are
pooled into item D62 (“Social benefits other than social transfers in kind”). In principle, this item
is meant to be broken down further into the different types of benefits in the SNA nomenclature,
but in practice that level of detail in not available directly in most countries. To overcome that
issue, we use the OECD social expenditure database, which breaks down social benefits by type, to
split item D62 into pension, unemployment and other.

Health Expenditures Public health expenditure are part of government final consumption
expenditure (item P3 in the SNA). In the main SNA tables, this item is broken down into individual
expenditures (P31) and collective expenditures (P32). Health is generally included in individual
expenditures (P31) alongside other types of spending (e.g., education), and this item is not broken
down further.

To get an estimate of public health spending, we rely on two other databases. One is a satellite
account of the SNA, the “Government final consumption expenditure by function,” (COFOG)
which is published by the OECD, Eurostat, and the UN SNA, and breaks down government final
expenditures by function, including a separate item for health. The other is the OECD health
database, which also provides data on government health spending.

Switzerland is the one country that requires a special treatment. The health system in Switzerland
rests on private health insurance with public subsidies and a strict individual mandate. Other
European countries have similar system but nonetheless classify their health subsidies as public
expenditure (P3) in the national accounts. Switzerland, on the other hand, has virtually no final
consumption expenditures on health in the SNA and classifies most of its public spending as subsidies
(D3). For more comparable results, we reclassify these health subsidies a public health expenditures.

Imputations Data coverage of aggregate data is quite good, especially after 1995. For the
remaining missing data, we extrapolate backward in time the first available value as a fraction of
national income, and when a piece of information is entirely missing for a country, we rely on a
European average. We systematically rescale the subcomponents of income to match accounting

5
identities.1

1.2 Estimation of Incomes from Survey Microdata

1.2.1 Construction of Factor, Pretax and Posttax Income from EU-SILC

We use the EU-SILC survey as our key source for microdata on the distribution of income. The
EU-SILC is a pan-European survey managed by Eurostat, which covers most European countries
with detailed information on income. The first wave of the survey was 2004, with more countries
and more detailed income information being progressively added over time. In particular, most
pretax income information started being added with the 2007 wave in most countries.

The EU-SILC records wages of employees and the self-employed, distributed capital incomes, and
government taxes and transfers. We use these data to construct factor, pretax and posttax incomes
according to our definitions, with the exclusion of incomes not included in surveys (retained earnings,
taxes on products, etc.), which are included in further steps. In general, incomes recorded in
EU-SILC data for year N refer to the year N − 1, with two exceptions: in Ireland the income
reference period is the last twelve months, and in the United Kingdom current income is annualized
and aims to refer to the current calendar year. We accordingly adjust income years.

The EU-SILC also records basic demographic information (age, household structure, etc.) that we
use to calculate income according to various equivalence scales. Importantly, it also allows us to
identify couples within households (defined as married people and partners in a consensual union,
with or without a legal basis), in cases where multiple couples live within the same household. This
allows us to estimate the distribution of incomes both according to the “broad equal-split” convention
(income split equally among all household members) and the “narrow equal-split” convention (income
split equally among members of couples).

1.2.2 Estimation of Social Contributions

One limitation of EU-SILC is that it does not record separately employee social contributions from
taxes on income and wealth. Following the recommendations of the Canberra Group (Canberra
Group, 2011), the EU-SILC pools those two items together, even as it separates employee social
contributions from employer social contributions in cases where the latter are recorded. To overcome
that issue, we use the social contribution schedules published by the OECD to simulate social
contributions at the individual level. Note that these imputations may impact the distribution of
pretax income, but have no impact on posttax incomes, because posttax incomes deduct both taxes
and contributions.

We separately impute for each individual (i) social contributions of employees, (ii) social contributions
of the self-employed and (iii) employer social contributions. Employer contributions have started to

1
To extrapolate the first available value backward we use simple exponential smoothing with a coefficient of 0.9,
to somewhat limit the impact of having an atypical first value on the whole series.

6
be recorded in EU-SILC directly in recent years, in which case we use the EU-SILC value directly.
In other cases we rely on our estimation. At every step, we ensure the plausibility of our results by
making sure that (i) our estimated social contributions are smaller than the combined value of taxes
and employee social contributions from EU-SILC and that (ii) our estimates of employer social
contributions are consistent with the value recorded in EU-SILC whenever the latter is available.
We found the two sources (OECD and EU-SILC) to be largely consistent. There are only three
countries (Croatia, Romania and Serbia) that have EU-SILC data but no OECD data on social
contributions. For those three countries, and absent better information, we assume that social
contributions are proportional to factor income.

Having estimated social contributions (both employer and employee), we separate them into a
“contributory” and a “non-contributory” component. The contributory component pays for social
insurance (i.e., pension and unemployment benefits) while the non-contributory component pays for
other benefits (e.g., family benefits). One solution would be to separate which contribution is meant
to pay for which type of benefit in the social contribution schedule directly, but on top of being very
demanding, this approach would not yield useful results. Indeed, due to the fungible nature of public
funds, social contributions that are supposed to pay for a given benefit can often exceed or fall short
of the benefit amount for spurious reasons. Hence, we follow a more simple and robust first-order
approach, which is to split contributory and non-contributory contributions proportionally, so
that contributory contributions match the overall amount of pension and unemployment benefits
paid. By construction, this approach ensures equilibrium between contributions and benefits, by
implicitly distributing the surplus or deficit of the social insurance system proportionally to social
contributions. In some countries, pension and unemployment benefits exceed the total amount of
social contribution. The most notable example is Denmark, where social contribution are virtually
nonexistent because social insurance is primarily financed by regular taxes. In such cases, we
consider that a fraction of the income tax pays for social insurance, and we treat that fraction like
social contributions.

1.3 Harmonization of Other Survey Data Sources

1.3.1 Data Collection and Interpolation

To extend our coverage of survey data, we gather a large collection of survey tabulations from a variety
of sources. Some of them take the form of survey tabulations, coming from PovcalNet (World Bank,
2021), the World Income Inequality Database (UNU-WIDER), and Eastern European estimates
published by Milanović (1998). These tabulations describe distributions of income by giving income
shares of various brackets, whose number and location vary. We construct complete tabulations by
g-percentile using the generalized Pareto interpolation method introduced by Blanchet, Fournier,
and Piketty (2021).2 Most of these tabulations refer to either post-tax income or consumption.

2
What we call g-percentiles refer to every percentile from p = 0% to p = 99%, then p = 99.1% to p = 99.9%, then
p = 99.91% to p = 99.99%, and finally p = 99.991% to p = 99.999%.

7
We also use survey microdata from a variety of sources, from which we calculate all income concepts
and equivalence scales possible, and collapse them into tabulated distributions. These include
distributions from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), a database that collects, harmonizes, and
makes available to researchers a wide range of survey microdata from many countries across the
world. They also include the European Community Household Panel (ECHP), the precursor to
EU-SILC, and two surveys from the World Bank covering Serbia in 2002, 2003 and 2007 (as well as
Kosovo in 2000). In all cases these surveys cover posttax income, but in many cases they also cover
pretax income.3

1.3.2 Harmonization of Income Concepts

The set of income distributions that we collect is very heterogeneous. It uses various various
income concepts (pretax income, posttax income, consumption), various statistical units (individual,
household), and various equivalence scales (square root, OECD, equal-split per capita, equal-split
per adult). We harmonize this dataset to retrieve our concepts of interest: equal-split per adult,
both at the household level (broad equal-split) and at the couple level (narrow equal-split). To
that end, we notably take advantage of our access to survey microdata, which makes it possible to
calculate variants of the income distribution for a wide array of income concepts, and therefore lets
us observe how they tend to relate to one another.

Indeed, distributions for the different income concepts across country-years are correlated: therefore,
we can use the distribution for one income concept to impute the distribution for another whenever
the former is observed but not the latter. To do so, we use all the cases where the income distribution
is simultaneously observed for two different concepts to learn how one tends to relate to another.

We can observe the p-th quantile of both the source and the target distributions for a variety of
countries i and a variety of years t: write them Qtarget
it (p) and Qsource
it (p). To construct the best
mappings ϕ between the different concepts, we consider a very general model. In that model,
each percentile of the target distribution is an arbitrary function of every percentile of the source
distribution, and of additional covariates. We write:

E[Qtarget
it (p)] = ϕ(Qsource
it (p1 ), . . . , Qsource
it (pm ), p, t, Zit )

for a grid 0 ≤ p1 < · · · < pm < 1 of fractiles, and for auxiliary variables Zit . Estimating such a
model raises some challenges. Linear regression will not be flexible enough due to its parametric
assumptions and will tend to overfit the data if m is large.

To estimate this model, we therefore rely on more recent advances in high-dimensional, nonparametric
regression, also known as machine learning methods. The algorithm we use is known as boosted
3
The treatment of social contributions in these surveys is not always as satisfying as what we were able to do for
EU-SILC. However, to the extent that the deduction of social contributions makes little difference to the distribution
of pretax incomes in EU-SILC—which is usually the case—we used pretax income from these surveys as a proxy for
true pretax income for the historical period.

8
 Table A.1.3.1
5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when imputing
pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using our benchmark machine learning
algorithm

predicted concept
predictor pretax income pretax income posttax income posttax income
(broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split) (broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split)
equal-split (broad) 9.9% 11.0% 8.4% 11.1%
consumption

per capita 8.7% 11.1% 9.5% 12.0%

households 9.2% 10.8% 7.9% 10.2%
OECD scale 9.7% 10.4% 8.8% 11.7%
square root scale 9.3% 10.7% 8.2% 11.7%
equal-split (broad) n/a 3.3% 5.8% 6.0%
pretax income

equal-split (narrow) 2.9% n/a 5.6% 4.7%

per capita 3.7% 5.1% 6.3% 6.4%
households 3.9% 4.8% 7.2% 6.7%
OECD scale 2.4% 3.8% 6.2% 6.2%
square root scale 2.7% 4.1% 6.4% 6.5%
equal-split (broad) 5.6% 6.4% n/a 4.3%
posttax income

equal-split (narrow) 5.3% 4.8% 3.9% n/a

per capita 6.8% 7.6% 3.6% 5.5%
households 6.4% 7.0% 3.9% 5.5%
OECD scale 5.7% 6.5% 2.2% 4.5%
square root scale 5.6% 6.5% 2.7% 4.7%
Source: authors’ computations. Note: Error calculated only for the top 80% of distributions to avoid problems of denominator near
zero. The algorithm is XGBoost’s implementation of boosted regression trees using η = 0.1 (Chen and Guestrin, 2016). Auxiliary
variables included in the model are: regional dummies, average national income per adult (PPP), share of households with size 1 to 6,
gross saving rate (% of GDP), overall social expenditures (% of GDP), top marginal income tax rate, income tax revenue (% of GDP),
overall tax revenue (% of GDP), share of population by 10-year age bands and sex, corporate tax rate, VAT tax rate. Interpretation:
When imputing pretax income per equal-split adult (broad) from consumption per household, the mean relative error for the average
income of a given percentile is 9.2%.

regression trees, a powerful and commonly used method introduced by Friedman (2001). We rely
on an implementation known as XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin, 2016), which has enjoyed great
success due to its speed and performance, to the point that is has earned a reputation for “winning
every machine learning competition” (Nielsen, 2016). On top of its performance, boosted regression
makes it easy to deal with missing values, or to impose certain constraints, such as the fact that the
quantile function Q(p) must be increasing with p.

We use five-fold cross-validation to determine the optimal number of “boosting rounds” that the
algorithm performs, which determines the trade-off between bias and variance. Since our dataset is
made up of countries that we follow over the years, it has a panel dimension, which we take into
account as follows. We assume that the country-specific prediction error is independent conditional
on all observed variables (i.e., that it is a random rather than a fixed effect.) Under that assumption,
the imputation method remains valid because the error term remains exogenous. However, there is a
risk of over-fitting if we do not make sure that the different subsamples used in the cross-validation
are not independent, because then we would force the algorithm to try to predict the country random

9
 Table A.1.3.2
5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when imputing
pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using a machine learning algorithm
without auxiliary variables

predicted concept
predictor pretax income pretax income posttax income posttax income
(broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split) (broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split)
equal-split (broad) 11.1% 12.2% 10.7% 11.8%
consumption

per capita 11.0% 12.7% 9.2% 12.1%

households 9.9% 11.8% 9.2% 11.7%
OECD scale 10.8% 12.5% 9.9% 12.3%
square root scale 10.6% 12.3% 9.3% 11.9%
equal-split (broad) n/a 3.7% 6.3% 6.5%
pretax income

equal-split (narrow) 3.1% n/a 5.5% 4.5%

per capita 3.9% 5.5% 6.8% 7.6%
households 3.7% 5.4% 7.5% 7.5%
OECD scale 2.4% 4.2% 6.4% 6.6%
square root scale 2.6% 4.3% 6.6% 6.7%
equal-split (broad) 5.8% 6.4% n/a 4.4%
posttax income

equal-split (narrow) 5.4% 4.8% 4.0% n/a

per capita 7.3% 7.8% 3.8% 5.8%
households 6.6% 6.7% 3.8% 5.7%
OECD scale 6.2% 6.5% 2.3% 4.6%
square root scale 6.2% 6.5% 2.7% 5.0%
Source: authors’ computations. Note: Error calculated only for the top 80% of distributions to avoid problems of denominator near
zero. The algorithm is XGBoost’s implementation of boosted regression trees using η = 0.1 (Chen and Guestrin, 2016). No auxiliary
variables are included in this model. Interpretation: When trying to impute pretax income per equal-split adult from consumption per
household, the mean relative error for the average income of a given percentile is 9.9%.

effect. To avoid that problem, we perform the cross-validation by making sure that all observations
for one country are in the same cross-validation fold, which is known as leave-one-cluster-out cross
validation (Fang, 2011). When possible, we also estimate and include the country random effect
into our imputation. The random effect is estimated as a function of the percentile using the mean
prediction error by country and percentile.

In the end, for any target concept of interest, we get as many predictions as there are sources
available. Let y = (Q̂target,1
it , . . . , Q̂target,n
it )0 be the n different predictions. Using the cross-validation
estimation of the prediction error, we can estimate the variance-covariance matrix Σ between the
different predictions. Following the logic of generalized least squares, the optimal way of combining
the n predictions into one is to average them, weighted by the row or column sums of the symmetric
matrix Σ−1 . This yields our harmonized estimate of the distribution, taking into account observed
regularities across concepts and percentile groups.

As table A.1.3.1 shows, the mean (cross-validation) prediction error for the value of the average of
a percentile is between 2% and 11% depending on the concept that was used for the prediction.4

Before training the model, we transform the data using the transform y 7→ asinh(y) for the value of the quantiles
4

and x 7→ − log(1 − x) for the corresponding rank. This stabilizes the mode without changing the nature of the data.

10
 Table A.1.3.3
5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when imputing
pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using a single correction coefficient by
percentile

predicted concept
predictor pretax income pretax income posttax income posttax income
(broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split) (broad equal-split) (narrow equal-split)
equal-split (broad) 15.2% 17.2% 10.5% 15.2%
consumption

per capita 20.3% 23.7% 11.0% 19.3%

households 15.9% 18.2% 11.7% 16.2%
OECD scale 16.7% 19.1% 11.0% 16.6%
square root scale 14.9% 17.3% 11.1% 15.3%
equal-split (broad) n/a 3.7% 5.9% 6.1%
pretax income

equal-split (narrow) 3.7% n/a 6.3% 4.5%

per capita 3.9% 5.7% 6.7% 7.2%
households 4.6% 5.9% 8.1% 8.0%
OECD scale 2.4% 4.5% 6.3% 6.5%
square root scale 2.8% 4.7% 6.6% 6.8%
equal-split (broad) 5.8% 6.4% n/a 4.9%
posttax income

equal-split (narrow) 6.1% 4.6% 4.8% n/a

per capita 6.7% 7.5% 3.9% 6.2%
households 7.3% 7.6% 4.7% 6.6%
OECD scale 6.1% 6.6% 2.2% 5.1%
square root scale 6.2% 6.8% 2.7% 5.5%
Source: authors’ computations. Note: Error calculated only for the top 80% of distributions to avoid problems of denominator near
zero. Interpretation: When trying to impute pretax income per equal-split adult from consumption per household, the mean relative
error for the average income of a given percentile is 15.9%.

Adjusting for the statistical unit while keeping the income concept identical creates the least
difficulties. Consumption, on the other hand, is a rather poor predictor of income. Moving from
posttax to pretax income is a somewhat intermediary situation. The auxiliary variables that we
use to improve the performance of the prediction are: regional dummies, average national income
per adult (PPP), share of households with size 1 to 6, gross saving rate (% of GDP), overall social
expenditures (% of GDP), top marginal income tax rate, income tax revenue (% of GDP), overall
tax revenue (% of GDP), share of population by 10-year age bands and sex, corporate tax rate, and
VAT tax rate. Table A.1.3.2 shows the performance of a model that does not include these variables.
While their inclusion has only second-order effects on our harmonized series, they do improve the
prediction error, especially when trying to impute based on consumption: we improve the mean
relative error by up to 2 pp.

Table A.1.3.3 shows the performance of a much more simple imputation method, namely using a
single correction coefficient by percentile to move from one concept to another. This coefficient is

The use of asinh rather than the logarithm avoids issues with having zero or near-zero incomes at the bottom of the
distribution. All distributions are normalized by their average since we are only concerned with the distribution of
income. When we report prediction errors, these are computed for distributions that have been properly transformed
back to their original value.

11
computed as the mean ratio between two concepts for a given percentile. While this method performs
reasonably well for concepts that are close to one another, it exhibit much worse performance when
using a poor predictor such as consumption. In such cases, the prediction can be 50% or even 100%
worse than our benchmark algorithm.

1.4 Calibration of Survey Sources to Tax Data

1.4.1 Tax Data Sources

We collect a large set of top income shares estimated from tax data, and use it to adjust our survey
estimates. Most of our data comes from the World Inequality Database, from which we extracted
“fiscal” top income shares excluding capital gains (which are excluded from national income and
from surveys). We also extend series to the latest available year when necessary, by going back to
the original source, and add new tax tabulations that we were able to find. These new data series
are described country by country in section 1.7.

1.4.2 Calibration Algorithm

We correct survey data for non-sampling error using known top income shares estimated from
administrative tax data. We do so by adjusting survey weights using survey calibration methods
(Deville and Särndal, 1992). Statistical institutes already routinely use these methods to ensure that
their surveys are representative, typically in terms of age and gender. Our approach is a natural
extension of theirs, in the sense that we enforce representativity in terms of taxable income in
addition to age and gender.

We apply a standard linear calibration algorithm (Deville and Särndal, 1992) to make the survey
match the top income shares estimated from the tax data, while minimizing distortions from the
original survey data. Because surveys tend to underrepresent top incomes, in practice this means
that we inflate the weights of the survey data at the top of the distribution.

One notable difficulty of our setting is that the statistics we calibrate the survey on (top income
shares) are not linear statistics of the data, and therefore the most standard calibration framework
does not apply. To overcome that issue we apply a two-step calibration procedure following Lesage
(2009).

First Step In the first step, we linearize the top share statistics so that we can apply the standard
calibration algorithm. To do that, we need to calculate the influence function (Cook and
Weisberg, 1980) of top income shares. Let yk be the income of observation k ∈ {1, . . . , N } in
the survey. Let Sα be the top 100(1 − α)% income share from the tax data, and let Q̂α be the
α-th quantile in the survey data. Langel and Tillé (2011) showed that the centered influence
of observation k on the top 100(1 − α)% income share from the survey is:

αN − Wk−1
 
zk = yk H + (α − 1yk <Q̂α )Q̂α − (1 − Sα )yk
wk

12
 where H(x) = 0 if x < 0, H(x) = x if 0 ≤ x < 1 and H(x) = 1 if x ≥ 1, Wk =
P
k∈s wl 1yl ≤yk ,
N = Wn , and Q̂α = yi with Wi−1 < αWn ≤ Wi . As explained by Lesage (2009), to calibrate
the survey we can enforce that zk sums to zero using the standard calibration algorithm
(Deville and Särndal, 1992).

Second Step As explained by Lesage (2009), the first step described above works well, but because
it relies on a linear approximation of the top share statistics, it only provides a first-order
approximation of the solution. To get rid of the remaining discrepancy, we introduce a nuisance
parameter: we set the value of the α-th quantile in the survey, and then apply the calibration
algorithm to enforce the proper number of people and their proper amount of income on both
sides of the quantile. Once Q̂α is fixed as such, the problem once again becomes linear so we
can apply the standard version of the algorithm described by Deville and Särndal (1992).

We apply this two-step calibration method using the top 10% and the top 1% income shares measured
from the tax data. In every case, we carefully match the statistical unit and the income concept
in the survey to that of the tax data before we apply the method. Having applied the calibration
with the right income concept, we can retrieve the corrected version of other income concepts using
the microdata with the calibrated weights, most importantly for us pretax and posttax income per
equal-split adults.

The key assumption for us to get an appropriate estimate of pretax and posttax inequality via
this calibration approach is that, conditional on their fiscal income, the probability that people
are included in the survey is not correlated to their pretax or posttax income. Put differently, the
fiscal income concept that serves as the basis for calibration must be sufficiently comprehensive to
capture what drives the underrepresentation of the rich in the survey. Given that income taxes in
Europe are relatively comprehensive we think this is reasonable as a first-order assumption. (The
situation would arguably be different in developing countries with very large informal sectors.)

1.4.3 Extrapolation of the Tax Data Correction to All Tabulations

To apply the survey calibration method described above, we need access to survey microdata so
that we can match income concepts and statistical units to that of the tax data. When we have
access to such microdata, this is a very powerful way of harmonizing top income share series that
are otherwise difficult to compare.

Unfortunately, adequate microdata is rare before the start of the EU-SILC survey (i.e., 2007 in many
cases). Therefore, for the historical period, we retropolate the adjustment. That is, we observe the
gap between the distribution of tax-based top income shares (which correspond to fiscal income
per tax unit) and the top income shares from the calibrated surveys (which correspond to pretax
and posttax income per equal-split adult) over the years with microdata available. We notice that
this gap is very stable over time, meaning that our adjustment of the tax-based top income share
series affects the levels but has only second-order effects on the trends. Therefore, we retropolate

13
the adjustment to the top income share series as follows.

We calculate the average income of each g-percentile in (i) the tax-based series and (ii) the series
based on the calibrated tax data, with the overall income distribution normalized to one in both
cases. For each g-percentile, we calculate the ratio between the average of (i) and (ii). We carry that
coefficient backward in time and use it to adjust the rest of the tax-based top income share series.

Using the adjusted tax-based series, which now cover the same period of time as the original
tax-based series but correspond to our income concepts and statistical units of interest, we re-run
our calibration algorithm directly on the harmonized survey tabulations from section 1.3 using the
same algorithm as section 1.4.

1.4.4 Adjustment Within the Top 10%

One issue with using survey data to adjust the tax-based income shares is that surveys have limited
granularity at the very top, because of limited sample sizes. Therefore, to improve the quality of
our estimates within the very top, we apply one last adjustment. We stress that, by construction,
that adjustment has no impact on the top 10% share, and only affects the distribution of income
within the top 10%.

This adjustment involves modeling the top 10% of the distribution with a generalized Pareto
distribution, which has the cumulative distribution function:
−1/ξ
x−µ
 
F (x) = 1 − 1 + ξ
σ

This distribution is known in extreme value theory to work as a quasi-universal model of top
tails (Ferreira and Haan, 2006). We estimate its parameters using the method of probability-
weighted moments (Hosking and Wallis, 1987), a more robust alternative to other methods, which
also lets us preserve the average income of the top 10%. For X following a generalized Pareto
distribution, define a = E[X] and b = E[X(1 − F (x))]. Then we have ξ = (a − 4b + µ)/(a − 2b) and
σ = (a − µ)(2b − µ)/(a − 2b), while µ is determined a priori from the threshold from which we start
to use the model. We obtain the complete distribution by combining the empirical distribution for
the bottom 90% with the generalized Pareto model for the top 10%.

1.5 Distribution of Additional Income Components

1.5.1 Data Sources

There are three components of national income that require additional data sources to be distributed:
imputed rents, taxes on products and retained earnings (and the corporate tax). We use specific
sources for these three components.

14
Imputed Rents We use imputed rents from EU-SILC. The EU-SILC survey has started to
incorporate an imputed rent variable from EU-SILC in recent years, although it is not included in
the headline income statistics published by Eurostat.

Taxes on Products Taxes on products are distributed proportionally to consumption. We

measure consumption using the household budget surveys (HBS) collected by Eurostat.

Retained Earnings and the Corporate Tax Retained earnings and the corporate tax are
split up into three subcomponents: the share that accrues to the general government, the share that
accrues to shareholder households, and the share that accrues to pension funds. The government
share does not require additional data since it is distributed like the rest of government income
(proportionally). For the rest, we rely on the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS)
(a European wealth survey spearheaded by the ECB) and on the Wealth and Asset Survey (WAS) in
the United Kingdom. We identify the shareholdings of households in these surveys, be they public or
private stock, held directly or via mutual funds, as long as they correspond to incorporated entities
(that is, we exclude unincorporated businesses, which in the SNA are not part of the corporate sector
and in the surveys would be recorded as self-employment income). Retained earnings that correspond
to household shareholdings are distributed proportionally to this value. Retained earnings that
correspond to pension funds are distributed proportionally to labor and pension income.

1.5.2 Matching of Additional Income Components to Tabulations

To incorporate additional sources of income to our tabulations, we apply the following procedure.
First, we calibrate the surveys from section 1.5.1 above using the procedure from section 1.4 to
correct for the underrepresentation of the rich.

Second, we create a synthetic dataset by matching the three sources in 1.5.1 to the calibrated survey
microdata. Our statistical matching procedure is straightforward: we rank the sources according to
their own internal pretax income variable, and then match observations one-by-one according to
their income rank.5

Third, we take a tabulation of pretax or posttax income excluding additional income components
(i.e., from section 1.4). To each observation of the synthetic dataset, we attribute the income
of the corresponding rank in the tabulation. Then, we rescale the different components to their
macroeconomic totals, add them up, and calculate the complete distribution of income. When data
5
In practice, because different datasets have different weights and different sample sizes, observations have to be
partially matched with one another. For example, imagine that the first (sorted) dataset has the weights {3, 1, . . . }
and the second one the weights {2, 4, . . . }. The matched dataset starts with one observation with weight 2 that has
the characteristics of the first observation of each dataset. However, the first observation of the first dataset cannot be
fully matched because its weight (3) is larger than the weight of the first observation from the second dataset (2). So
we keep the first observation in the first dataset with its remaining weight (1), and match it to the second observation
of the second dataset. That observation’s weight (4) is in turn larger than 1, so we follow the same procedure. We
continue the process until all the probability mass from both datasets has been matched. One can show that, if the
initial datasets have sizes N and M , the matched dataset will at most have size N + M − 1.

15
sources are not available for a given year, we use the value from the closest available year. When
they are not available at all for a given country, we use the European average.

1.6 Auxiliary Data

1.6.1 Income Distribution in the United States

To compare the geography of inequality in Europe with that of the United States, we use distributional
national accounts data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018) and national accounts data by US
state.

We attribute national income to each state based on their share of GDP (the only national account
aggregate available at the state level). To that end, we use data on total state domestic products
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, along with state adult population series from the National
Cancer Institute “Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program”.6

This provides us with an estimate of national income by state, which lets us compute between-state
inequality in the United States. Using the data from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018), we can
calculate the overall Theil index for the United States. Using the decomposability of the Theil index,
we can then estimate the within-state component of inequality for the United States as a residual.

1.6.2 Top Marginal Tax Rates

We construct a database of comprehensive top marginal tax rates that cover 30 countries from 1981
to 2019 (29 European countries plus the United States). Of these 30 countries, 27 are continuously
covered from 1981 onward, and the three remaining countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania) are
covered from 2009 onward.

This database is an extension of Kleven et al. (2020), which was itself an extension of data collected
by Kleven, Landais, and Saez (2013), Piketty, Saez, and Stantcheva (2014) and Roine, Vlachos,
and Waldenström (2009). We extend that database in two ways: we improve the time coverage
of countries (in particular Eastern European countries) that were only included for recent years
in Kleven et al. (2020). We also collect data on the corporate income tax rate to get a more
comprehensive measure of the top marginal tax rate for robustness checks, in line with our inclusion
of undistributed profits in our measure of personal income.

Definition of the Top Marginal Tax Rate Our formula for the top marginal tax rate combines
the top personal income tax rate τi , the payroll tax rate on employees (τpw ) and employers (τpf )

6
State domestic products provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis go back as far as 1967. We extrapolate
these series back to 1929 by using the growth rates in personal income per capita available from Barro and Sala-i-Martin
(1992).

16
and the VAT or sales tax rate (τc ). This measure combines all marginal tax rates as:

(1 − τi )(1 − τpw )
1−τ =
(1 + τpf )(1 + τc )

If an individual at the top of the income distribution increases their output by one unit, then they
can increase their consumption by 1 − τ . We can consider a variant of the formula, which also
includes the corporate tax rate (1 +τf ) at the denominator. This inclusion is a departure from Kleven
et al. (2020) and earlier works, and while it makes sense in light of our inclusion of undistributed
profits in personal income, there is room for debate. The rationale for including the corporate tax
in the formula is that higher corporate tax rates may discourage shareholders from bargaining for a
higher share of the company’s surplus, and therefore reduce the share of top incomes. Yet the proper
measure of the marginal tax rate would ideally depend on the characteristic of each individual top
earner (employee or self-employed, via an incorporated business or not, earning mostly labor or
capital income, etc.). The inclusion of the corporate tax would be justified in some cases but not
others, or at a varying intensity. Moreover, we stress that the way it is included in the formula is ad
hoc and should be viewed as a pure reduced-form specification. For all these reasons, we report
results both including and excluding the corporate tax from the formula.

Top Income Tax and Payroll Tax Rates For top income tax and payroll rates, we extend the
database of Kleven et al. (2020) with the OECD tax database (available from 1981 to 2019). The
data includes both central and subcentral government tax rates. We cross-check the OECD data
with Kleven et al. (2020) to ensure consistent results and conventions.

Value-Added Taxes We extend the data of Kleven et al. (2020) using the OECD’s data on
Value Added Tax/Goods and Services Tax (VAT/GST), which covers the years 1976 to 2020. We
use the standard rate (i.e. we ignore reduced rates on certain products or specific regional rates).

Corporate Income tax Rate Our corporate income tax rate is the “Combined corporate income
tax rate” estimated by the OECD.

1.7 Country-Specific Estimations of Top Shares from Tabulated Tax Returns

1.7.1 Austria

Our data for Austria comes from Altzinger et al. (2010), who use tax data from the Integrierte
Lohn und Einkommensteuerstatistik (LUE) to study the evolution of top income shares between
1976 and 2006. We complete their series by gathering more recent LUE tabulations from Statistics
Austria (2008-2015). These tabulations cover the entire Austrian population and can therefore be
directly used to compute top income shares. We turn the tabulations into complete distributions by
using generalized Pareto interpolation (Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2021). Our results for more
recent years are very consistent with those found by Altzinger et al. (2010): before 2010, the top

17
10% income share remained very stable around 33% and the top 1% share decreased from 10% to
9%.

1.7.2 East Germany

Our data for the distribution of East German income comes from a yearly publication of official
statistics on the economy of East Germany (Statistisches Jahrbuch der deutschen Demokratischen
Republik). The 1990 edition of that publication provides estimates of the population by income
bracket and by type of household over the period 1980–1990. We interpolate the distribution
for each type of household (Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2021), and then merge them into a
single distribution after having multiplied the number of observations corresponding to each type of
household by the number of adults in the corresponding type of household. That way, we get a
distribution for equal-split adults.

That data relate to the distribution of posttax income only. As an approximation, we use the same
distribution for pretax income. The distinction between pretax and posttax income in socialist
economies was indeed less salient than it is today: see Bukowski and Novokmet (2017a) for a detailed
discussion of that issue in the case of Poland.

1.7.3 Estonia

We estimate top income shares for Estonia by exploiting tabulated tax returns from various reports
of the Tax and Customs Board. Tabulations are available from 2002 to 2017. For each year, they
provide information on the total number of taxpayers and total taxable income for various income
brackets. The income tax in Estonia is a flat tax, collected on individual earnings. It applies to
most sources of income (income from work, interest income, royalties, dividends...), which are taxed
on a gross basis.

We use these tabulations to estimate top income shares by matching them with survey microdata
from EU-SILC in the following way. We first use generalized Pareto interpolation techniques
(Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2021) to compute thresholds and average incomes for various
quantiles of the fiscal income distribution. We then correct the EU-SILC survey by using the
Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018) method (BFM), which exploits the fiscal data to reweigh
survey observations so that top incomes are properly represented. Since the BFM method preserves
the survey microdata, and in particular other covariates, it allows us to directly account for the
fact that (1) the unit of observation in the tax data is the individual, not the equal-split adult
and (2) taxable income includes gross components that must be deducted to obtain pretax income
estimates. We can therefore directly compute the share of pretax income accruing to top earners
in the corrected survey by changing the unit of observation and the income concept after having
reweighed survey observations.

Figure A.1.7.1 compares the top 10% income share estimated from survey data, tax data and

18
 Figure A.1.7.1
Top 10% income share in Estonia:
survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey

50
Share of national income (%)

45

40

35

30

25

20
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Survey data (equal-split adults)

Corrected survey (equal-split adults)
Survey data (tax unit)
Corrected survey (tax unit)
Fiscal data (tax unit)

corrected survey data. Inequality is highest when measured directly from tax tabulations since many
individuals have zero taxable income, mainly due to the possibility to deduct some expenditures.
Correcting the survey for the under-representation of top incomes increases significantly the top
10% income share, even if the overall trend is not substantially affected. Unsurprisingly, inequality
is lower between equal-split adults than between tax units (here, individuals) since the former does
not account for within-household heterogeneity. Our final estimates show a decrease in the top
10% income share from 35% in 2004 to 30% in 2016. Since survey microdata is not available for
2002, 2003 and 2017, we extrapolate top income shares to these years by using the average ratio of
pretax income between fiscal data series and corrected survey estimates over the 2004-2016 period,
by generalized percentile.

1.7.4 Greece

Our data for Greece comes from Chrissis and Koutentakis (2017), who used published tax tabulations
to measure the evolution of top income shares from 1967 to 2017. By combining these tabulations
with control totals for income and the adult population, they estimate that the top 10% fiscal income
share varied between 23% and 29% over the period. This appears surprisingly low compared to

19
results from other European countries, especially given that the unit of observation is the individual.

One specific concern with the Greek case has to do with tax evasion, which has previously been
found to be particularly pronounced at the top of the distribution. Based on a matched samples of
income taxpayers and respondents from the household budget survey, Matsaganis and Flevotomou
(2010) find that top 1% earners report incomes which are 23.6% lower in the tax data than in the
survey. This result is consistent with our own results obtained from the EU-SILC survey, where we
find the top 10% pretax income share (among individual adults) to fluctuate around 35% between
2006 and 2015. The under-representation of top incomes if Greek tax data therefore threatens the
comparability of our estimates and calls for a specific adjustment.

In order to correct Greek top income shares, we proceed as follows. First, we define a new “taxable
income” concept in the EU-SILC survey such that we artificially reduce the pretax incomes of indi-
viduals based on the coefficients provided by Matsaganis and Flevotomou (2010) on underreporting
by income decile and the top 1%. Then, we interpolate the fiscal income averages of Chrissis and
Koutentakis (2017) using generalized Pareto interpolation (Blanchet, Fournier, and Piketty, 2021)
and we apply the Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018) method to rescale our new taxable income
concept to the fiscal data. Finally, we use the reweighed survey to compute top income shares
in our concept of interest, that is pretax income splitted equally among spouses, and we correct
top income shares before 2008 by extrapolating the correction coefficient by percentile that we
obtained from the correction. This method has the advantage of fully exploiting the tax data, which
is more granular at the very top of the distribution and covers every year from 1980 to 2017, while
at the same time accounting for tax evasion in a simple way. That being said, we stress that this
adjustment is far from being sufficient, so that distributional data for Greece should be interpreted
with care. As tax evasion is increasingly tackled by tax authorities, future research will hopefully be
able to obtain more reliable estimates.

1.7.5 Iceland

For Iceland, we directly use tax data available online since 1990 from Statistics Iceland. Given that
Iceland has had a flat—or nearly flat—comprehensive income tax over the entire period, the entire
distribution is covered, so we use it to directly compute top income shares.

1.7.6 Italy

Top income shares for Italy are available from the World Inequality Database from 1980 to 2009
thanks to previous work done by Alvaredo and Pisano (2010). We update their series by collecting
tax tabulations available from the data portal of the Italian ministry of Finance.7 These tabulations
are available over the 2008-2016 period and provide information on the number of taxpayers and
total taxable income for different income brackets.

7
See http://www1.finanze.gov.it/finanze3/pagina_dichiarazioni/dichiarazioni.php.

20
 Figure A.1.7.2
Top 10% income share in Italy:
survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey

40
Share of national income (%)

38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Survey data (equal-split adults)

Corrected survey (equal-split adults)
Survey data (tax unit)
Corrected survey (tax unit)
Fiscal data (tax unit)
Fiscal data (tax unit, internal control total)

The income tax in Italy applies to individuals and includes most income components on a gross
basis, except for interest income, which is not taxed. We compute top income shares over the
2008-2016 period by using the exact same methodology as the one used for Estonia (see above).
That is, we use the method developed by Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018) to reweigh the survey
and compute income shares that are both representative of top incomes and consistent with the
benchmark income concept and population unit used in this paper.

Figure A.1.7.2 compares the top 10% income share estimated from survey data, tax data and
corrected survey data. Tax data leads to increasing inequality less than in Estonia, perhaps because
some components of capital income are not reported in the tabulated tax returns. For the two
years for which we can compare our estimates with that of Alvaredo and Pisano (2010), 2008 and
2009, the top 10% income shares coincide almost perfectly, which suggests that both methods are
alternative and complementary ways of obtaining robust estimates of the evolution of top incomes.
Changing the welfare concept from individual taxable income to pretax income per adult decreased
the top 10% share by about 4 percentage points. We use this relationship to correct conceptual
discrepancies in Italian top income shares over the 1980-2009 period. For each generalized percentile
among the top decile, we compute the ratio of average taxable individual income to pretax income

21
 Figure A.1.7.3
Top 10% income share in Luxembourg:
survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey
(a) Correction for the two years with tax data
(b) Extrapolation of the correction
50
50
Share of national income (%)

45
45

Share of national income (%)

40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Survey data (equal-split adults) 15

Corrected survey (equal-split adults) 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Survey data (tax unit) Calibrated survey (equal-split adults)
Corrected survey (tax unit) Raw survey (equal-split adults)
Fiscal data (tax unit)

per adult over the 2009-2016 period. We then use the average ratio over this period to harmonize
top income share series in previous years.

1.7.7 Luxembourg

For Luxembourg, we use two years of tax data that were published as part of reports by the Conseil
Économique et Social (Analyse des données fiscales au Luxembourg, 2015 and Analyse des données
fiscales au Luxembourg, 2018 ) (Conseil Economique et Social, 2015; 2018). These contain detailed
tabulations that cover the income of resident households for two years, 2010 and 2012.

We interpolate these two distributions using generalized Pareto interpolation (Blanchet, Fournier,
and Piketty, 2021) and then correct the EU-SILC data in the two corresponding years using the
method of Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018). The correction is very similar for both years,
with the top 10% share increasing by roughly 5pp (see figure A.1.7.3a). We then extrapolate that
correction to previous years by extrapolating the correction coefficient by percentile that we obtained
from the tax data correction (see figure A.1.7.3b).

1.7.8 Portugal

Top income shares for Portugal are available from the World Inequality Database from 1980 to 2009
thanks to the work done by Alvaredo (2009). We update these series by collecting tax tabulations
available from the data portal Pordata.8 These tabulations are available over the 1990-2016 period
and provide information on the number of taxpayers and total taxable income for different income
brackets.
8
See https://www.pordata.pt.

22
 Figure A.1.7.4
Top 10% income share in Portugal:
survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey

50
Share of national income (%)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Survey data (equal-split adults)

Corrected survey (equal-split adults)
Survey data (tax unit)
Corrected survey (tax unit)
Fiscal data (tax unit)
Fiscal data (tax unit, internal control total)

The income tax in Portugal applies to most income components on a gross basis, except for most
capital gains and all interest income, which are not taxed. The unit observed in the tax data is the
married couple, or single adult. We compute top income shares over the 2007-2016 period by using
the exact same methodology as the one used for Estonia (see above). That is, we use the method
developed by Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018) to reweigh the survey and compute income shares
that are both representative of top incomes and consistent with the benchmark income concept and
population unit used in this paper. In the case of Portugal, since tax units are either individuals or
married couples, we first match couples in the EU-SILC survey and aggregate their incomes. We
are then able to use tax tabulations to correct for the under-representation of “top tax units” in the
survey.

Figure A.1.7.4 compares the top 10% income share estimated from survey data, tax data and
corrected survey data. Using tax data leads to only moderately higher inequality, perhaps because
some components of capital income are not taxed. While there is a gap in the Alvaredo (2009)
series and our series between 2005 and 2007, comparing the two estimates suggests that using the
BFM methodology leads to a slightly higher top 10% income share, which might be due to the
income control being too high in previous estimates. We use our estimates to correct conceptual

23
discrepancies in Portuguese top income shares in previous years. First, we extrapolate our series
back to 2005 by using the trends observed in the fiscal data (with internal income control) over the
2005-2007 period. For each generalized percentile among the top decile, we then use the ratio of
average taxable income per tax unit to pretax income per adult in 2005 to harmonize top income
shares before 2005.

1.7.9 Romania

Our data for Romania comes from Oancea, Andrei, and Pirjol (2017). The authors had access
to the universe of individual income tax returns for 2013 and provide detailed information on the
distribution of taxable income. The income tax data covers about 45% of the adult population. We
correct the EU-SILC data in 2013 using the method of Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018). The
comparison of the survey with the tax data reveals that top earners are strongly underrepresented in
EU-SILC: the average income of the top 1% is below 70,000 lei in the surveys compared to 150,000
lei in the tax data. The correction increases the top 10% income share from 26% to 31% and the
top 1% share from 5% to 8%. We extend that correction to previous years by extrapolating the
coefficient by percentile that we obtained from the correction.

1.7.10 Serbia

Our data for Serbia comes from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, which provided us
with detailed tabulations on the pretax income of Serbian taxpayers in 2017 and 2018. Income shown
in the tables are taken over from the Individual tax return form on accrued taxes and contributions
(PPP-PD form), which is submitted to the Tax Administration. The data covers employees, founders
and members of companies employed in their company, persons insured on the basis of independent
activity including independent artists, persons insured on the basis of agricultural activities, persons
not provided on other grounds, non-residents, disabled persons, military insured persons, pensioners
self-employed, pensioners on the basis of employment, military pensioners and agricultural retirees.
As a simple approximation, we use the 2017 tabulation to directly calibrate the 2016 EU-SILC
survey with the Blanchet, Flores, and Morgan (2018) method.

1.8 Indirect Effect of Top Marginal tax Rates on Pretax Inequality

As shown in figure A.1.7.5, the rise of the top 1% pretax income share in Europe has been concomitant
to a decrease in the top marginal tax rate. A similar pattern can be found across countries, as
shown by figure A.1.7.6.

Following Piketty, Saez, and Stantcheva (2014), we estimate an elasticity of the top 1% share with
respect to (one minus) the top marginal tax rate using the following model:

log(top 1% pretax income share) = β + σ log(1 − top marginal tax rate)

24
 Figure A.1.7.5
Top Marginal Tax Rate and Inequality in Europe: Time Series

70 12

Marginal tax rate (%) 11

Top 1% share (%)

65

10

60
9

8
55
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Average top comprehensive marginal tax rate (%)

Average top 1% share of national income (%)

Source: Authors’ estimation, see main text. Marginal tax rate does not include the corporate tax. Note: Estimates refer
to population-weighted averages of European countries with data available since 1981 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom).

Figure A.1.7.6
Top Marginal Tax Rate and Inequality in Europe: Cross-country Evidence

15
RO PL
14
Top 1% share of national income (%)

GB
13 LU DE

12 EE
HU
ES
GR DK
11 CH PT
CZ NO
10 HR FR
IE
9 AT SE
BE
8 IT FI

7 SI
NL
6 IS

5
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Top comprehensive marginal tax rate (%)

Source: Authors’ estimation, see main text. Marginal tax rate does not include the corporate tax.

25
 Table A.1.8.4
Elasticity of the Top 1% Share
With Respect to the Top Marginal Tax Rate

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

elasticity 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.33 0.40 0.39 0.13 0.12
95% CI [0.24, 0.86] [0.23, 0.74] [0.13, 0.83] [0.12, 0.70] [0.25, 0.71] [0.25, 0.67] [−0.01, 0.33] [−0.03, 0.29]
observations 827 827 827 827 827 827 827 827
clusters 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
R2 0.26 0.24 0.35 0.32 0.68 0.69 0.80 0.80
incl. corporate tax × × × ×
year fixed effects × × × ×
country fixed effects × × × ×
Confidence intervals adjusted for heteroscedasticity and clustered by country using the wild bootstrap test (Roodman
et al., 2019).

where σ is our estimate of the elasticity. Table A.1.8.4 shows estimates of σ across a range of
specifications. The inclusion of country fixed effects attenuates the estimate of the elasticity most
significantly, which shows that the effect is mostly estimated from cross-country variations. The
inclusion or exclusion of the corporate tax from our measure of the top marginal tax rate makes
little difference.

1.9 Indirect Effect of Transfers on Pretax Inequality

We measure the elasticity between the pretax income share of the bottom 50% and redistribution to
the bottom 50% by running the regression:
   
log sharepretax posttax pretax
bottom 50% = β + σ log sharebottom 50% − sharebottom 50%

and use σ as our estimate of the elasticity. Table A.1.9.5 reports estimates across several specifications,
which include different sets of fixed effects.
Table A.1.9.5
Elasticity of the Bottom 50% Share
With Respect to Redistribution to the Bottom 50%

(1) (2) (3) (4)

elasticity 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.01
95% CI [−0.01, 0.23] [−0.01, 0.23] [−0.02, 0.05] [−0.02, 0.04]
observations 271 271 271 271
clusters 26 26 26 26
R2 0.20 0.20 0.96 0.96
year fixed effects × ×
country fixed effects × ×

Confidence intervals adjusted for heteroscedasticity and clustered by country using

a wild bootstrap test (Roodman et al., 2019).

26
 2 Additional figures and tables
2.1 Methodology and national accounts

Figure A.2.1.1
Level and composition of capital income in Europe, 1980-2017

25

Corporate tax
Share of national income (%)

20
Retained earnings About half of
capital income
absent from
most surveys
27

15 Imputed rents or tax data

Capital component
of mixed income

10

Interests and dividends

5

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure plots the share of capital income in overall European income – equal to the sum of all European national incomes – between 1980
and 2015. The capital component of mixed income is assumed to be equal to one third of mixed income.
 Figure A.2.1.2
Level and composition of government final expenditures in Europe, 1980–2017

30%

Social
protection
25%
Education
Recreation,
culture and
20% religion
Health
Housing and
community
15% amenities
28

Environment
protection
Economic affairs
10%
Public order
and safety
Defence
5% General
public services

0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Sources: Government expenditures by function (COFOG) tables from the OECD and the UN SNA. OECD health database for health spending. Notes.
The figure plots the total value of government final consumption expenditures as a share of national income, and its decomposition into the different
functions of government.
 Figure A.2.1.3
Average regional incomes per adult relative to European-wide average, 1980-2017

1.4

European income per adult (incomes at PPP) 1.3

1.2
Regional income per adult /

1.1

.9

.8
29

.7

.6

.5

.4
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Western Europe Northern Europe Eastern Europe

Notes. Western Europe includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Northern Europe includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland. Eastern Europe includes
the remaining European countries.
 Figure A.2.1.4
The level and composition of taxes in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017

60
55
Share of national income (%)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
30

10
5
0
om s
Po ia

Sp d
Es ain

Ire ia
C nd

Sw Se a
ze itz bia

te ep nd
ng c
G m
Po ece

N gal
er y
H any

ov y
Fi nia

he ria

s
N Au d

Sw ly

Fr en
Be nce

Lu Ice m
m nd
en g

k
R ate

Ki bli

G rwa

Sl ar

nd

ar
n

D our
an

Ita
an

at

do

iu
et st
la

la

U h R rla

ed

xe la
to

rtu

e
g

m
u
ro

re

rl a

a
lg
nl
St

un

b
o
c e
d
te

d
ni
U

ni
C

Income and Corporate tax Social contributions Social contributions Indirect

wealth taxes (contributory) (non-contributory) taxes

Source. Authors’ computations using national accounts.

 Figure A.2.1.5
The level and composition of taxes in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017 (non-contributory taxes)

50
Share of national income (%)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
31

10
5
0
Sw Sta a
itz tes

Po nd

Sp d
G ain

Se e
Po rbia

C gal
te Es tia
ze in ia
R om

ov c
er ia
Fr ny
Au ce
Ire ria
H land

ry
Fi ly

N or m
L u e rl a y
m ds
Ic rg
Sw and

en n

k
Be and
Sl bli

ar
i

ec

D de
Ita
te an

C d K ton

G en

ga

iu

u
a

a
an

et w
xe an
la

st
la

rtu

ch gd

m
bo
u
re

ro

lg
nl

el
e
U Rom

er

un
ep

N
d

h
ni

ni
U

Income and Corporate tax Social contributions Social contributions

wealth taxes (contributory) (non-contributory)

Source. Authors’ computations using national accounts.

 Figure A.2.1.6
The level and composition of transfers in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017

60
Share of national income (%)

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
32

10
5
0
St ia
Es tes

Sw ol a
itz and

C nd

Sp a
N ain
er y

ch Se y
ep a
Ire lic
ni H land

ng y
Po om

ov l
Au ia
G tria
e
m ly
Ic rg
Sw and

N in n

Be nds

Fr m
en e

k
he nd
Sl uga
G rwa
an

Ki gar

ar
ni

R rbi

ec

D anc
xe Ita
te an

at

en

iu
u
ub
la

ed
et la
a
to

m
bo
ro

re

rla

lg
el
U Rom

er

rt
te un
o
P

F
d

Lu
ni

ze
C

Cash transfers Family and Unemployment Pension

assistance and disability

In-kind transfers Health Other (incl. collective

expenditures)

Source. Authors’ computations using national accounts.

 Figure A.2.1.7
Average posttax income quintile share ratio in the European Union:
Eurostat vs. posttax disposable income vs. posttax national income

7.5

7
Ratio of top 20% to bottom 20% share

6.5
Eurostat estimates
Posttax disposable income
6 (survey data)
Posttax disposable income
(survey + tax data)
33

5.5 Posttax disposable income

(DINA)
Posttax national income
5

4.5

4
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure compares the evolution of the average posttax income quintile share ratio (the share of the top 20% over the share of the bottom
20%), in the European Union (28 countries) between 1980 and 2017. The figure corresponds to population-weighed averages of the indicator. Posttax
disposable income corresponds to income after taxes and transfers, but excluding collective government expenditures. Posttax national income includes
collective government expenditures (see methodology).
 Figure A.2.1.8
Posttax income quintile share ratio in Europe: DINA vs. Eurostat

DINA
Ratio of top 20% to bottom 20% share

8
(aggregate)

6
34

5 Eurostat
(weighted average)

4 DINA
(weighted average)

3
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure plots the ratio of the top 20% posttax income share to the bottom 20% posttax income share in the European Union (28 countries)
between 1980 and 2017. Eurostat estimates correspond to population-weighed averages of posttax disposable income quintile share ratios. DINA
estimates correspond to posttax national income series (see methodology).
 Figure A.2.1.9
Comparison of our Results with Other DINA Studies in France: Bottom 50% Share

38
36
34
Pretax national income

Bottom 50% income share (%)

32
Authors' estimate 30
Garbinti et al. (2017)
28
Posttax disposable income 26
Authors' estimate
35

24
Bozio et al. (2018)
22
Non-DINA income
20
Raw survey income
(after taxes and transfers) 18
16
14
12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses, except for the “raw survey income” series in the bottom panel for which income is split equally among all adult household members.
 Figure A.2.1.10
From surveys to DINA: top 10% pretax income share by country, 2017

40
Top 10% pretax income share

35

30

25

20

15
36

10

0
N epu d
he blic
Sl nds

Sw nia

N en

Sw us y
itz tria

Fr nd
Ire ce
Fi nd

Be ark
m

ro y
Es tia
H nia

ry

Lu ing in
m m

Se rg
G ia
Po ece

Po al
er d
om y
ia
en d
a

R an
R an

G lan
D lan

Ita

K a

rb

an
iu

ga

xe do

u
w

an

a
ed

la

la
e

to

d Sp

rtu
m

bo
rla

lg

re

m
ch Icel

or
ov

er

un
A

C
et

te
ze

ni
C

U
Raw surveys Surveys + tax data DINA

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 37

Increase in top 10% pretax income share

after moving from surveys to DINA
(percentage points)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
N I
e t re l a
he n
rla d
nd

is split equally among spouses.

s
Sl Ital
ov y
C e
ze F nia
ch ra
R nc
ep e
ub
C lic
ro
Sw atia
Sw e
itz den
er
la
Ic nd
e
D lan
en d
m
a
Au rk
st
ri
Sp a
a
Se in
Figure A.2.1.11

Po rbia
U rtu
g
ni
te Fin al
d
Ki lan
ng d
d
N om
or
H wa
un y
g
Be ary
lg
i
G um
re
e
Lu Es ce
xe ton
m ia
b
G our
er g
m
R an
om y
an
Po ia
la
nd
From surveys to DINA: percentage point change in estimated top 10% pretax income share by country, 2017

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
 Figure A.2.1.12
From surveys to DINA: top 1% pretax income share by country, 2017

16
Top 1% pretax income share

14

12

10

6
38

0
Sl nds

Ic ia
Be nd

Fi m

Au en
N tria

Fr ay
Ire ce
ze C nd
R atia
itz blic
Po and

en l
Es rk

Se ia

Sp a
om n

Lu un ia
m ry
ni Ge urg

ng y
G m

Po ce
nd
d
Sw ly

D uga

Ki an
i
R ai
an
Ita
en

n
rb

H n
iu

xe ga

do
w
an

e
a

ed

la

la
to

a
s

bo
Sw epu
rla

lg

ch ro

te rm

re
el

nl

l
or
ov

er

rt
he
et

d
N

U
Raw surveys Surveys + tax data DINA

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.1.13
From surveys to DINA: percentage point change in estimated top 1% pretax income share by country, 2017

11
Increase in top 1% pretax income share

10
after moving from surveys to DINA

9
(percentage points)

8
7
6
5
39

4
3
2
1
0
s
Ire ly
Fr nd
Sl nce

Fi nia

Be and
Sw ium

en n

Sw Au k
itz stria

C nd
N tia
ze Po way

ep l
G lic

Se e
ni Ge rbia

ng y
m
H ain

Lu Es ry
m ia
om g
Po ia
nd
Ic nd

R uga
nd

ar

Ki an
D de

ec

R our
Ita

xe ton

an
do

ga
ub
a
la

la

la
e

Sp
m
rla

lg

ro

re

te rm
nl
el

or
ov

er

ch rt

un

b
he
et

d
N

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.1.14
Robustness Check: Exclusion of Countries with Imputed Nonresponse instead of Tax Data (pretax income
inequality)

40

35
share of income (%)

30

25
40

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Including countries Excluding countries

with imputed tax data with imputed tax data
bottom 50% share bottom 50% share
top 10% share top 10% share

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: Incomes measured at purchasing power parity. The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.1.15
Robustness Check: Exclusion of Countries with Imputed Nonresponse instead of Tax Data (posttax income
inequality)

40

35
share of income (%)

30

25
41

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Including countries Excluding countries

with imputed tax data with imputed tax data
bottom 50% share bottom 50% share
top 10% share top 10% share

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Note: Incomes measured at purchasing power parity. The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.1.16
Pretax income shares in Europe: distribution of taxes on products

share of national income (%) 40

35

30

25
42

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Taxes on products Taxes on products

proportional to income proportional to consumption
Top 10% Top 10%
Bottom 50% Bottom 50%

Notes. The figure compares the top 10% and bottom 50% European income shares in two scenarios: one in which taxes on products are distributed
proportionally to income, and one in which they are distributed proportionally to consumption.
 Figure A.2.1.17
Pretax income shares in Europe: broad equal-split vs. narrow equal-split

share of national income (%) 40

35

30

25
43

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Broad equal-split Narrow equal-split

Top 10% Bottom 50%
Bottom 50% Bottom 50%

Notes. The figure compares the top 10% and bottom 50% European income shares in two scenarios: one in which income is split equally among all
members of the household (broad equal-split), and one in which income is split equally among spouses (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.2.1.18
Top 1% income share in Europe and the United States: comparison of estimates

Pretax Posttax
24 24

22 22

20 20

18 18
Share of national income (%)

16 16

14 14

12 12
44

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Europe US (AS) US (PSZ)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 (US-PSZ) as well
as Auten and Splinter, 2019 (US-AS) for the US.
 2.2 Distribution of pretax income

Figure A.2.2.1
Average annual pretax income growth by percentile in Europe and the United States, 1980-2017

9%
8%
Real average annual growth, 1980-2017

7%
Eastern Europe
6%
5%
4%
3%
45

2% Northern Europe
Western Europe
1%
0%
US
-1%
-2%
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 99.9 99.99 99.999
Income group (percentile)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The figure shows the average annual growth rate of pretax national
income by percentile in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, and the United States, with a further decomposition of the top percentile, between
1980 and 2017. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.2
Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Western Europe

2.25

2
Average income (baseline = 1980)

1.75
Top 1% (P99-P100)
Top 10% (P90-P100)
1.5 Full population
46

Next 30% (P20-P50)

Bottom 20% (P0-P20)
1.25

.75
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe. Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: This figure
shows the evolution of the average pretax income of the top 1% (p99p100), the top 10% (p90p100), the bottom 20% (p0p20), the next 30% (p20p50) and the
average regional income relative to 1980. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. Incomes
measured at purchasing power parity.
 Figure A.2.2.3
Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Northern Europe

3.5

3.25

3
Average income (baseline = 1980)

2.75

2.5 Top 1% (P99-P100)

2.25 Top 10% (P90-P100)
Full population
2
47

Next 30% (P20-P50)

1.75 Bottom 20% (P0-P20)

1.5

1.25

.75
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe. Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: This figure
shows the evolution of the average pretax income of the top 1% (p99p100), the top 10% (p90p100), the bottom 20% (p0p20), the next 30% (p20p50) and the
average regional income relative to 1980. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. Incomes
measured at purchasing power parity.
 Figure A.2.2.4
Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Eastern Europe

4.5

4
Average income (baseline = 1980)

3.5

3
Top 1% (P99-P100)
2.5 Top 10% (P90-P100)
Full population
48

2 Next 30% (P20-P50)

Bottom 20% (P0-P20)
1.5

.5

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe. Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: This figure
shows the evolution of the average pretax income of the top 1% (p99p100), the top 10% (p90p100), the bottom 20% (p0p20), the next 30% (p20p50) and the
average regional income relative to 1980. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. Incomes
measured at purchasing power parity.
 Figure A.2.2.5
Cumulated growth by pretax income group: United States

3.5
3.25
3
Average income (baseline = 1980)

2.75
2.5
Top 1% (P99-P100)
2.25
Top 10% (P90-P100)
2 Full population
49

Next 30% (P20-P50)

1.75
Bottom 20% (P0-P20)
1.5
1.25
1
.75
.5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe. Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: This figure
shows the evolution of the average pretax income of the top 1% (p99p100), the top 10% (p90p100), the bottom 20% (p0p20), the next 30% (p20p50) and the
average regional income relative to 1980. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. Incomes
measured at purchasing power parity.
 Figure A.2.2.6
Top 10% pretax income share in Europe: Geographical decomposition

40

35
Share of income (%)

30

25
50

20

15

10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Top 10% pretax ... assuming perfect ... assuming perfect

equality between equality within
income share countries countries

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: Incomes are measured at Purchasing Power Parity in real 2017 Euros.
PPP Euro 1 = PPP$ 1.3. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.2.7
Bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe: counterfactual decomposition

45

40
Share of income (%)

35

30
51

25

20

15
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Bottom 50% pretax ... assuming perfect ... assuming perfect

equality between equality within
income share countries countries

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: Incomes are measured at Purchasing Power Parity in real 2017 Euros.
PPP Euro 1 = PPP$ 1.3. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.2.8
Top 10% pretax income share by country: Western Europe

40
38
Share of pretax income (%)

36
34
32
30
28
52

26
24
22
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Austria Belgium France

Germany Ireland Italy
Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal
Spain Switzerland United Kingdom

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.9
Top 10% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe

34
33
32
Share of pretax income (%)

31
30
29
28
27
53

26
25
24
23
22
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Denmark Finland Iceland

Norway Sweden

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.10
Top 10% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe

44
42
40
Share of pretax income (%)

38
36
34
32
30
28
26
54

24
22
20
18
16
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Czech Republic Estonia Greece

Croatia Hungary Poland
Romania Serbia Slovenia

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.11
Top 1% pretax income share by country: Western Europe

17
16
15
Share of pretax income (%)

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
55

7
6
5
4
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Austria Belgium France

Germany Ireland Italy
Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal
Spain Switzerland United Kingdom

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.12
Top 1% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe

14
13
12
Share of pretax income (%)

11
10
9
8
56

7
6
5
4
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Denmark Finland Iceland

Norway Sweden

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.13
Top 1% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe

17
16
15
Share of pretax income (%)

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
57

6
5
4
3
2
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Czech Republic Estonia Greece

Croatia Hungary Poland
Romania Serbia Slovenia

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.14
Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Western Europe

28
27
Share of pretax income (%)

26
25
24
23
22
21
20
58

19
18
17
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Austria Belgium France

Germany Ireland Italy
Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal
Spain Switzerland United Kingdom

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.15
Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe

32
31
30
Share of pretax income (%)

29
28
27
26
59

25
24
23
22
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Denmark Finland Iceland

Norway Sweden

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.16
Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe

40
38
36
Share of pretax income (%)

34
32
30
28
26
24
60

22
20
18
16
14
1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-09 2010-14 2015-17

Czech Republic Estonia Greece

Croatia Hungary Poland
Romania Serbia Slovenia

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.17
Top 10% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017

50
1980 2017
45
40
35
30
25
20
61

15
10
5
0
N ep nd
rla ic
ov s

ed a
N en

Sw Au ay
er a
Fr nd
Ire ce
Fi and

lg k
m
C ly
Es atia
un a
ry
Lu in in
m om
Se rg
G rbia

rtu e
Po gal
er d
ni m y
St a
es
en d
Sl nd

Be ar

U Ro an
Sw eni

itz stri

H toni

Po ec

G lan

d ni
D lan
he bl

Ita

pa
iu

ga

u
w

an

at
R la

la

te a
m

xe gd
bo
et u

ro

re

m
l
or
ch Ice

S
K
d
te
ze

ni
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.18
Top 1% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017

22
1980 2017
20
18
16
14
12
10
62

8
6
4
2
0
ov s
Ic nia

lg d
Fi ium

ed y
Au en
N tria
Fr ay
re ce
ch Cr nd
Sw ep tia
er ic
r d
m l
Es ark
Se ia
Sp ia
om in
Lu Hu nia
m ary
te er rg
ng y
G om
ni Po ce
St d
es
d

en a
Sl and

Sw Ital

Ki a n
Be lan

Po lan

d n
an

itz ubl

D tug

n
rb
R a

ni G ou
w
an

R oa

at
la

te la
e

to

a
s

xe ng

d
d m

re
nl

or
e

b
rl
he

I
et
N

ze

U
C

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.19
Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017

40
1980 2017
35

30

25

20
63

15

10

0
Se s
om a
C ia
er a

L u re y
m e
Po urg

Es gal

Po ia
nd

ng y
Be om
m
H ain

Ire ry

N enm d
he ark

Fi ds

itz tria
Sl and

Fr ia
Sw nce

N en
ze Ic ay
R and

lic
d
e

an

Ki Ital
R rbi

G ati

xe ec

D lan

an
an

en
iu

ga

ub
at

w
la

ed
rtu

to

Sp
d

Sw us
bo
ro
m

lg

rla

a
nl

ch el
or
St

er
ov
un

ep
A
G
d
te

et
d
ni

te
U

ni

C
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.20
Change in top 10% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017

18

16
Change in top 10% pretax income
share (percentage points)

14

12

10

8
64

0
G ain
Fr ece
Au nce

lg a
Sw Ice um
N itze and
rla d
Ire nds
N land
C way
Lu Sw atia
m en
Se urg
d in a

o m
en ia

G rtug y
m l
ch Es any
ep ia
ni m lic
St i a
Po tes
un d
ry
ng d

er a
ar
l
Be stri

he an

te F rbi

H lan
Ki lan

Po Ita
D ven

R ton

d n
Sl do

ga
U Ro ub
xe ed
Sp

te a
a
i

m
bo
re
a

ro
l
et rl

or

ze
ni

C
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.21
Change in top 1% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017

12
Change in top 1% pretax income

10
share (percentage points)

4
65

-2
Be tria

N Fra m
rla e
Sw S s
itz pain

Ic nd
Ire nd
N nd

Se ay
Lu Sw ia
m en

ov g
er ia
G ny
Fi ce

en al
te Cr rk
ng a
Es om
ze Ro onia

ep a
un c

ni Po ry
d nd
es
d
Po aly
nd

H bli
he nc

Sl our

Ki ti

R ani
an
rb

G en

D tug
iu

ga
w

a
e

d oa

at
la
a
la

xe ed

te la
t
s

u
I
lg

m
re
el

nl
or
Au

er

t
ch m

St
b

r
et

U
ni

C
U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.2.22
Change in top 50% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017

16
14
Change in top 50% pretax income
share (percentage points)

12
10
8
6
66

4
2
0
-2
Ic nce
G and

Sp ce
Au ain

lg a
U Sw Nor m
d r y
ng d
Fi om

Ire atia
N Sw and
r n
en ds

r rk
ov al
Lu er enia

bo y
Es urg
a

St i c
ch S ly
ni p ia

Po tes
om nd
un ia
ry
C and
te ze a

m n
Be stri

Ki l a n

he de

ni
Ita

d bl
Sl tug

U Re erb

H an
iu

Po ma

ga
e

ni it w

D lan

xe ma

R la
to

a
d

te u
a

re

ro
el

nl

l
et e
Fr

ze
C
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes: The unit of
observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 67

2017 PPP €

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Po
la
Es nd
R ton
om ia
H ani
un a
U
ni P gar
te or y
d tu
Ki ga
ng l
C do
ze
ch Se m
R rbi
ep a
ub
C lic
ro
at
Sp ia
a
Ire in
la
Fi nd
nl
Sw and
e
Sl de
ov n
e
N nia
Figure A.2.2.23

or
w
G ay
re
Be ece
lg
iu
m
D Ita
en ly
m
a
Fr rk
an
Au ce
s
Ic tria
el
Average national incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980

U Ge and
n i rm
te a
d
N S ny
et ta
h te
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.

Sw erla s
n
Lu itze ds
xe la r
m nd
bo
ur
g
 Figure A.2.2.24
Average national incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017

100000
95,000
90,000
85,000
80,000
75,000
70,000
2017 PPP €

65,000
60,000
55,000
50,000
45,000
68

40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
un a
C ary
om ia
G nia
Po ce

rt d
ch st l
ep a
ov c
ia

d Sp y
ng in
Fr m
Fi ce

Be any

Ire m
Au nd
N Sw ria
rl n
Sw enm s
er k
U Ic and
d nd

Lu No tes
m ay

g
er d
ze E uga

Sl ubli

D and
itz ar
H rbi

Po lan

R oni

he e

ur
G lan
Ita
R at

en

Ki a
do

iu
e

an

xe rw
st
la

et ed

te la
a

a
g

bo
ro

re

m
lg
Se

l
n

ni e
St
te
ni
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.
 Figure A.2.2.25
Average bottom 50% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980

20,000

17,500

15,000
2017 PPP €

12,500

10,000
69

7,500

5,000

2,500

0
Po nia
om d
te or a
ng l
Se m
C bia

Sp ia
G ain
Ire ce
Fi nd

Be ary

Fr m

ch or e
ep y

ni u lic
d ria
Sw tes

ov n
Ic nia
d
un d

er ly

N nm y
Lu erl rk

Sw mbo s
er g
nd
Ki ga

R wa

D an

d
R lan
ni P ani

ze N nc

Sl de

an

itz ur
H lan

G Ita
at
do

iu

h a
ub
e

xe an
te st
la

la
to

d tu

e
g
ro

re

lg
a

m
e

el
St
n
Es

e
et
U
C
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.
 Figure A.2.2.26
Average bottom 50% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017

40,000
37,500
35,000
32,500
30,000
27,500
2017 PPP €

25,000
22,500
20,000
17,500
70

15,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
5,000
2,500
0
om ia
C nia
G tia
un e
Po ry
Po land

ni st l
St ia
es

ov y
ia
te ep n
ng ic
er m
Be any
Fi um

Ire ce
Au nd
N enm ria
rla k
Sw we s
er n
Ic nd
Lu No nd
m ay

g
Fr nd
U E ga

Sl tal

he ar
S nd
H ec

ni R ai

itz de

ur
Ki ubl
R erb

te on

en
ga

G do
a

at

an

xe rw
D st
a

la

la
a
a

rtu

U h Sp

bo
I
ro
re

m
lg
nl

el
S

et
d
c
ze
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.
 Figure A.2.2.27
Average top 10% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980

160000

140000

120000
2017 PPP €

100000

80,000
71

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
Po ry
ch st d
ep a
om ic

r a
d ve l
ng ia
Sw om

C en
Fi tia

Ire ia
N nd
ay
Se nd

en ly

Sp k
Ic ain
Be and

Au m
N erm ria
rla y
Fr ds
U G nce

Sw St e
Lu itze tes
m nd

g
ni S tuga

ar

he an
ze E lan
R oni

Po ani

d c

ur
R ubl

D ta
Ki n

rb
ga

iu
a

te e
G st
ed

la

xe rla
a
d

bo
I
ro

lg

a
n i re
nl

el
or
un

te lo
H

et
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.
 72

2017 PPP €

0
50,000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
Se
r
C bia
C r o
ze H ati
ch n a u
R gar
ep y
Sl ubli
ov c
R en
om ia
a
G nia
re
e
Po ce
la
Es nd
t
Po oni
rtu a
ga
l
Ita
Sp ly
Fr ain
U an
ni
te Fi ce
d nla
Ki n
ng d
Figure A.2.2.28

d
Sw om
ed
Ire en
la
Au nd
st
N Bel ria
et gi
he um
rla
n
Ic ds
el
D an
en d
G ma
Sw erm rk
Average top 10% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017

itz an
er y
l
U N and
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe; Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US.

ni o
te rw
Lu d S ay
xe tat
m es
bo
ur
g
 2.3 Distribution of taxes

Figure A.2.3.1
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population) in Europe and the United States

A. Eastern Europe B. Western and Northern Europe C. United States

50

45

40
Share of factor income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
73

20 Corporate taxes
Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
30 0%
40 0%
50 0%
60 0%
70 0%
80 0%
90 0%
95 5%

To %
1%

30 0%
40 0%
50 0%
60 0%
70 0%
80 0%
90 0%
95 5%

To %
1%

30 0%
40 0%
50 0%
60 0%
70 0%
80 0%
90 0%
95 5%

To %
1%
9

9
–3
–4
–5
–6
–7
–8
–9
–9
–9

–3
–4
–5
–6
–7
–8
–9
–9
–9

–3
–4
–5
–6
–7
–8
–9
–9
–9
p

p
20

20

20

Factor income group

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes,
as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income group, expressed as a share of factor income. The data correspond to population-weighted averages over
the period 2007–2017 for Europe, and to 2017–2018 for the US. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25 and 59 (working-age population).
Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.2.3.2
Effective tax rate of the top 10% by country (non-contributory taxes, % of pretax income)

40
Share of pretax income (%)

30

20

10
74

0
a
ro a
Po pa a
rtu in

G lan l
r d
te e e
St n d
t s
a
itz nla e

R ve d
D pu ia
Lu N ma ic
xe or rk
bo y
H Ita g

N Ge lgiu y
e t rm m
Be ga y

te A lan y
d u ds

Sw do a
e m
el n
d
ze S erl nd
Po ga

Es ate

m wa

un l
r

r n
om bi
C ani
i

ni Ir eec

Fr oni
Sw Fi anc

ch lo an

ur

ng tri

Ic de
an
en bl
at

e n

he a
d la
R er

Ki s
S
S

ni
C

U
Social contributions
Consumption and (excl. pension and Corporate tax Income and
indirect taxes unemployment) wealth taxes

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.3.3
Effective tax rate of the bottom 50% by country (non-contributory taxes, % of pretax income)

60
Share of pretax income (%)

40

20
75

0
Sptes
R orw in
u y
an c
te P ela e
d or nd

Fi doml

R It ia
Lu B an ly
xe elg ia
G bo m
m g
y
r d
t e
a
itz ma a
Swrlan k
N Hu eded
et n n
rla ry
e s
ro d
Se atia
ia
ov nd
ng ga
ep a
Fr bli

Po an

e r

Ic nd
r c

er ur

G lan
Eseec
Auoni
Sw en stri

C lan
om a
ch N a

en

rb
m iu

he ga
Sl nla
a

Ki tu
St

I
d

D
te
ni

ze
U

ni
C

Social contributions
Income and Corporate tax (excl. pension and Consumption and
wealth taxes unemployment) indirect taxes

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.3.4
Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% effective tax rates by country (non-contributory taxes, % of pretax income)

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

.8
76

.6

.4

.2

0
C bia
om ia
Po nia
G and
Sw st ce
e a
en d

r k
un l
Ic ary
N Ire nd
rla d
Lu S nds
m ain
Fi urg

ov ia
a
er n

y
lg y
ch Fr m
ep e
te No blic
ni g y
d om
es
Au nd
H tuga
Po ar

an
Be Ital

U Ki n w a
itz oni
D rlan

he n

Sw eni
G ede

R anc
R at

Sl str

iu
e

at
a
et la

a
r

xe p
m

te d
bo

u
ro

re

m
Se

el

nl

d r

St
E

ze

ni
C

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.3.5
Effective tax rate of the top 10% by country (all taxes, % of factor income, working-age population)

50
Share of factor income (%)

40

30

20
77

10

0
ia
te ro ia
St tia
s
Ireland
Sp nd
itz rw n
er ay
ze D sto nd
Lu Re ma a
xe pu rk
N e ou c
et rm rg
rl a n y
nl s

d r nd
ng ce
Audom

H an a
un ce

Sl rtugry
Sw en l
Be edea
lg n
m
ly
te G la d

ov a
Poate

b i

Fi nd
Sw No ai

Fr stri

i
an
m bl

Ita
an
n i C e rb

ch en n

Po ga

iu
d a

he a

Ki e e
la

E la
om

e
S

Ic
R

G
U

ni
C

Income and Corporate tax Social contributions Consumption and

wealth taxes indirect taxes

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25 and 59.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.3.6
Effective tax rate of the bottom 50% by country (all taxes, % of factor income, working-age population)

60
Share of factor income (%)

40

20
78

0
d m es
ng nia
or m
la y
ro nd
Lu Re pa a
x p in
itz bou ic
er rg
Seand

Po nla a

Es lan l
t d
D an a
m e
G s k
m ia
re y
el e
Sl It d
ov aly

N Swlgiu a
et e m
H lan n
ga s
ry
rtu nd
Po ga
Ire wa

Au ar

G an

un d
i

Fi rbi

Fr oni
en c

Ic ec
an

r e
Swem ubl
at

er tr

Be en
N do
te o at

he d
Ki a

l
n i R St

S
C
d
te

ch
ni

ze
U

C
U

Income and Corporate tax Social contributions Consumption and

wealth taxes indirect taxes

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25 and 59.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.3.7
Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% effective tax rates by country (all taxes, % of factor income, working-age
effective tax rate (% of pretax income) population)

1.8
Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50%

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
.8
.6
79

.4
.2
0
C rbia
Po atia
om nd
N Es nia
r ia
Sw n ds

G rla k
er nd
Ic any
un d
G ary

Sp ce
Fi ain

m nd
Au urg
a
ov n
Fr nia
ch el ce
ep m
or c
ay
U nit ort ly
d t l
ng es
m
xe ela d

te S ga
e r

N bli
H lan

Sw stri
Sl ede
Lu Ir lan

U P Ita
he n

itz ma

R giu

do
D lan

ze B an

Ki a t
R la
a
et to

ni ed u
g

bo

u
ro

re
Se

n
e

C
Income and
wealth taxes

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25 and 59.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 2.4 Distribution of transfers

Figure A.2.4.1
Total transfers received by the bottom 50% by country (% of posttax income)

90
Share of posttax income (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
80

20
10
0
N tes

Sp y
Ic ain
Lu om and
te m ia
ng rg
Fr om
ov e
Po nia
un d

u ry
ch s ia
ep ia
Sw Ire lic
er d
et I d
rla ly
rtu s
Se al
Fi rbia

er ce

y
en n

lg k
m
G and
a

Po nd

Sw an

Be ar
Sl anc

H lan

itz lan
n

D ede
he ta
ni e n

ze E str
R ton

g
ga

iu
Ki u

ub
w

G ree
la
a

U x a

e
d

m
d bo

m
R l

nl
or
St

A
d
te
ni

N
U

Family and Unemployment

Cash transfers Pension
assistance and disability
Other (incl. collective
In-kind transfers Health expenditures)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 Figure A.2.4.2
Total transfers received by the middle 40% by country (% of posttax income)

60
Share of posttax income (%)

50

40

30

20

10
81

0
ni Es nd
S a
ch o s
ep y
om lic
te Ir nia
ng d
Ic om
d
en m
ov rk
Sp ia
er in

ed y
Po en
N Fin nd

rtu s
Au gal

xe It a
m aly
Fr urg
Se ce
un ia
G ary
e
rla d
ze N tate
R rwa

Sw an

Po nd
d ni

Ki a n

Be lan

ri

ec
he an
en
G a

H rb
D lgiu
Sl ma
R ub

an
st
la

la
te to

g
bo
m

re
d el

et l
er

e
itz
Sw

Lu
U

ni
C

Family and Unemployment

Cash transfers Pension
assistance and disability
Other (incl. collective
In-kind transfers Health expenditures)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Average over the 2007-2017 period.
 2.5 Distribution of posttax income

Figure A.2.5.1
Top 1% and Bottom 50% posttax income shares in Europe and the US

United States Europe

28 28

26 26
West. & North.
Europe
24 24

22 22
Share of income (%)

20 20
All Europe
18 18
82

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10 All Europe

8 8
West. & Nort.
Europe
6 6
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Bottom 50% Top 1%

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The figure compares the share of posttax income received by the bottom
50% to that received by the top 1% of the regional population. Figures for the US come from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018). Figures for Europe are aggregated
using market exchange rates. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. See Table A.2.7.1 for the
composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.2
Average annual posttax income growth by percentile, 1980-2017

6
United States
Average annual income growth (%)

2
All Europe
1
83

-1

-2
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

99

.9

99
.9
99

.9
99

99
Income group (percentile)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The figure plots the average annual posttax income growth rate by
percentile, with a further decomposition of the top percentile. Figures for the US come from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018). Figures for Europe are aggregated
using market exchange rates. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. See Table A.2.7.1 for the
composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.3
Bottom 50% incomes in Europe, 1980-2017

A. Eastern Europe B. Western Europe C. Northern Europe

25,000
23,000
21,000
19,000
17,000
2017 PPP €

15,000
13,000
11,000
84

9,000
7,000
5,000
3,000
19 0
19 5
19 0
20 5
20 0
20 5
20 0
15

19 0
19 5
19 0
20 5
20 0
20 5
20 0
15

19 0
19 5
19 0
20 5
20 0
20 5
20 0
15
8
8
9
9
0
0
1

8
8
9
9
0
0
1

8
8
9
9
0
0
1
19

19

19
Before taxes and transfers After taxes and transfers
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income
Posttax national income

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
Incomes are measured at Purchasing Power Parity in real 2017 Euros. PPP Euro 1 = PPP$ 1.3. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. See Table
A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.4
Bottom 50% and Top 10% real incomes in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Bottom 50%: Western and Northern Europe Bottom 50%: United States
22,000 22,000 Average income growth, 1980-2017
Full population: 66%
Average income growth, 1980-2017 Bottom 50% pretax: -3%
Full population: 49% Bottom 50% disposable: 5%
20,000 Bottom 50% pretax: 33% 20,000 Bottom 50% posttax: 16%
Bottom 50% disposable: 31%
Bottom 50% posttax: 38%

18,000 18,000
2017 PPP €

2017 PPP €
16,000 16,000

14,000 14,000

12,000 12,000

10,000 10,000
80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15

80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15
19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
Top 10%: Western and Northern Europe Top 10%: United States
250,000 250,000
85

200,000 200,000
2017 PPP €

2017 PPP €
Average income growth, 1980-2017
Full population: 49%
150,000 Top 10% pretax: 75% 150,000
Top 10% disposable: 77%
Top 10% posttax: 74%

100,000 100,000
Average income growth, 1980-2017
Full population: 66%
Top 10% pretax: 131%
Top 10% disposable: 124%
50,000 50,000 Top 10% posttax: 121%
80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15

80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15
19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
Before taxes and transfers After taxes and transfers
Pretax national income Posttax national income
Posttax disposable income

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
Incomes are measured at Purchasing Power Parity in real 2017 Euros. PPP e1 = PPP$ 1.3. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. See Table
A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.5
Middle 40% and Bottom 20% incomes in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Bottom 20%: Western and Northern Europe Bottom 20%: United States
12,000 12,000

10,000 10,000

8,000 8,000
2017 PPP €

2017 PPP €
6,000 6,000

4,000 4,000
Average income growth, 1980-2017 Average income growth, 1980-2017
Full population: 49% Full population: 66%
2,000 Bottom 20% pretax: 30% 2,000 Bottom 20% pretax: -34%
Bottom 20% disposable: 25% Bottom 20% disposable: -30%
Bottom 20% posttax: 41% Bottom 20% posttax: -15%

0 0
80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15

80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15
19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
Middle 40%: Western and Northern Europe Middle 40%: United States
70,000 70,000

Average income growth, 1980-2017 Average income growth, 1980-2017

86

Full population: 49% Full population: 66%

60,000 Middle 40% pretax: 41% 60,000 Middle 40% pretax: 46%
Middle 40% disposable: 77% Middle 40% disposable: 50%
Middle 40% posttax: 41% Middle 40% posttax: 57%
2017 PPP €

2017 PPP €
50,000 50,000

40,000 40,000

30,000 30,000

20,000 20,000
80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15

80

85

90

95

00

05

10

15
19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
Before taxes and transfers After taxes and transfers
Pretax national income Posttax national income
Posttax disposable income

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
Incomes are measured at Purchasing Power Parity in real 2017 Euros. PPP Euro 1 = PPP$ 1.3. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. See Table
A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.6
Redistribution in Europe and the United States, 1980-2017:
Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% average incomes

20
Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% income

18

16

14

12

10
87

0
EU 1980 EU 2017 US 1980 US 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. Indicators are population weighted. European inequality estimates contain all Western, Northern and
Eastern European countries. See Appendix Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.7
Net redistribution in Europe and the US (% of pretax income)

A. Eastern Europe B. Western/Northern Europe C. United States

60
Gap between posttax and pretax income

55
50
45
40
(% pretax income)

35
30
25
20
88

15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. Indicators are population weighted. European inequality estimates contain all Western, Northern and
Eastern European countries.
 Figure A.2.5.8
Net redistribution in Europe and the US (decomposing the bottom 50%)

A. Eastern Europe B. Western Europe C. United States

Difference between posttax and pretax income

10

6
(% of national income)

0
89

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

Bottom 20% Next 30% Next 40% Top 10%

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. Indicators are population weighted. European inequality estimates contain all Western, Northern and
Eastern European countries.
 Figure A.2.5.9
Top 10% and bottom 50% posttax income shares in Europe and the United States: lump-sum vs.
proportional allocation of collective expenditure

United States Europe

50 50

45 45
Share of national income (%)

Share of national income (%)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
90

20 20

15 15

10 10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Top 10% share Bottom 50% share

Pretax income Pretax income
Posttax income (proportional) Posttax income (proportional)
Posttax income (lump sum) Posttax income (lump sum)

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The figure represents the top 10% and bottom 50% shares in Europe and the United States in terms of pretax income, posttax national income assuming that all
non-health collective government expenditure is distributed proportionally to posttax disposable income, and posttax national income assuming that all non-health
collective government expenditure is distributed on a lump sum basis. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20. Income is split equally among
spouses. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.10
Net redistribution (% of group average income): lump-sum vs. proportional allocation of collective
expenditures

A. Eastern EU (lump-sum) B. West./North. EU (lump-sum) C. United States (proportional)

60
Gap between posttax and pretax income

55
50
45
40
(% pretax income)

35
30
25
20
91

15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The figure represents the net transfer operated between pretax income groups, expressed as a share of national income, assuming that all non-health collective
expenditures are allocated on a lump-sum basis in Europe, and proportionally to income in the United States. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged
20. Income is split equally among spouses. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.11
Net redistribution (% of national income): lump-sum vs. proportional allocation of collective expenditures

A. Eastern EU (lump-sum) B. West./North. EU (lump-sum) C. United States (proportional)

10
9
Gap between posttax and pretax income

8
7
6
5
(% national income)

4
3
2
1
0
-1
92

-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
The figure represents the net transfer operated between pretax income groups, expressed as a share of national income, assuming that all non-health collective
expenditures are allocated on a lump-sum basis in Europe, and proportionally to income in the United States. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged
20. Income is split equally among spouses. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions.
 Figure A.2.5.12
Bottom 50% factor income share, working-age population, Europe vs. US, 2007-2015

A. Eastern EU B. Western EU C. Northern EU D. United States

30

25
Share of total (%)

20
93

15

10

5
07

09

11

13

15

07

09

11

13

15

07

09

11

13

15

07

09

11

13

15
20

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Factor income Factor income + UI benefits

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes:
Distribution of factor income among the working age population. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 25-59 in European countries and 20-64 in the
US. Available microdata does not allow for a detailed decomposition of factor income and UI benefits in Europe before 2007, see methodology section.
 Figure A.2.5.13
Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country (% of national income)

7
Gap between posttax and pretax income

6
(% national income)

3
94

0
C rbia
Sw S tia
er in
Es and
un ia
rtu ry
re l
e

Fi blic
om ly
Lu P ania
m nd
ce urg
ch lov nd
ep ia

k
er en
Ire ny
Au nd

lg a
N F ium
rla e
d o s
ni ng y
d om
es
en nd
G ga

Sw ar

te N nd
U Ki rwa
ec

Be stri

he nc
R Ita
itz pa

H ton

R en
Po ga
a

at
xe ola

ze S la

G ed

la
D nla
m

te d
bo

u
ro

et ra
Se

St
I

ni
C

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.14
Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country (% of national income)

2
Gap between posttax and pretax income

1.5
(% national income)

.5

0
95

-.5

-1
en lic
Se ark
N Ic rbia
rl d
un s
Au ary
Fr tria
e
er m
ov y
xe orw a
b y
ed g
Ir en
om nd
ia

Sw Es om
ng ly

er ia
C and
Po atia
rtu d
re l
ni S ece
St i n
es
e d

G ga
H and

Sl an

m a
he an

Be anc

Lu N eni

Sw our

Po lan
R lan

Ki Ita
an

itz ton

d a
G lgiu
D pub

at
R ela

te p
m

g
s

d
m

ro
et el

l
ch Fin

d
te
ze

U
ni
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.15
Gap between posttax and pretax income Net transfer received by the top 10% by country (% of national income)

0
-1
-2
(% national income)

-3
-4
-5
96

-6
-7
-8
-9
ng es
N om
Ire ay

lg d
Fr ium

ed e
A en
N er ria
rla y
G nds
ov e
Po nia
rtu d
xe I al
y
n rg
ch om rk
ep ia
Es blic
Fi nia

Sw S nd
er in
C and
un ia
Se ary
ia
Ic and
he an

m tal
Be lan

Sw nc

Sl eec

Po lan
g

R an

itz pa

H at

rb
ze R ma
D bou
Ki a t

G ust

a
e

to
d

g
u
a

et m

ro
nl
el

l
or
d t
te S

e
ni ed
U nit

Lu
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.16
Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country (% of pretax income)

60
Gap between posttax and pretax income

50
(% pretax income)

40

30
97

20

10

0
Sp ia
Sw Cr ain
e ia
un d
Es ary
a

ze P ela y
ch or nd

u l
G blic
Po ece
Lu Romland
m nia
ov rg
Fi nia

en en
Au ark
Fr tria
N Ir nce
rla d
o s
ni G lgiu y
te er m
ni ng y
d om
es
d
ep a
Ic l

N nd
Be rwa

U Ki a n
H rlan

ni

he an
Sw lan
Ita
rb

itz oat

R tug

Sl ou

at
D ed
to

xe a

e
g

m
s

te d
re

d m
Se

et el

St
n
b
C

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.17
Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country (% of pretax income)

6
Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
(% pretax income)

1
98

-1

-2
en lic
N Ic ark
rla d
Se ds
Au bia
Fr tria
un e
y
er m
ov y
N enia

e y
Lu Ir den
m nd
om rg
Es nia

ni it It a

C om
d r y
ng d

Po atia
rtu d
re l
ni S ece
St i n
es
ep d

G ga
Be gar

Sl an

Sw rwa

te ze al
he an

H anc

ni

Ki l a n

Po lan
R lan

d a
G lgiu

R ou
D ub

at
xe ela
r

a
to

te p
m

d
m

ro
et el
ch Fin

b
o

U Sw
ze

U
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.18
Gap between posttax and pretax income Net transfer received by the top 10% by country (% of pretax income)

0
(% pretax income)

-5

-10
99

-15

-20
d or s
ng ay
N Ir om
rl d
e s
lg n
Au ium
Fr tria

ze G ven e
ch erm ia
ep y
G blic
en ce

k
Po ly
Fi and

rt d
xe sto l
m nia
om rg
Sw S nia
er in
C and
un ia
Se ary
ia
Ic and

Lu E uga
te N ate

Sw and

R an

ar
he an

Be de

Sl anc

Po lan
Ita

itz pa

H oat

rb
R bou
Ki w

D ee

a
d

g
u
et el

l
nl

l
St

e
r

r
o
d
te
ni
U

ni

C
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed
proportionally to posttax disposable income.
 Figure A.2.5.19
Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country
(% of national income, lump sum allocation of collective expenditure)

12
Gap between posttax and pretax income

11
10
9
(% national income)

8
7
6
5
100

4
3
2
1
0
Sw S ain
er ia
C and
ia

ze R rtug y
ch om al
ep ia
Po blic
ov d
un ia
Ire ary
Es land
G nia
ce ce
d u d
ng ia
Fi om

er ce
en ny

ed k
N e en
rla m
o s
ni b y
St g
es
Fr nd
l

Sw ar

Lu N nd
U xem rwa
Sl lan

te A lan

d ur
Po Ita
itz erb

at

R an

H en

Ki str

he iu
e

G an
D ma

at
a
Sp

to
g

te o
u
ro

et lg
re
l

nl
I

B
ni
C

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed on a lump
sum basis.
 Figure A.2.5.20
Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country
(% of national income, lump sum allocation of collective expenditure)

2
Gap between posttax and pretax income

1.5

1
(% national income)

.5

-.5
101

-1

-1.5

-2
Se ds
en ia
Fi ark

ep d
ic
ov m

ed ia
Au en
Fr tria

xe ng e
bo y
Es urg
or a
C way
er tia
Ire any
nd
Sw om ly
er ia
d re d
ng ce
rtu m
l l
ni S and
St i n
es
ch Ice and

Po ga
m ar
R lan

Lu Hu nc

N oni

te G lan
Be ubl

R Ita
D rb

Sw en

itz an

d a
Sl lgiu

Po do
n

G roa

Ki e

at
la

te p
m

s
rla

m
nl

t
he
et
N

ze

U
ni
C

U
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed on a lump
sum basis.
 Figure A.2.5.21
Net transfer received by the top 10% by country
(% of national income, lump sum allocation of collective expenditure)

0
Gap between posttax and pretax income

-1
-2
-3
(% national income)

-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
102

-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
b s
d or g
G gdo y
er m
G any

e e
lg n
Fr ium
N P nce
rla d
Au nds
en ria
Es ark
Ire nia
Fi and

H an l
un ia
ov ry
Ic nia
nd

Sp lic
ep ly

Sw Cr ain
er ia
Se nd
ia
d
om a
m te

n a
te N our

Sw eec
Be de

he an

Po an

R Ita
R rtug

itz oat

rb
Sl ga

ub
Ki w

D st

la

la
xe ta

to

e
m
m

a
et ol

l
nl

e
Lu d S

r
te

ch
ni

ze
U

ni

C
U

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
Income is split equally among spouses. Results reported for the year 2017. Non-health collective government expenditures are assumed to be distributed on a lump
sum basis.
 2.6 Maps

Figure A.2.6.22
Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 1980
103

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.23
Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 1990
104

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.24
Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2000
105

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.25
Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2007
106

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.26
Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2017
107

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.27
Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 1980
108

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.28
Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 1990
109

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.29
Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2000
110

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.30
Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2007
111

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.31
Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2017
112

40

30

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.32
Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 1980
113

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.33
Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 1990
114

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.34
Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2000
115

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.35
Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2007
116

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.36
Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2017
117

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.37
Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 1980
118

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.38
Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 1990
119

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.39
Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2000
120

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.40
Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2007
121

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.41
Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2017
122

16

12

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.42
Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 1980
123

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.43
Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 1990
124

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.44
Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2000
125

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.45
Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2007
126

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.46
Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2017
127

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.47
Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 1980
128

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.48
Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 1990
129

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.49
Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2000
130

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.50
Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2007
131

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 Figure A.2.6.51
Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2017
132

30

25

20

Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes: The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income
is split equally among spouses. The map includes countries with no tax data (see appendix table A.2.7.1).
 2.7 Supplementary tables

Table A.2.7.1
Coverage of data sources (all European countries)

Country Surveys Tax data Undistrib. prof. Imp. rents Tax data source Quality score
Western Europe
Austria 1987-2017 1976-2015 1995-2018 1995-2018 Altzinger et al. (2010) Medium
Belgium 1985-2017 1990-2016 1985-2018 1985-2018 Decoster, Dobbeleer, and Maes (2017) High
France 1989-2017 1980-2014 1980-2018 1980-2018 Garbinti, Goupille-Lebret, and Piketty (2018) Very high
Germany 1981-2017 1980-2013 1991-2018 1991-2018 Bartels (2017) High
Ireland 1980-2018 1980-2015 1995-2018 1995-2018 Jäntti et al. (2007) High
Italy 1981-2017 1980-2009 1980-2019 1980-2019 Alvaredo and Pisano (2010) High
Luxembourg 1985-2017 2010-2012 1995-2018 Authors, from Conseil Economique et Social (2015) High
Netherlands 1983-2017 1981-2012 1980-2018 1980-2019 Salverda and Atkinson (2007) High
Portugal 1980-2017 1980-2005 1995-2019 1995-2019 Alvaredo (2009) High
Spain 1980-2017 1981-2012 1995-2018 1995-2018 Alvaredo and Saez (2010) High
Switzerland 1982-2017 1981-2014 1990-2018 1990-2018 Foellmi and Martı́nez (2017) High
United Kingdom 1986-2018 1981-2014 1987-2018 1990-2018 Atkinson and Piketty (2007) High
Northern Europe
Denmark 1981-2017 1980-2010 1981-2018 1990-2018 Atkinson and Søgaard (2013) High
Finland 1981-2017 1980-2009 1980-2019 1980-2019 Jäntti et al. (2010) High
Iceland 2003-2015 1990-2016 2000-2014 2000-2014 Authors, from Statistics Iceland (2020) High
133

Norway 1986-2017 1981-2011 1980-2018 1980-2018 Aaberge and Atkinson (2010) High
Sweden 1981-2017 1980-2013 1980-2019 1980-2019 Roine and Waldenström (2010) High
Eastern Europe
Croatia 1983-2017 1983-2013 1997-2014 2002-2018 Kump and Novokmet (2018) High
Czech Republic 1980-2017 1980-2015 1995-2018 1995-2018 Novokmet (2018) High
Estonia 1988-2017 2002-2017 1994-2018 1994-2018 Authors, from Tax and Customs Board (2020) High
Greece 1981-2017 2004-2011 1995-2018 1995-2018 Chrissis and Koutentakis (2017) High
Hungary 1982-2017 1980-2008 1995-2018 1995-2018 Mavridis and Mosberger (2017) High
Poland 1983-2017 1983-2015 1996-2018 1996-2018 Bukowski and Novokmet (2017b) High
Romania 1989-2017 2013 1995-2017 1995-2019 Oancea, Andrei, and Pirjol (2017) Medium
Serbia 1983-2017 2017 2000-2011 1997-2011 Authors, data provided by Statistical Office Medium
Slovenia 1987-2017 1991-2012 1995-2018 1995-2018 Kump and Novokmet (2018) High
Other Eastern
Albania 1996-2017 Low
Bosn. & Herz. 1983-2015 Medium Low
Bulgaria 1980-2017 1999-2017 1999-2017 Medium
Cyprus 1990-2017 1995-2017 1995-2018 Medium Low
Kosovo 2003-2017 Medium Low
Latvia 1988-2017 2001-2018 1995-2018 Medium
Lithuania 1988-2017 1995-2018 1995-2018 Medium
Malta 2006-2017 2000-2018 Medium Low
Moldova 1988-2018 Low
Montenegro 1983-2015 Medium Low
Macedonia 1983-2017 Medium Low
Slovakia 1980-2017 1995-2019 1995-2019 Medium
Notes: The table shows the time coverage of the main data sources used to estimate distributional national accounts by country. Other Eastern
correspond to countries not included in the main paper (countries for which no tax data was available at the time of writing).
 Table A.2.7.2
Total taxes and transfers in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017
(% of national income)
Western Europe Northern Europe Eastern Europe All Europe United States
All taxes & social contributions 47.8% 51.6% 40.5% 46.5% 28.2%
Social contributions 20.2% 11.7% 16.1% 18.9% 7.6%
Inc. contributory contributions 17.6% 11.2% 14.6% 16.7% 5.3%
Inc. non-contributory contributions 2.5% 0.5% 1.5% 2.2% 2.2%
Taxes 27.6% 39.9% 24.4% 27.6% 20.7%
Inc. Income & wealth taxes 11.3% 17.7% 5.6% 10.4% 11.2%
134

Inc. Corporate tax 2.9% 4.1% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0%

Inc. Indirect & consumption taxes 13.4% 18.0% 16.0% 14.1% 6.5%
All non-contributory taxes & contributions 30.2% 40.4% 25.9% 29.8% 22.9%

All transfers 48.3% 51.4% 41.6% 47.1% 34.5%

Cash transfers 23.6% 22.1% 18.7% 22.5% 8.8%
Inc. Pensions 16.6% 15.8% 14.5% 16.1% 4.7%
Inc. Unemployment & disability 1.9% 1.0% 0.7% 1.6% 1.4%
Inc. Other cash transfers 5.1% 5.2% 3.5% 4.8% 2.7%
In-kind transfers 24.7% 29.4% 22.9% 24.6% 25.7%
Inc. Health 7.8% 7.8% 5.6% 7.4% 7.3%
Inc. Other in-kind transfers 16.9% 21.5% 17.3% 17.2% 18.3%
Source: Authors’ computations based on national accounts data. Notes: The table shows the structure of taxes and transfers in the United States and Europe,
expressed as a share of national income. Values are population-weighted and averaged over the 2007-2017 period. See Appendix Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of
European regions.
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
1980 United States .452 .373 .441 .307 .332 .232
Eastern Europe .316 .291 .182 .154 .194 .161
Northern Europe .339 .286 .212 .151 .249 .154
Western Europe .403 .356 .317 .238 .295 .222
1981 United States .459 .384 .461 .336 .346 .248
Eastern Europe .329 .305 .194 .167 .205 .173
Northern Europe .328 .278 .195 .14 .19 .139
Western Europe .395 .346 .306 .224 .286 .213
1982 United States .46 .388 .468 .341 .342 .237
135

Eastern Europe .331 .307 .198 .169 .207 .175

Northern Europe .332 .287 .204 .154 .2 .162
Western Europe .395 .346 .302 .223 .287 .214
1983 United States .47 .4 .484 .358 .363 .251
Eastern Europe .322 .298 .189 .16 .201 .168
Northern Europe .333 .283 .21 .152 .199 .147
Western Europe .396 .347 .306 .225 .293 .211
1984 United States .48 .417 .525 .404 .368 .267
Eastern Europe .319 .296 .186 .16 .193 .169
Northern Europe .336 .289 .226 .172 .194 .154
Western Europe .398 .349 .308 .228 .289 .216
1985 United States .48 .415 .523 .397 .369 .267
Eastern Europe .316 .293 .181 .156 .188 .164
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
Northern Europe .337 .292 .229 .172 .196 .149
Western Europe .402 .351 .317 .23 .297 .218
1986 United States .482 .412 .515 .372 .378 .264
Eastern Europe .318 .296 .184 .159 .193 .174
Northern Europe .326 .284 .205 .156 .183 .149
Western Europe .407 .359 .332 .245 .302 .233
1987 United States .492 .417 .554 .403 .388 .271
Eastern Europe .31 .293 .174 .156 .165 .164
Northern Europe .34 .287 .224 .162 .232 .141
136

Western Europe .408 .354 .338 .24 .303 .22

1988 United States .502 .43 .619 .461 .398 .285
Eastern Europe .312 .288 .176 .15 .206 .165
Northern Europe .33 .29 .214 .167 .19 .148
Western Europe .413 .359 .35 .249 .305 .221
1989 United States .501 .425 .599 .441 .397 .278
Eastern Europe .322 .306 .189 .172 .184 .185
Northern Europe .333 .289 .217 .165 .22 .158
Western Europe .415 .362 .356 .256 .32 .226
1990 United States .502 .424 .603 .44 .402 .278
Eastern Europe .35 .33 .225 .197 .228 .204
Northern Europe .324 .276 .196 .142 .193 .139
Western Europe .419 .363 .354 .252 .311 .224
1991 United States .503 .423 .588 .425 .416 .277
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
Eastern Europe .354 .335 .237 .21 .218 .224
Northern Europe .322 .275 .192 .139 .182 .129
Western Europe .418 .364 .349 .253 .311 .228
1992 United States .512 .432 .631 .459 .412 .287
Eastern Europe .364 .342 .263 .224 .237 .232
Northern Europe .326 .278 .199 .146 .189 .132
Western Europe .414 .368 .334 .257 .3 .249
1993 United States .511 .427 .621 .44 .411 .282
Eastern Europe .38 .357 .29 .244 .261 .248
137

Northern Europe .332 .292 .213 .166 .187 .159

Western Europe .417 .368 .341 .255 .311 .268
1994 United States .513 .428 .624 .438 .41 .283
Eastern Europe .393 .373 .322 .273 .282 .265
Northern Europe .358 .31 .266 .199 .244 .164
Western Europe .421 .374 .35 .261 .318 .248
1995 United States .521 .435 .652 .456 .419 .291
Eastern Europe .408 .386 .361 .301 .298 .279
Northern Europe .354 .312 .269 .211 .209 .171
Western Europe .419 .373 .349 .266 .312 .245
1996 United States .534 .441 .696 .475 .457 .296
Eastern Europe .412 .389 .352 .3 .305 .262
Northern Europe .361 .313 .278 .21 .253 .172
Western Europe .425 .375 .365 .268 .322 .249
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
1997 United States .54 .446 .725 .498 .456 .303
Eastern Europe .418 .396 .37 .325 .309 .282
Northern Europe .371 .32 .306 .233 .24 .177
Western Europe .428 .375 .378 .278 .319 .254
1998 United States .541 .448 .734 .5 .456 .306
Eastern Europe .425 .395 .391 .314 .322 .271
Northern Europe .361 .318 .292 .228 .216 .173
Western Europe .431 .38 .388 .287 .317 .258
1999 United States .547 .452 .77 .525 .456 .313
138

Eastern Europe .43 .405 .393 .341 .324 .288

Northern Europe .368 .325 .315 .252 .225 .183
Western Europe .434 .382 .395 .289 .337 .254
2000 United States .551 .456 .797 .542 .466 .32
Eastern Europe .435 .412 .394 .339 .345 .302
Northern Europe .367 .315 .317 .239 .222 .168
Western Europe .433 .382 .392 .291 .33 .26
2001 United States .542 .453 .752 .53 .456 .316
Eastern Europe .434 .412 .388 .337 .34 .313
Northern Europe .361 .308 .284 .211 .236 .165
Western Europe .433 .379 .388 .282 .327 .257
2002 United States .543 .457 .745 .54 .465 .322
Eastern Europe .444 .425 .415 .358 .363 .309
Northern Europe .361 .307 .29 .217 .231 .162
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
Western Europe .432 .379 .383 .283 .321 .249
2003 United States .542 .461 .749 .552 .444 .329
Eastern Europe .454 .437 .433 .377 .38 .328
Northern Europe .363 .305 .298 .226 .268 .163
Western Europe .432 .379 .389 .292 .325 .248
2004 United States .551 .466 .8 .581 .456 .334
Eastern Europe .461 .432 .471 .385 .4 .327
Northern Europe .374 .314 .332 .267 .285 .169
Western Europe .434 .379 .401 .296 .32 .246
139

2005 United States .56 .469 .853 .604 .467 .335

Eastern Europe .472 .437 .512 .4 .438 .329
Northern Europe .384 .338 .367 .334 .256 .2
Western Europe .44 .385 .418 .303 .33 .252
2006 United States .569 .475 .888 .625 .482 .344
Eastern Europe .477 .441 .52 .42 .428 .33
Northern Europe .386 .327 .356 .255 .249 .183
Western Europe .444 .384 .432 .31 .332 .252
2007 United States .57 .469 .891 .606 .482 .332
Eastern Europe .484 .447 .565 .447 .437 .337
Northern Europe .382 .326 .347 .257 .248 .181
Western Europe .448 .388 .449 .328 .339 .251
2008 United States .563 .463 .871 .608 .473 .332
Eastern Europe .479 .449 .55 .461 .424 .331
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
Northern Europe .389 .333 .349 .253 .262 .191
Western Europe .441 .384 .431 .319 .336 .249
2009 United States .554 .469 .835 .621 .456 .347
Eastern Europe .47 .44 .511 .425 .418 .326
Northern Europe .375 .317 .294 .205 .259 .17
Western Europe .444 .38 .424 .299 .348 .241
2010 United States .567 .473 .902 .658 .469 .35
Eastern Europe .461 .436 .471 .399 .402 .326
Northern Europe .397 .331 .347 .235 .317 .182
140

Western Europe .441 .382 .417 .305 .346 .246

2011 United States .571 .477 .886 .646 .481 .356
Eastern Europe .468 .437 .49 .402 .418 .327
Northern Europe .393 .334 .335 .234 .272 .189
Western Europe .444 .384 .428 .31 .354 .25
2012 United States .581 .489 .946 .689 .494 .369
Eastern Europe .471 .444 .504 .414 .423 .342
Northern Europe .39 .326 .333 .222 .312 .179
Western Europe .444 .385 .419 .305 .357 .252
2013 United States .573 .479 .888 .628 .477 .356
Eastern Europe .469 .424 .494 .382 .42 .306
Northern Europe .395 .33 .337 .23 .318 .183
Western Europe .451 .39 .431 .312 .38 .259
2014 United States .579 .482 .918 .64 .49 .359
 Table A.2.7.3
Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017

Region Gini Theil Atkinson

Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax Pretax Posttax
Eastern Europe .475 .45 .519 .44 .441 .347
Northern Europe .398 .335 .342 .233 .317 .19
Western Europe .452 .394 .438 .327 .377 .27
2015 United States .596 .5 .942 .655 .517 .388
Eastern Europe .475 .433 .538 .416 .44 .318
Northern Europe .399 .334 .339 .235 .314 .187
Western Europe .451 .392 .44 .323 .373 .267
2016 United States .594 .501 .933 .661 .523 .397
Eastern Europe .461 .429 .49 .398 .408 .317
141

Northern Europe .394 .331 .328 .228 .311 .184

Western Europe .451 .392 .442 .33 .368 .267
2017 United States .593 .499 .963 .66 .523 .408
Eastern Europe .461 .424 .492 .388 .407 .305
Northern Europe .397 .333 .336 .233 .319 .186
Western Europe .448 .394 .441 .334 .364 .271
Sources. Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for European
countries and Piketty, Saez, and Zucman, 2018 for the US. Notes. The table presents summary
pretax and posttax income inequality statistics in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Western Europe,
and the United States. See Table A.2.7.1 for the composition of European regions. The Atkinson
parameter is set to 1.
 Table A.2.7.4
Performance of European countries and the United States in reaching SDG 10.1, 1980-2017

1980-2017 2007-2017
Bottom 40% Average Difference Bottom 40% Average Difference
Austria 1.2 % 1.1 % 0.1 p.p. -0.1 % -0.2 % 0.1 p.p.
Belgium 1.1 % 1.2 % -0.1 p.p. 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.0 p.p.
Switzerland 0.5 % 0.6 % -0.2 p.p. 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.0 p.p.
Czech Republic 0.3 % 1.0 % -0.7 p.p. 1.4 % 1.2 % 0.2 p.p.
Germany 0.0 % 0.8 % -0.8 p.p. 0.2 % 0.7 % -0.6 p.p.
Denmark 1.0 % 1.5 % -0.5 p.p. -1.0 % 0.4 % -1.4 p.p.
Estonia 1.2 % 2.0 % -0.8 p.p. 2.1 % 1.0 % 1.2 p.p.
Spain 1.4 % 1.2 % 0.2 p.p. 0.7 % 0.4 % 0.3 p.p.
Finland 1.3 % 1.5 % -0.2 p.p. -0.9 % -0.5 % -0.4 p.p.
142

France 1.3 % 0.9 % 0.4 p.p. 0.4 % -0.2 % 0.6 p.p.

United Kingdom 1.8 % 2.0 % -0.2 p.p. 1.0 % 0.0 % 0.9 p.p.
Greece 0.0 % -0.1 % 0.1 p.p. -3.6 % -3.4 % -0.2 p.p.
Croatia -0.2 % 0.1 % -0.4 p.p. 0.5 % 0.1 % 0.4 p.p.
Hungary -0.8 % 0.9 % -1.7 p.p. 0.7 % 1.5 % -0.8 p.p.
Ireland 1.6 % 1.9 % -0.3 p.p. 0.5 % -0.5 % 0.9 p.p.
Iceland 1.8 % 1.6 % 0.2 p.p. 2.3 % 0.6 % 1.7 p.p.
Italy -0.5 % 0.4 % -0.9 p.p. -2.2 % -1.3 % -0.9 p.p.
Luxembourg 1.8 % 2.6 % -0.8 p.p. -4.0 % -2.9 % -1.2 p.p.
Netherlands 0.4 % 0.9 % -0.5 p.p. -0.3 % 0.2 % -0.5 p.p.
Norway 2.3 % 2.4 % -0.1 p.p. 0.9 % 0.9 % -0.0 p.p.
Poland 0.7 % 2.0 % -1.3 p.p. 3.0 % 3.0 % -0.1 p.p.
Portugal 0.7 % 1.3 % -0.6 p.p. 0.8 % -0.1 % 0.9 p.p.
 Table A.2.7.4
Performance of European countries and the United States in reaching SDG 10.1, 1980-2017

1980-2017 2007-2017
Bottom 40% Average Difference Bottom 40% Average Difference
Romania -0.4 % 1.3 % -1.7 p.p. 4.1 % 2.8 % 1.3 p.p.
Serbia -2.3 % -1.0 % -1.3 p.p. -1.0 % 0.9 % -1.9 p.p.
Sweden 1.4 % 1.8 % -0.4 p.p. 1.1 % 1.1 % 0.0 p.p.
Slovenia -0.1 % 0.5 % -0.5 p.p. 0.8 % 0.2 % 0.6 p.p.
United States -0.3 % 1.4 % -1.6 p.p. -1.4 % 0.4 % -1.9 p.p.
Source. Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts. Notes. The table shows
the average annual real growth of the pretax income of the bottom 40%, the average annual real growth of the
average national income per adult, and the percentage points difference between the two growth rates over the
1980-2017 and 2007-2017 periods. Negative differences imply that the income of the bottom 40% grew slower than
the average national income. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above.
143
 Table A.2.7.5
Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of European average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017

European regions
Europe 21380 24320 27640 31170 32250 90 88 83 84 82
EU-15 (West) 24230 28150 32260 35380 35260 102 102 97 95 90
EU-13 (East) 12960 13030 13100 17770 22170 55 47 39 48 57
Other West 32310 34970 42550 47990 50850 136 127 127 129 130
Other East 10980 9710 6630 9170 10600 46 35 20 25 27

Eastern Europe
Albania 6690 5520 6530 9180 11080 28 20 20 25 28
144

Bosnia and Herzegovina 2030 1650 7480 9540 11400 9 6 22 26 29

Bulgaria 7040 8780 8330 11890 15630 30 32 25 32 40
Croatia 19330 17040 14640 20030 20200 82 62 44 54 52
Czech Republic 18000 20670 18130 23310 26140 76 75 54 63 67
Estonia 12400 14280 14200 23470 25900 52 52 43 63 66
Hungary 14360 15390 13380 17070 19840 61 56 40 46 51
Latvia 13730 15910 9050 18050 20220 58 58 27 49 52
Lithuania 13930 14690 11890 21040 25930 59 53 36 57 66
Moldova 7040 7650 2750 4130 5390 30 28 8 11 14
Montenegro 21540 16570 11590 14820 17430 91 60 35 40 45
North Macedonia 12940 11160 9210 9840 11850 55 40 28 26 30
Poland 11300 10090 14170 17180 23160 48 37 42 46 59
Romania 12510 12260 9780 15360 20210 53 44 29 41 52
Serbia 17870 16220 6540 10470 11600 75 59 20 28 30
 Table A.2.7.5
Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of European average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017
Slovakia 12550 13510 11720 18740 23180 53 49 35 50 59
Slovenia 22360 18190 20340 25980 26500 94 66 61 70 68

Southern Europe
Cyprus 15860 24110 29300 36810 31580 67 87 88 99 81
Greece 23690 23910 26680 31970 22590 100 87 80 86 58
Italy 25910 29440 32620 33780 29610 109 107 98 91 76
Malta 14130 18160 23030 25030 32290 60 66 69 67 83
Portugal 15240 20200 24280 24800 24550 64 73 73 67 63
Spain 19630 23630 27050 29170 30360 83 86 81 78 78
145

Western Europe
Austria 26790 30790 37000 41800 40800 113 112 111 112 104
Belgium 25760 29980 36320 39410 40110 109 109 109 106 103
France 26580 30410 35010 37260 36620 112 110 105 100 94
Germany 28030 31350 33030 36480 39210 118 114 99 98 100
Ireland 20170 24280 35450 42060 40130 85 88 106 113 103
Luxembourg 39060 47710 76720 135870 101690 165 173 230 365 260
Netherlands 32090 31690 40260 44070 45170 135 115 121 119 115
Switzerland 38330 42400 46080 46820 48430 162 154 138 126 124
United Kingdom 16730 22140 29890 34220 34300 71 80 90 92 88

Northern Europe
Denmark 26450 29870 37880 43920 45680 112 108 113 118 117
Finland 21060 25560 31520 38400 36660 89 93 94 103 94
 Table A.2.7.5
Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of European average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017
Iceland 27210 30480 37450 46710 49540 115 110 112 126 127
Norway 23050 23130 37050 50020 54980 97 84 111 135 141
Sweden 22240 25860 30670 38530 43000 94 94 92 104 110
Notes. The table shows the average national income per adult of European countries in 2017 PPP euros (five first columns)
and relative to the European average income per adult (five last columns). Serbia includes Kosovo.
146
 Table A.2.7.6
Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of US average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017

Alabama 25350 29540 34630 38170 38420 80 79 73 76 73

Alaska 107310 81880 59480 79110 65000 337 218 126 157 123
Arizona 30360 32490 42450 45730 40800 95 87 90 91 77
Arkansas 23980 27480 33370 36060 37500 75 73 71 72 71
California 36080 43330 53420 57930 62130 113 115 113 115 118
Colorado 35090 38290 54530 54050 54020 110 102 116 107 103
Connecticut 33920 48350 63240 69700 63780 107 129 134 138 121
Delaware 35470 48760 73480 68090 66970 112 130 156 135 127
District of Columbia 77000 99640 127890 158180 159120 242 265 271 314 302
147

Florida 24890 31220 38600 42520 39420 78 83 82 84 75

Georgia 28170 36490 49120 48250 48390 89 97 104 96 92
Hawaii 37260 47850 43500 50780 53580 117 127 92 101 102
Idaho 29800 31880 40210 39910 38970 94 85 85 79 74
Illinois 33950 40370 51800 53970 57190 107 108 110 107 109
Indiana 29170 33270 44170 45140 48770 92 89 94 90 93
Iowa 31760 33540 41960 48180 54460 100 89 89 96 103
Kansas 31560 35090 42660 47110 49610 99 93 90 94 94
Kentucky 27540 30760 36310 38060 40520 87 82 77 76 77
Louisiana 42730 39080 39890 50930 47270 134 104 85 101 90
Maine 24390 30990 36630 37660 38990 77 83 78 75 74
Maryland 29720 38230 46920 53150 57740 93 102 100 105 110
Massachusetts 31350 42080 57510 60440 66680 99 112 122 120 127
 Table A.2.7.6
Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of US average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017
Michigan 30720 34780 46270 42440 44820 97 93 98 84 85
Minnesota 33110 39300 50850 52480 56640 104 105 108 104 108
Mississippi 24130 26170 31030 33680 33950 76 70 66 67 64
Missouri 28210 33430 43750 42950 44390 89 89 93 85 84
Montana 30750 28210 31600 38520 40090 97 75 67 76 76
Nebraska 31190 36060 44020 49010 58230 98 96 93 97 111
Nevada 37430 41880 49310 53690 46280 118 112 105 107 88
New Hampshire 26680 35050 47310 48240 51240 84 93 100 96 97
New Jersey 31220 44160 54980 57770 58190 98 118 117 115 110
148

New Mexico 34090 30720 40890 43520 41890 107 82 87 86 80

New York 34900 44130 56180 60180 68250 110 118 119 119 130
North Carolina 26660 34260 43800 45750 46630 84 91 93 91 89
North Dakota 31830 30420 36430 45750 66070 100 81 77 91 125
Ohio 30090 34660 45100 44980 49510 95 92 96 89 94
Oklahoma 33030 30900 34670 42490 43820 104 82 74 84 83
Oregon 29830 32740 44010 47400 49260 94 87 93 94 94
Pennsylvania 27750 33120 42140 45820 51190 87 88 89 91 97
Rhode Island 26140 34330 41950 46730 48500 82 91 89 93 92
South Carolina 24330 31300 37310 37760 38440 76 83 79 75 73
South Dakota 26820 31610 40280 47300 52320 84 84 85 94 99
Tennessee 26100 31590 40700 41090 45580 82 84 86 82 87
Texas 39030 38570 47950 54480 55970 123 103 102 108 106
Utah 32040 35420 45640 52370 52740 101 94 97 104 100
 Table A.2.7.6
Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017

Average income (2017 PPP e) % of US average income

1980 1990 2000 2007 2017 1980 1990 2000 2007 2017
Vermont 25500 34280 38590 40650 44110 80 91 82 81 84
Virginia 28900 38050 48320 52730 53190 91 101 102 105 101
Washington 33440 40420 52270 55920 60200 105 108 111 111 114
West Virginia 25240 25290 29340 32300 36340 79 67 62 64 69
Wisconsin 30310 34250 44180 45470 49510 95 91 94 90 94
Wyoming 61270 49350 46230 71160 62160 193 131 98 141 118
Notes. The table shows the average income per adult of US states in 2017 PPP euros (five first columns) and relative to the
US average national income per adult (five last columns). Sources. Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP) and Census Bureau
(adult population estimates).
149
 Table A.2.7.7
Predistribution versus redistribution in Europe and the United States: estimates of the
top 1% share and of Gini and Theil indices using different concepts and data sources

Top 1% Gini Theil

United States Europe Difference United States Europe Difference United States Europe Difference
Surveys
Factor income 9.6% 7.2% +2.4 pp. 52.1% 56.1% −4.1 pp. 51.3% 54.2% −2.9 pp.
Pretax income 8.5% 6.1% +2.4 pp. 44.9% 36.7% +8.2 pp. 38.1% 24.7% +13.4 pp.
Posttax income 6.5% 5.3% +1.3 pp. 39.2% 32.4% +6.8 pp. 28.2% 18.6% +9.7 pp.
150

Surveys + Tax data

Factor income 15.8% 10.1% +5.7 pp. 59.7% 57.5% +2.3 pp. 81.7% 68.1% +13.6 pp.
Pretax income 16.5% 9.4% +7.1 pp. 54.7% 43.1% +11.6 pp. 74.8% 41.2% +33.6 pp.
Posttax income 13.1% 7.8% +5.3 pp. 48.6% 38.4% +10.2 pp. 54.9% 31.6% +23.4 pp.
DINA
Factor income 18.9% 11.8% +7.1 pp. 61.0% 52.1% +8.8 pp. 95.4% 60.8% +34.5 pp.
Pretax income 19.5% 11.5% +8.0 pp. 59.0% 44.5% +14.4 pp. 92.6% 47.2% +45.4 pp.
Posttax income 14.3% 9.4% +4.9 pp. 47.3% 38.8% +8.6 pp. 59.3% 35.5% +23.8 pp.
Source: Authors’ computations combining surveys, tax data and national accounts for Europe (population-weighted average). Survey-based estimates for the United
States come from the Luxembourg Income Study. Surveys + Tax data and DINA estimates for the United States come from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman (2018).
Notes: The table shows how estimates of top 1% factor income, pretax income, and posttax income shares in Europe and the United States in 2017, as well as
Gini and Theil indices, vary depending on whether they are observed in household surveys, computed by combining surveys and tax data, or estimated using the
distributional national accounts methodology.
 3 Results by country – Countries covered in main paper
3.1 Austria

Figure A.3.1.1
Austria: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

26 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
151

Pretax income, broad equal-split

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

22 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.1.2
Austria: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Pretax income, broad equal-split
152

28 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

26 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
24
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.1.3
Austria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28
153

26

24

22

20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.4
Austria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26
154

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.5
Austria: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30
155

28

26

24

22
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.6
Austria: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
156

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.7
Austria: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
157

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.8
Austria: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
158

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.9
Austria: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
159

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.1.10
Austria: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10 2
1
5
160

0
0
-1
-5 -2
-3
-10
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.1.1
Austria: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x x x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x
1991 x
1992 x
1993 x
1994 x x x x
1995 x x x x x x x x
161

1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.1.2
Austria: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 77.6%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 75.7%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 1.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 8.3%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 14%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 19.2%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 17.9%
162

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.3%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 30.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −0.4%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 12.8%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 15.6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.6%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 29.8%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 5.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 16.4%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .9%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.1.3
Austria: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.6 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 98.5% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (ECHP, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 1995–2001; LIS, from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, 1994–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.7 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; LIS, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1987–2013); pretax income.
tabulations, and income (SILC, 2003–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1976–2015 (Authors) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 2.5 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 2.6 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.8 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 distribution for imputed average, 31.5% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents) rents. 15.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.7% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.3 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.8 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.5 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.5 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

163
 Table A.3.1.4
The distribution of national income in Austria, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e40,800 100% e40,800 100% e40,800 100%
Bottom 50% e19,400 23.8% e21,000 25.8% e23,000 28.2%
Bottom 20% e10,500 5.1% e11,300 5.5% e14,300 7.0%
Next 30% e25,400 18.7% e27,500 20.2% e28,900 21.2%
Middle 40% e45,800 44.9% e46,200 45.3% e45,700 44.8%
Top 10% e128,000 31.3% e118,000 28.9% e110,000 27.0%
Top 1% e372,000 9.1% e324,000 7.9% e291,000 7.1%
Top 0.1% e1,080,000 2.7% e888,000 2.2% e770,000 1.9%
Top 0.01% e3,160,000 0.8% e2,440,000 0.6% e2,030,000 0.5%
Top 0.001% e9,200,000 0.2% e6,680,000 0.2% e5,380,000 0.1%
164

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.1.5
The distribution of national income growth in Austria, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.1% -0.2% 1.1% -0.2% 1.1% -0.2%
Bottom 50% 1.2% -0.1% 1.2% -0.1% 1.2% 0.0%
Bottom 20% 1.2% -0.1% 1.5% -0.2% 1.6% 0.0%
Next 30% 1.2% -0.1% 1.1% -0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
Middle 40% 1.1% -0.1% 1.1% -0.1% 1.1% -0.1%
Top 10% 1.2% -0.5% 1.2% -0.6% 1.2% -0.7%
Top 1% 1.1% -0.8% 1.3% -0.9% 1.2% -1.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.2 Belgium

Figure A.3.2.1
Belgium: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24
165

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
22
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
18 Posttax income, harmonized

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.2.2
Belgium: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, households

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
166

28
Pretax income, broad equal-split
26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.2.3
Belgium: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
167

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.4
Belgium: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
168

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.5
Belgium: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
169

28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.6
Belgium: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24
170

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.7
Belgium: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
171

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.8
Belgium: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
172

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.9
Belgium: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
173

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.2.10
Belgium: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10 2
1
5
174

0
0
-1
-5 -2
-3
-10
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.2.1
Belgium: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1979 x
1980
1981
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x
1987 x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x
175

1995 x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.2.2
Belgium: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 81.6%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 80.4%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 1.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 9.3%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 9.1%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 20.2%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 15.8%
176

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 4.4%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 33.8%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 3.2%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 15.1%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 11.6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 33.7%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 20.2%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .1%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.2.3
Belgium: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.4 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 83.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1985–1997; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.2 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1985–2000; UN 1985, income.
tabulations, and 1979); pretax income (LIS,
harmonization 1992–1997; SILC,
using a machine 2003–2017)
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1990–2016 (Decoster, See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Dobbeleer, and Maes, the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 2017) 1% share is 2.8 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 3.2 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 2.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 27.0% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 15.1% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 16.1% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.6 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.9 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.7 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

177
 Table A.3.2.4
The distribution of national income in Belgium, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e40,100 100% e40,100 100% e40,100 100%
Bottom 50% e17,100 21.3% e18,200 22.7% e20,600 25.7%
Bottom 20% e7,100 3.5% e8,400 4.2% e11,900 5.9%
Next 30% e23,700 17.8% e24,800 18.5% e26,500 19.8%
Middle 40% e46,800 46.7% e47,700 47.6% e46,900 46.7%
Top 10% e129,000 32.0% e119,000 29.7% e111,000 27.6%
Top 1% e346,000 8.6% e289,000 7.2% e259,000 6.4%
Top 0.1% e930,000 2.3% e699,000 1.7% e605,000 1.5%
Top 0.01% e2,500,000 0.6% e1,690,000 0.4% e1,410,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e6,730,000 0.2% e4,100,000 0.1% e3,310,000 0.1%
178

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.2.5
The distribution of national income growth in Belgium, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 0.2%
Bottom 50% 1.1% 0.3% 1.0% 0.6% 1.1% 0.6%
Bottom 20% 1.8% -1.8% 1.1% -0.4% 1.3% 0.2%
Next 30% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8%
Middle 40% 1.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5%
Top 10% 1.3% -0.2% 1.5% -0.6% 1.4% -0.7%
Top 1% 1.4% -0.8% 1.7% -2.0% 1.6% -2.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.3 Croatia

Figure A.3.3.1
Croatia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

Pretax income, broad equal-split
28
179

Pretax income, households

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26
Pretax income, per capita
24 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.3.2
Croatia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
28 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

26 Pretax income, broad equal-split
Pretax income, households
180

24
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22 Pretax income, per capita
Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.3.3
Croatia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
181

28
26
24
22
20
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.4
Croatia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20
182

18

16

14

12
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.5
Croatia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
183

28
26
24
22
20
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.6
Croatia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

28
26
24
Share of income (%)

22
20
18
184

16
14
12
10
8
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.7
Croatia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
185

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.8
Croatia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
186

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.9
Croatia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
187

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.3.10
Croatia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 3
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

2
10
1

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

5
0
188

-1
0

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.3.1
Croatia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983 x x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x x
1987 x x
1988 x x
1989 x
1990 x
1991
1992
1993
1994
189

1995
1996 x
1997 x x x x
1998 x x x x
1999 x x x x
2000 x x x x
2001 x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x
2016 x x x x x
2017 x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.3.2
Croatia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 75.9%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 75.9%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 0%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 5.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 18.7%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 15.7%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 14.3%
190

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.4%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 27.8%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −0.3%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 5.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 20.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 1.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 27.4%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 2.8%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 6.6%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 17.9%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .4%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.3.3
Croatia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2009–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of No data from the OECD, See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social so we assume that social compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. contributions are pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
proportional to factor social insurance system 0.2 pp. on average.
income. can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 97.5% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (SILC, 2009–2017; the top 10% share is 2.4 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of Transmonee 2004, 1998); for pretax income than posttax
survey pretax income (SILC, income.
tabulations, and 2009–2017; Milanovic and
harmonization Ying 1996, YU,
using a machine 1983–1990; van Ginneken
learning and Park 1984, YU, 1978)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1983–2013 (Kump and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Novokmet, 2018) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.7 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.3 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2016 (corporate We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of stocks); EU-SILC, pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2009–2017 (imputed average, 35.2% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents rents); HBS, 2010 14.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock (consumption) account for 18.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.5 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.03 pp.
on average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.4 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 3.0 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

191
 Table A.3.3.4
The distribution of national income in Croatia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e20,200 100% e20,200 100% e20,200 100%
Bottom 50% e7,600 18.9% e7,100 17.5% e8,100 20.0%
Bottom 20% e2,500 2.5% e1,500 1.5% e3,000 2.9%
Next 30% e11,000 16.4% e10,800 16.0% e11,500 17.1%
Middle 40% e24,400 48.3% e25,300 50.1% e24,900 49.3%
Top 10% e66,400 32.9% e65,600 32.5% e62,000 30.7%
Top 1% e202,000 10.0% e179,000 8.9% e167,000 8.3%
Top 0.1% e677,000 3.4% e536,000 2.7% e495,000 2.5%
Top 0.01% e2,350,000 1.2% e1,660,000 0.8% e1,530,000 0.8%
Top 0.001% e8,220,000 0.4% e5,180,000 0.3% e4,770,000 0.2%
192

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.3.5
The distribution of national income growth in Croatia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Bottom 50% -0.2% 0.6% -0.1% 0.6% -0.1% 0.5%
Bottom 20% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 1.3% -0.2% 0.5%
Next 30% -0.2% 0.6% -0.1% 0.5% -0.1% 0.5%
Middle 40% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%
Top 10% 0.6% -0.9% 0.5% -0.7% 0.6% -0.7%
Top 1% 2.4% -1.8% 2.2% -1.3% 2.3% -1.3%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.4 Czech Republic

Figure A.3.4.1
Czech Republic: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
26 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

24
Posttax income, per capita
193

22 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20
Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.4.2
Czech Republic: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
34 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

32
Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
194

30
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
28
Harmonized survey data series
26 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
24

22

20
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.4.3
Czech Republic: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
195

22
20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.4
Czech Republic: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
196

28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.5
Czech Republic: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
22
197

20
18
16
14
12
10
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.6
Czech Republic: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
198

30
28
26
24
22
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.7
Czech Republic: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
199

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.8
Czech Republic: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
200

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.9
Czech Republic: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
201

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.4.10
Czech Republic: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 6

5
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10
4
5

(% of national income)
3
(% of pretax income)

2
0
202

1
-5
0

-10 -1

-2
-15
-3

-20 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.4.1
Czech Republic: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1976 x
1980 x x
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 x x
1986
1987
1988 x x
1989
1990 x
1991 x
1992 x x x x
1993 x x
1994 x x x
203

1995 x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.4.2
Czech Republic: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 79.2%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 76.6%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 2.6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 7.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 13.4%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 14.6%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 13.7%
204

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .9%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 30%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 6.8%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 5.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 13.7%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 4.2%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 32.4%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.7%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 8.2%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 19.5%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −2.4%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.4.3
Czech Republic: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.08 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 65.4% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1992–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.4 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2017; Atkinson and for pretax income than posttax
survey Micklewright 1992, CS, income.
tabulations, and 1976–1988; PovcalNet,
harmonization 1992–2002); pretax
using a machine income (LIS, 1996–2013;
learning SILC, 2004–2017)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2015 (Novokmet, See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata 2018) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 2.7 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.6 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2006–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents); HBS, use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2010 (consumption) distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks. 15.7% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 16.5% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

205
 Table A.3.4.4
The distribution of national income in Czech Republic, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e26,100 100% e26,100 100% e26,100 100%
Bottom 50% e14,500 27.7% e15,400 29.4% e16,400 31.5%
Bottom 20% e9,800 7.5% e10,600 8.1% e12,200 9.3%
Next 30% e17,600 20.2% e18,500 21.3% e19,300 22.1%
Middle 40% e28,500 43.6% e28,200 43.2% e28,000 42.9%
Top 10% e75,100 28.7% e71,700 27.4% e67,200 25.7%
Top 1% e266,000 10.2% e258,000 9.9% e235,000 9.0%
Top 0.1% e1,060,000 4.0% e1,080,000 4.1% e975,000 3.7%
Top 0.01% e4,340,000 1.7% e4,720,000 1.8% e4,250,000 1.6%
Top 0.001% e17,920,000 0.7% e20,800,000 0.8% e18,720,000 0.7%
206

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.4.5
The distribution of national income growth in Czech Republic, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2%
Bottom 50% 0.4% 1.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9%
Bottom 20% 0.1% 1.8% 0.1% 1.1% 0.3% 1.2%
Next 30% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8%
Middle 40% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1%
Top 10% 2.4% 1.0% 2.5% 1.5% 2.4% 1.5%
Top 1% 5.0% 0.9% 5.1% 1.7% 4.9% 1.6%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.5 Denmark

Figure A.3.5.1
Denmark: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24
207

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
22
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
18 Posttax income, harmonized

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.5.2
Denmark: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
34 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, households

32 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
208

30
Pretax income, broad equal-split
28 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
26 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
24

22

20
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.5.3
Denmark: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
209

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.4
Denmark: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
210

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.5
Denmark: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
211

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.6
Denmark: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
212

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.7
Denmark: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
213

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.8
Denmark: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
214

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.9
Denmark: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
215

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.5.10
Denmark: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

20
4

15 3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

2
10
1
216

0
5
-1
0 -2
-3
-5
-4
-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.5.1
Denmark: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1976 x
1980 x x
1981 x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x
1983 x x x x x
1984 x x x x x
1985 x x x x x
1986 x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x
1989 x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x
217

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.5.2
Denmark: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 68.4%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 68.1%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed .3%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 15.1%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 16.5%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 19.6%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 19.6%
218

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 0%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 36.9%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −11.4%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 29%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 16.4%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 36.4%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 5.7%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 9.2%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 21.6%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .4%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.5.3
Denmark: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.07 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 35.1% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1995–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.7 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1987–2000; van Ginneken income.
tabulations, and and Park 1984, 1976);
harmonization pretax income (LIS,
using a machine 1987–2004; SILC,
learning 2003–2017; Statistical
algorithm. Yearbook, 1981)

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2010 (Atkinson and See section 1.4.2. When using the same income
Calibration of survey microdata Søgaard, 2013) concept as the tax data, we find no
survey sources on using the top major difference between the top
the tax data. share series. 1% income share in the survey and
in the tax data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. The use of tax data does not lead
the correction to to notable increase in the top 1%
all survey share of pretax income. It does not
distributions. lead to notable increase in the top
1% share of posttax income.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2003–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents); HBS, use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2010 (consumption) distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks. 21.2% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 15.4% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 3.2 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.02 pp.
on average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.9 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.8 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

219
 Table A.3.5.4
The distribution of national income in Denmark, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e45,700 100% e45,700 100% e45,700 100%
Bottom 50% e21,100 23.1% e21,800 23.9% e24,700 27.0%
Bottom 20% e11,100 4.9% e12,100 5.3% e16,100 7.0%
Next 30% e27,800 18.3% e28,300 18.6% e30,400 20.0%
Middle 40% e51,300 44.9% e51,100 44.7% e50,400 44.2%
Top 10% e146,000 32.0% e143,000 31.4% e132,000 28.8%
Top 1% e508,000 11.1% e491,000 10.8% e438,000 9.6%
Top 0.1% e2,080,000 4.5% e1,990,000 4.4% e1,760,000 3.8%
Top 0.01% e8,880,000 1.9% e8,440,000 1.8% e7,430,000 1.6%
Top 0.001% e38,420,000 0.8% e36,210,000 0.8% e31,870,000 0.7%
220

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.5.5
The distribution of national income growth in Denmark, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.5% 0.4% 1.5% 0.4% 1.5% 0.4%
Bottom 50% 1.0% -0.9% 1.1% -0.8% 1.2% -0.6%
Bottom 20% 0.8% -1.9% 1.0% -1.4% 1.3% -0.8%
Next 30% 1.1% -0.6% 1.1% -0.7% 1.2% -0.5%
Middle 40% 1.3% 0.4% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3%
Top 10% 2.2% 1.4% 2.2% 1.6% 2.1% 1.6%
Top 1% 3.1% 1.8% 3.3% 2.0% 3.2% 2.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.6 Estonia

Figure A.3.6.1
Estonia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34 Raw survey data series
32 Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Consumption, per capita

30
Posttax income, broad equal-split
221

28 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

26 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
24
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized
18
16
14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.6.2
Estonia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
30 Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28 Consumption, per capita

26 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
222

24
Posttax income, per capita
22 Pretax income, broad equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
16 Posttax income, harmonized

14
12
10
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.6.3
Estonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

50
48
46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
32
223

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.4
Estonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32
30
28
26
Share of income (%)

24
22
20
224

18
16
14
12
10
8
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.5
Estonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

50
48
46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
32
225

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.6
Estonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
20
226

18
16
14
12
10
8
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.7
Estonia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
227

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.8
Estonia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
228

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.9
Estonia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
229

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.6.10
Estonia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

3
10
2

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

1
5
230

0
-1

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.6.1
Estonia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 x
1989
1990
1991
1992 x x
1993 x x
1994 x x x x x
1995 x x x x x x
231

1996 x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.6.2
Estonia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 69.6%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 70.4%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed −0.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 12.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 17.5%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 11.5%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 11.1%
232

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .5%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 28.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 4%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 6.6%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 16.3%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 1.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 28.1%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 3.8%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 5.5%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 18.9%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .6%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.6.3
Estonia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.1 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 69.5% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, 2010; See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data LIS, 2000; Milanovic and partially estimated from
other survey sources, Ying 1996, 1992–1993; consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of PovcalNet, 1998–2004); 10% share is 0.05 pp. higher for
survey posttax income (LIS, posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and 2000–2013; SILC, and 2.4 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization 2003–2017; PovcalNet, consumption.
using a machine 1988–1993); pretax
learning income (LIS, 2004; SILC,
algorithm. 2003–2017; Milanovic and
Ying 1996, 1993)

Step 3: Calibration of 2002–2017 (Authors) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 2.7 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 3.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.8 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2013, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2005–2017 average, 27.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 19.6% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 21.5% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 2.9 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.4 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.8 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.5 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

233
 Table A.3.6.4
The distribution of national income in Estonia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e25,900 100% e25,900 100% e25,900 100%
Bottom 50% e10,200 19.6% e10,200 19.8% e11,400 21.9%
Bottom 20% e5,800 4.5% e5,100 4.0% e6,600 5.1%
Next 30% e13,100 15.2% e13,700 15.8% e14,500 16.8%
Middle 40% e30,200 46.7% e31,100 48.0% e30,700 47.4%
Top 10% e87,200 33.7% e83,400 32.2% e79,300 30.6%
Top 1% e294,000 11.4% e267,000 10.3% e249,000 9.6%
Top 0.1% e1,180,000 4.6% e1,050,000 4.1% e977,000 3.8%
Top 0.01% e4,970,000 1.9% e4,400,000 1.7% e4,080,000 1.6%
Top 0.001% e21,200,000 0.8% e18,690,000 0.7% e17,360,000 0.7%
234

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.6.5
The distribution of national income growth in Estonia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0%
Bottom 50% 1.3% 2.0% 1.1% 1.8% 1.2% 1.9%
Bottom 20% 1.2% 2.9% 0.8% 2.7% 1.1% 2.6%
Next 30% 1.3% 1.8% 1.2% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7%
Middle 40% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.7%
Top 10% 3.1% -0.3% 3.2% -0.5% 3.1% -0.5%
Top 1% 4.4% -1.4% 4.6% -1.9% 4.6% -2.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.7 Finland

Figure A.3.7.1
Finland: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

30

28

26 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, OECD
Share of income (%)

24 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
22
235

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
20
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
18 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
16 Posttax income, harmonized

14

12
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.7.2
Finland: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

42

40

38
Raw survey data series
36 Posttax income, OECD
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

34 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
236

32
Pretax income, broad equal-split
30 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
28 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
26

24

22
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.7.3
Finland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
237

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.4
Finland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
238

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.5
Finland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
239

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.6
Finland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
240

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.7
Finland: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
241

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.8
Finland: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
242

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.9
Finland: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
243

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.7.10
Finland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6

5
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

20
4
15

(% of national income)
3
(% of pretax income)

2
10
244

1
5
0

0 -1

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.7.1
Finland: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1976 x
1980 x x x x x x
1981 x x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x
245

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.7.2
Finland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 74.3%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 71%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 3.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 7.5%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 18.2%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 20.9%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 18%
246

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 2.9%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 28.5%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −5.6%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 15.6%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 15.5%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 33.1%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 3.7%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.4%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 22%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −4.6%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.7.3
Finland: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.4 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 26.5% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (ECHP, 1996–2001; LIS, the top 10% share is 2.8 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 1987–2013; SILC, for pretax income than posttax
survey 2003–2017; Jäntti 2005, income.
tabulations, and 1976–2002; Statistics
harmonization Finland 2005, 1976–2003);
using a machine pretax income (LIS,
learning 1987–2013; SILC,
algorithm. 2003–2017)

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2009 (Jäntti et al., See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata 2010) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.7 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2016 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2003–2017 average, 36.7% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 19.4% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 19.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.7 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.4 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

247
 Table A.3.7.4
The distribution of national income in Finland, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e36,700 100% e36,700 100% e36,700 100%
Bottom 50% e17,400 23.7% e18,500 25.3% e20,200 27.5%
Bottom 20% e10,100 5.5% e12,300 6.7% e14,500 7.9%
Next 30% e22,200 18.2% e22,700 18.6% e24,000 19.6%
Middle 40% e40,900 44.6% e40,500 44.1% e40,100 43.8%
Top 10% e116,000 31.7% e112,000 30.6% e105,000 28.7%
Top 1% e323,000 8.8% e311,000 8.5% e286,000 7.8%
Top 0.1% e947,000 2.6% e919,000 2.5% e839,000 2.3%
Top 0.01% e2,830,000 0.8% e2,780,000 0.8% e2,530,000 0.7%
Top 0.001% e8,520,000 0.2% e8,460,000 0.2% e7,690,000 0.2%
248

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.7.5
The distribution of national income growth in Finland, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.5% -0.5% 1.5% -0.5% 1.5% -0.5%
Bottom 50% 1.3% -0.9% 1.3% -0.9% 1.4% -0.8%
Bottom 20% 1.4% -1.1% 1.7% -0.5% 1.8% -0.5%
Next 30% 1.3% -0.9% 1.2% -1.1% 1.2% -1.0%
Middle 40% 1.3% -0.5% 1.3% -0.5% 1.3% -0.5%
Top 10% 2.1% -0.1% 2.1% -0.1% 2.0% -0.1%
Top 1% 2.8% -1.2% 2.9% -1.7% 2.8% -1.7%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.8 France

Figure A.3.8.1
France: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

28 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
249

Pretax income, broad equal-split

26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

24 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.8.2
France: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
28 Pretax income, broad equal-split
250

Pretax income, narrow equal-split

26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.8.3
France: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
251

26

24

22

20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.4
France: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24
252

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.5
France: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30
253

28

26

24

22
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.6
France: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
254

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.7
France: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
255

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.8
France: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
256

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.9
France: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
257

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.8.10
France: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 7
6
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

5
15 4

(% of national income)
3
(% of pretax income)

10
2
5 1
258

0 0
-1
-5
-2
-10 -3
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.8.1
France: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x x
1980 x x x x x x
1981 x x x x x
1982 x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x
259

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.8.2
France: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 79.6%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 75.4%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 4.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 6.2%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 14.2%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 22.4%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 20.2%
260

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 2.2%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 31%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 1.3%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 10.9%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 15.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 32.8%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.3%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 8.7%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 19.9%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −1.9%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.8.3
France: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2006–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2003–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.2 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 92.4% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (ECHP, 1995–2001; LIS, the top 10% share is 2.5 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 1978–2010; SILC, for pretax income than posttax
survey 2008–2017); pretax income.
tabulations, and income (SILC, 2008–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2014 (Garbinti, See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Goupille-Lebret, and the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top Piketty, 2018) 1% share is 2.1 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 2.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.4 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2009, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 38.7% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 18.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 17.5% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.2 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.8 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 2.0 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.8 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

261
 Table A.3.8.4
The distribution of national income in France, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e36,600 100% e36,600 100% e36,600 100%
Bottom 50% e17,800 24.2% e19,200 26.2% e21,000 28.7%
Bottom 20% e9,500 5.2% e11,300 6.2% e14,100 7.7%
Next 30% e23,200 19.0% e24,400 20.0% e25,700 21.1%
Middle 40% e40,600 44.3% e40,900 44.6% e40,400 44.1%
Top 10% e115,000 31.4% e107,000 29.2% e99,400 27.1%
Top 1% e353,000 9.6% e300,000 8.2% e272,000 7.4%
Top 0.1% e1,210,000 3.3% e915,000 2.5% e821,000 2.2%
Top 0.01% e4,330,000 1.2% e2,870,000 0.8% e2,570,000 0.7%
Top 0.001% e15,610,000 0.4% e9,090,000 0.2% e8,120,000 0.2%
262

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.8.5
The distribution of national income growth in France, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.9% -0.2% 0.9% -0.2% 0.9% -0.2%
Bottom 50% 1.2% 0.4% 1.3% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3%
Bottom 20% 1.7% 0.7% 2.1% 0.9% 2.0% 0.9%
Next 30% 1.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1%
Middle 40% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% -0.2% 0.7% -0.2%
Top 10% 0.9% -0.8% 0.7% -0.6% 0.7% -0.7%
Top 1% 1.1% -1.9% 1.0% -2.1% 0.9% -2.2%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.9 Germany

Figure A.3.9.1
Germany: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26
263

Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
24
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.9.2
Germany: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Pretax income, broad equal-split
264

28 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

26 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
24
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.9.3
Germany: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
265

28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.4
Germany: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24

22
266

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.5
Germany: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
267

28
26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.6
Germany: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
268

22
20
18
16
14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.7
Germany: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
269

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.8
Germany: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
270

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.9
Germany: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
271

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.9.10
Germany: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10 2
1
5
272

0
0
-1
-5 -2
-3
-10
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.9.1
Germany: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x x
1980 x x
1981 x x x
1982 x
1983 x x x x
1984 x x x
1985 x
1986 x x
1987 x x x
1988 x
1989 x x x x
1990 x
1991 x x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x x
273

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.9.2
Germany: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 82.8%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 83.8%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed −1.1%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 6.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 10.3%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 16.6%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 15.1%
274

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.5%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 31.2%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 6.5%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 10.4%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 11.6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.7%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 29%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 5.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 15.6%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 2.2%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.9.3
Germany: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2017) social insurance system 0.8 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 75.2% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income posttax income needed.
other survey sources, (LIS, 1978–2015; SILC,
sources. interpolation of 2008–2017); pretax
survey income (LIS, 1978–2015;
tabulations, and SILC, 2008–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2013 (Bartels, 2017) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 6.4 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 4.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 2.1 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 34.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 17.4% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 19.2% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.3 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.1 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.6 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.6 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

275
 Table A.3.9.4
The distribution of national income in Germany, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e39,200 100% e39,200 100% e39,200 100%
Bottom 50% e14,900 19.0% e15,800 20.1% e18,100 23.1%
Bottom 20% e6,200 3.2% e7,100 3.6% e10,400 5.3%
Next 30% e20,700 15.8% e21,600 16.5% e23,300 17.9%
Middle 40% e42,500 43.3% e42,900 43.8% e42,500 43.4%
Top 10% e148,000 37.7% e141,000 36.1% e131,000 33.5%
Top 1% e520,000 13.3% e515,000 13.1% e467,000 11.9%
Top 0.1% e1,910,000 4.9% e2,120,000 5.4% e1,920,000 4.9%
Top 0.01% e7,070,000 1.8% e9,070,000 2.3% e8,160,000 2.1%
Top 0.001% e26,340,000 0.7% e39,030,000 1.0% e35,100,000 0.9%
276

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.9.5
The distribution of national income growth in Germany, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.7%
Bottom 50% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% -0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Bottom 20% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -1.6% 0.0% -0.4%
Next 30% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%
Middle 40% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%
Top 10% 1.6% 1.0% 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4%
Top 1% 1.6% 0.5% 2.4% 1.8% 2.3% 1.7%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.10 Greece

Figure A.3.10.1
Greece: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34 Raw survey data series

Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

32 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
30
277

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
28
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
24 Posttax income, harmonized

22

20
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.10.2
Greece: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
26 Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

24 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
278

22
Pretax income, broad equal-split
20 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.10.3
Greece: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
279

32
30
28
26
24
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.4
Greece: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

26

24

22
Share of income (%)

20

18
280

16

14

12

10
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.5
Greece: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
281

32
30
28
26
24
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.6
Greece: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20

18
282

16

14

12

10
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.7
Greece: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
283

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.8
Greece: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
284

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.9
Greece: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
285

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.10.10
Greece: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10
3
5

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

1
0
286

0
-5
-1

-10 -2

-3
-15
-4

-20 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.10.1
Greece: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x x
1981 x x x
1982 x x
1983 x x
1984 x x
1985 x x
1986 x x
1987 x x
1988 x x x
1989 x x
1990 x x
1991 x x
1992 x
1993 x
1994 x x x
1995 x x x x x x x x x
287

1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.10.2
Greece: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 76.1%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 72.5%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 3.6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 11.6%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 12.3%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 21.4%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 19.9%
288

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.5%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 25.5%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −3.4%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 7.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 17.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 4.5%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 28.2%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 2.7%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 6.4%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 19.2%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −2.7%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.10.3
Greece: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2006–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2003–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2006–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(EU-SILC, 2006–2017) social insurance system 1.2 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 41.4% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, 2010; See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data Statistical Yearbook, partially estimated from
other survey sources, 1981–1988); posttax consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of income (ECHP, 10% share is 3.1 pp. higher for
survey 1994–2001; LIS, posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and 1995–2013; SILC, and 5.3 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization 2003–2017; PovcalNet, consumption.
using a machine 1995–2000); pretax
learning income (SILC, 2006–2017)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 2004–2011 (Chrissis and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Koutentakis, 2017) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 0.4 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. The use of tax data does not lead
the correction to to notable increase in the top 1%
all survey share of pretax income. It does not
distributions. lead to notable increase in the top
1% share of posttax income.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2009, 2014, 2018 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 24.0% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 16.7% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 22.2% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 2.8 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.5 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.1 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.1 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

289
 Table A.3.10.4
The distribution of national income in Greece, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e22,600 100% e22,600 100% e22,600 100%
Bottom 50% e8,600 19.1% e8,900 19.6% e9,800 21.7%
Bottom 20% e2,200 2.0% e2,800 2.5% e4,100 3.7%
Next 30% e12,900 17.1% e12,900 17.2% e13,600 18.0%
Middle 40% e25,100 44.4% e26,000 46.1% e25,800 45.7%
Top 10% e82,400 36.5% e77,300 34.2% e73,700 32.6%
Top 1% e309,000 13.7% e256,000 11.3% e241,000 10.7%
Top 0.1% e1,270,000 5.6% e932,000 4.1% e871,000 3.9%
Top 0.01% e5,390,000 2.4% e3,480,000 1.5% e3,250,000 1.4%
Top 0.001% e22,910,000 1.0% e13,120,000 0.6% e12,240,000 0.5%
290

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.10.5
The distribution of national income growth in Greece, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population -0.1% -3.4% -0.1% -3.4% -0.1% -3.4%
Bottom 50% 0.0% -3.4% 0.1% -3.6% 0.3% -3.6%
Bottom 20% -1.1% -8.0% 0.0% -5.3% 0.6% -4.9%
Next 30% 0.2% -2.6% 0.1% -3.3% 0.2% -3.4%
Middle 40% -0.2% -3.6% -0.2% -3.7% -0.2% -3.7%
Top 10% -0.1% -3.2% -0.2% -2.9% -0.3% -2.9%
Top 1% 0.6% -1.4% 0.5% -1.0% 0.4% -1.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.11 Hungary

Figure A.3.11.1
Hungary: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32

30 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

Posttax income, per capita
291

26
Pretax income, broad equal-split
24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

22 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.11.2
Hungary: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40
38
36
34 Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

32
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
30 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
292

28
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20
18
16
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.11.3
Hungary: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
24
293

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.4
Hungary: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

46
44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
30
294

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.5
Hungary: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

40
38
36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
24
22
295

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.6
Hungary: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

48
46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
32
296

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.7
Hungary: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
297

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.8
Hungary: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
298

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.9
Hungary: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
299

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.11.10
Hungary: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

2
5
1
300

0
0
-1

-5 -2

-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.11.1
Hungary: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1977 x
1980 x
1981
1982 x x
1983
1984 x
1985
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989
1990
1991 x x x x
1992 x x x
1993 x x x
1994 x x x x x
301

1995 x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.11.2
Hungary: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 74.9%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 72.8%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 2.1%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 8.2%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 16.9%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 15.2%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 14.5%
302

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .7%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 31.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 2.1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 6.8%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 20.7%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 30.5%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 5.8%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 20.1%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 1.2%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.11.3
Hungary: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.3 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 87.0% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (LIS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 1991–2015; SILC, from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, 2007–2017; Atkinson and the top 10% share is 2.5 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of Micklewright 1992, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1977–1987); pretax income.
tabulations, and income (SILC, 2007–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2008 (Mavridis and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Mosberger, 2017) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.8 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.6 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.3 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 30.6% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 14.9% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 18.7% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.9 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

303
 Table A.3.11.4
The distribution of national income in Hungary, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e19,800 100% e19,800 100% e19,800 100%
Bottom 50% e9,000 22.6% e9,200 23.1% e9,900 25.1%
Bottom 20% e3,300 3.3% e4,000 4.0% e5,100 5.1%
Next 30% e12,700 19.3% e12,700 19.2% e13,200 19.9%
Middle 40% e21,600 43.5% e21,500 43.4% e21,400 43.2%
Top 10% e67,400 34.0% e66,400 33.5% e63,000 31.8%
Top 1% e253,000 12.7% e237,000 11.9% e221,000 11.1%
Top 0.1% e991,000 5.0% e893,000 4.5% e830,000 4.2%
Top 0.01% e3,930,000 2.0% e3,420,000 1.7% e3,180,000 1.6%
Top 0.001% e15,620,000 0.8% e13,170,000 0.7% e12,230,000 0.6%
304

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.11.5
The distribution of national income growth in Hungary, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% 1.5% 0.9% 1.5%
Bottom 50% -0.5% 1.1% -0.6% 0.7% -0.4% 0.9%
Bottom 20% -2.6% -2.4% -2.3% -1.2% -1.7% -0.5%
Next 30% 0.1% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 1.2%
Middle 40% 0.8% 1.9% 0.8% 1.5% 0.8% 1.5%
Top 10% 2.8% 1.3% 3.0% 2.1% 2.9% 2.1%
Top 1% 5.2% 2.2% 5.4% 2.8% 5.3% 2.8%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.12 Iceland

Figure A.3.12.1
Iceland: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24
305

Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22
Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.12.2
Iceland: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

34 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
32 Pretax income, broad equal-split
306

Pretax income, narrow equal-split

30
Harmonized survey data series
28 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
26

24

22
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.12.3
Iceland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
307

26
24
22
20
18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.4
Iceland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26
308

24

22

20

18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.5
Iceland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
309

28
26
24
22
20
18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.6
Iceland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
310

22

20

18

16
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.7
Iceland: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

55
50
45
Share of pretax income (%)

40
Consumption and
35 indirect taxes
Social contributions
30 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
25 Corporate tax
311

20 Income and
wealth taxes
15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.8
Iceland: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
312

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.9
Iceland: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
313

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.12.10
Iceland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

2
5
1
314

0
0
-1

-5 -2

-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.12.1
Iceland: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x x
1991 x x
1992 x x
1993 x x
1994 x x
1995 x x
315

1996 x x
1997 x x
1998 x x
1999 x x
2000 x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x
2016 x x
2017 x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.12.2
Iceland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 76.5%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 74.1%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 2.4%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 11.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 12.1%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 12.5%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 11.4%
316

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.1%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 40%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 4.7%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 15%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 16.3%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 36.2%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.2%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 8.8%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 23.3%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 3.8%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.12.3
Iceland: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2015) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2015); compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.03 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2015) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 64.1% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (LIS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 2004–2010; SILC, posttax income needed.
other survey sources, 2003–2015); pretax
sources. interpolation of income (SILC, 2003–2015)
survey
tabulations, and
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1990–2016 (Authors) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 4.1 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.3 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2003–2015 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents) use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks and imputed rents. 16.4% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.9% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.7 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.02 pp.
on average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.7 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

317
 Table A.3.12.4
The distribution of national income in Iceland, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e49,500 100% e49,500 100% e49,500 100%
Bottom 50% e25,700 26.0% e26,400 26.6% e29,000 29.3%
Bottom 20% e15,700 6.3% e13,400 5.4% e17,500 7.1%
Next 30% e32,500 19.7% e35,100 21.2% e36,700 22.2%
Middle 40% e56,100 45.3% e56,200 45.4% e55,500 44.8%
Top 10% e142,000 28.7% e139,000 28.0% e128,000 25.9%
Top 1% e401,000 8.1% e400,000 8.1% e359,000 7.3%
Top 0.1% e1,210,000 2.4% e1,250,000 2.5% e1,110,000 2.2%
Top 0.01% e3,750,000 0.8% e4,030,000 0.8% e3,580,000 0.7%
Top 0.001% e11,720,000 0.2% e13,110,000 0.3% e11,610,000 0.2%
318

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.12.5
The distribution of national income growth in Iceland, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.6% 0.6% 1.6% 0.6% 1.6% 0.6%
Bottom 50% 1.8% 2.1% 1.9% 3.4% 1.9% 2.6%
Bottom 20% 2.0% 3.1% 2.4% 9.9% 2.3% 5.3%
Next 30% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 1.9%
Middle 40% 1.5% 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4%
Top 10% 1.7% -1.5% 1.7% -2.4% 1.6% -2.2%
Top 1% 2.5% -5.2% 2.5% -6.8% 2.4% -6.7%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.13 Ireland

Figure A.3.13.1
Ireland: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, households

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
319

Posttax income, per capita

28
Pretax income, broad equal-split
26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.13.2
Ireland: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
28 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24 Posttax income, per capita
320

22 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.13.3
Ireland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
321

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.4
Ireland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24

22
322

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.5
Ireland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
323

26

24

22

20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.6
Ireland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
324

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.7
Ireland: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
325

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.8
Ireland: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
326

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.9
Ireland: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
327

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.13.10
Ireland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10 2
1
5
328

0
0
-1
-5 -2
-3
-10
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.13.1
Ireland: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x x x
1981 x x
1982 x x
1983 x x
1984 x x
1985 x x
1986 x x
1987 x x x
1988 x x
1989 x x
1990 x x
1991 x x
1992 x x
1993 x x
1994 x x x
1995 x x x x x x x
329

1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.13.2
Ireland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 71.1%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 67%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 4.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 17.6%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 11.3%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 15.5%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 11%
330

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 4.5%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 27.8%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −3.6%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 13.5%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 13.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 30.8%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 9.2%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 15.1%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −3%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.13.3
Ireland: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2018) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2018); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2006, social insurance system 0.9 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2007–2018) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 97.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 2000–2010; SILC, the top 10% share is 4.7 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2018; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1987–2000; Nolan & income.
tabulations, and Maitre 2000, 1980–1994);
harmonization pretax income (SILC,
using a machine 2004–2018)
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2015 (Jäntti et al., See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata 2007) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 2.3 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 0.9 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.2 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2013, 2018 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2007–2018 average, 28.8% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 14.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 15.6% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 2.3 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.8 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.6 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

331
 Table A.3.13.4
The distribution of national income in Ireland, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e40,100 100% e40,100 100% e40,100 100%
Bottom 50% e18,100 22.6% e19,300 24.1% e21,500 26.8%
Bottom 20% e11,000 5.5% e11,500 5.7% e14,500 7.2%
Next 30% e22,900 17.1% e24,600 18.4% e26,200 19.6%
Middle 40% e46,000 45.9% e47,300 47.1% e46,500 46.4%
Top 10% e126,000 31.5% e116,000 28.8% e108,000 26.8%
Top 1% e398,000 9.9% e313,000 7.8% e285,000 7.1%
Top 0.1% e1,440,000 3.6% e917,000 2.3% e825,000 2.1%
Top 0.01% e5,460,000 1.4% e2,760,000 0.7% e2,480,000 0.6%
Top 0.001% e20,880,000 0.5% e8,410,000 0.2% e7,540,000 0.2%
332

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.13.5
The distribution of national income growth in Ireland, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.9% -0.5% 1.9% -0.5% 1.9% -0.5%
Bottom 50% 1.6% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4% 1.6% 0.3%
Bottom 20% 2.0% 0.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.0%
Next 30% 1.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0%
Middle 40% 1.8% -0.5% 2.0% -0.3% 1.9% -0.3%
Top 10% 2.2% -0.9% 2.1% -1.5% 2.0% -1.4%
Top 1% 2.7% -1.0% 2.3% -2.6% 2.2% -2.6%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.14 Italy

Figure A.3.14.1
Italy: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
28
333

Posttax income, per capita

Posttax income, square root
26
Pretax income, broad equal-split
24 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.14.2
Italy: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26
Posttax income, per capita
334

Posttax income, square root

24
Pretax income, broad equal-split
22 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.14.3
Italy: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
335

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.4
Italy: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24
336

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.5
Italy: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
337

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.6
Italy: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
338

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.7
Italy: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
339

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.8
Italy: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
340

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.9
Italy: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
341

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.14.10
Italy: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

5 1
342

0 -1

-2

-5 -3

-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.14.1
Italy: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x x x x x x
1981 x x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x
1995 x x x x x x x x x
343

1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.14.2
Italy: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 84.4%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 80%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 4.5%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 4.3%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 11.3%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 21.3%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 20.2%
344

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.2%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 30.1%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −3.1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 14.6%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 15.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.7%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 28.7%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 4.8%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 8.2%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 15.7%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 1.4%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.14.3
Italy: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2006–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2003–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2006–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(EU-SILC, 2006–2017) social insurance system 0.02 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 17.2% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1986–2014; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.3 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1986–2000; Brandolini income.
tabulations, and 1999, 1981–1995;
harmonization Brandolini 2004,
using a machine 1987–2002); pretax
learning income (SILC, 2006–2017)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2009 (Alvaredo and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Pisano, 2010) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 0.8 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. The use of tax data does not lead
the correction to to notable increase in the top 1%
all survey share of pretax income. It does not
distributions. lead to notable increase in the top
1% share of posttax income.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2015, 2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 distribution for imputed average, 26.8% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents) rents. 15.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.9% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.2 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.9 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.1 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.3 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

345
 Table A.3.14.4
The distribution of national income in Italy, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e29,600 100% e29,600 100% e29,600 100%
Bottom 50% e12,300 20.8% e12,300 20.8% e13,900 23.4%
Bottom 20% e4,700 3.2% e4,000 2.7% e6,300 4.2%
Next 30% e17,400 17.6% e17,900 18.1% e19,000 19.2%
Middle 40% e34,600 46.7% e35,600 48.1% e35,100 47.4%
Top 10% e96,100 32.5% e92,100 31.1% e86,500 29.2%
Top 1% e266,000 9.0% e233,000 7.9% e214,000 7.2%
Top 0.1% e755,000 2.5% e587,000 2.0% e537,000 1.8%
Top 0.01% e2,170,000 0.7% e1,480,000 0.5% e1,350,000 0.5%
Top 0.001% e6,240,000 0.2% e3,740,000 0.1% e3,410,000 0.1%
346

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.14.5
The distribution of national income growth in Italy, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.4% -1.3% 0.4% -1.3% 0.4% -1.3%
Bottom 50% -0.4% -2.0% -0.5% -2.4% -0.3% -2.2%
Bottom 20% -1.2% -4.0% -1.7% -5.4% -0.8% -3.9%
Next 30% -0.2% -1.6% -0.3% -1.8% -0.2% -1.8%
Middle 40% 0.3% -1.3% 0.3% -1.3% 0.3% -1.3%
Top 10% 1.2% -0.7% 1.2% -0.4% 1.1% -0.5%
Top 1% 1.9% -0.4% 1.9% 0.1% 1.8% 0.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.15 Luxembourg

Figure A.3.15.1
Luxembourg: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26 Posttax income, per capita
347

Pretax income, broad equal-split

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.15.2
Luxembourg: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

30
Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
348

28
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.15.3
Luxembourg: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
349

28
26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.4
Luxembourg: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24

22
350

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.5
Luxembourg: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
351

30
28
26
24
22
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.6
Luxembourg: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24

22
352

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.7
Luxembourg: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
353

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.8
Luxembourg: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
354

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.9
Luxembourg: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
355

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.15.10
Luxembourg: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

20
3
15

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

1
10
356

0
5
-1

0 -2

-3
-5
-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.15.1
Luxembourg: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x x x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x x
1991 x x x x
1992 x x
1993 x x
1994 x x x x
1995 x x x x
357

1996 x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x
1999 x x x x
2000 x x x x x x
2001 x x x x
2002 x x x x
2003 x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.15.2
Luxembourg: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 67.2%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 63.6%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 3.5%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 12%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 20.9%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 14.8%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 12.9%
358

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.8%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 40.6%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 2.3%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 14.2%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 18.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 5.1%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 36.1%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6.1%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 6.9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 23.2%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 4.4%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.15.3
Luxembourg: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.2 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 86.3% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1985–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.8 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1985–2000); pretax income.
tabulations, and income (SILC, 2003–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 2010–2012 (Authors) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 4.5 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 4.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 2.4 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2018 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 36.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 17.6% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 16.9% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.6 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.6 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.1 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 2.9 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.7 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

359
 Table A.3.15.4
The distribution of national income in Luxembourg, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e102,000 100% e102,000 100% e102,000 100%
Bottom 50% e39,200 19.3% e38,900 19.1% e45,200 22.2%
Bottom 20% e15,400 3.0% e18,400 3.6% e26,800 5.3%
Next 30% e55,000 16.2% e52,500 15.5% e57,500 17.0%
Middle 40% e113,000 44.4% e115,000 45.3% e114,000 44.8%
Top 10% e369,000 36.3% e362,000 35.6% e335,000 33.0%
Top 1% e1,310,000 12.9% e1,180,000 11.6% e1,070,000 10.5%
Top 0.1% e5,270,000 5.2% e4,370,000 4.3% e3,930,000 3.9%
Top 0.01% e21,950,000 2.2% e16,870,000 1.7% e15,170,000 1.5%
Top 0.001% e92,290,000 0.9% e65,930,000 0.6% e59,230,000 0.6%
360

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.15.5
The distribution of national income growth in Luxembourg, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.6% -2.9% 2.6% -2.9% 2.6% -2.9%
Bottom 50% 1.9% -3.6% 1.7% -3.7% 2.0% -3.4%
Bottom 20% 1.0% -6.3% 1.2% -4.9% 1.9% -3.8%
Next 30% 2.2% -3.0% 1.8% -3.4% 2.0% -3.2%
Middle 40% 2.6% -2.0% 2.6% -2.0% 2.6% -2.1%
Top 10% 3.0% -3.4% 3.3% -3.4% 3.2% -3.5%
Top 1% 3.4% -4.4% 3.9% -4.5% 3.7% -4.6%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.16 Netherlands

Figure A.3.16.1
Netherlands: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24
361

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
22
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
18 Posttax income, harmonized

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.16.2
Netherlands: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, households

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
362

28
Pretax income, broad equal-split
26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.16.3
Netherlands: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28
363

26

24

22

20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.4
Netherlands: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26
364

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.5
Netherlands: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
365

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.6
Netherlands: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
366

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.7
Netherlands: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
367

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.8
Netherlands: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
368

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.9
Netherlands: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
369

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.16.10
Netherlands: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 7
6
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

5
15 4

(% of national income)
3
(% of pretax income)

10
2
5 1
370

0 0
-1
-5
-2
-10 -3
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.16.1
Netherlands: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1977 x
1980 x x x x x
1981 x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x x x
371

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.16.2
Netherlands: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 72.8%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 74.7%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed −1.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 14.6%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 12.5%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 16.1%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 13.4%
372

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 2.7%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 34.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 11.1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 9.1%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 11.7%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 37.5%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6.6%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 9.1%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 21.7%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −2.8%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.16.3
Netherlands: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 1.0 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 59.4% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (ECHP, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 1994–2001; LIS, from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, 1983–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 3.7 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2017; PovcalNet, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1983–1999; CSO 2005, income.
tabulations, and 1977); pretax income (LIS,
harmonization 1983–1999; SILC,
using a machine 2004–2017)
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1981–2012 (Salverda and See section 1.4.2. When using the same income
Calibration of survey microdata Atkinson, 2007) concept as the tax data, we find no
survey sources on using the top major difference between the top
the tax data. share series. 1% income share in the survey and
in the tax data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 0.6 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.3 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2004–2017 distribution for imputed average, 21.7% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents) rents. 20.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.7% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.05 pp.
on average; The corporate tax
decrease the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.1 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

373
 Table A.3.16.4
The distribution of national income in Netherlands, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e45,200 100% e45,200 100% e45,200 100%
Bottom 50% e21,400 23.7% e23,000 25.4% e25,500 28.2%
Bottom 20% e9,900 4.4% e11,700 5.2% e15,500 6.9%
Next 30% e29,000 19.3% e30,500 20.2% e32,200 21.4%
Middle 40% e53,800 47.6% e54,400 48.1% e53,300 47.2%
Top 10% e130,000 28.7% e119,000 26.4% e111,000 24.6%
Top 1% e308,000 6.8% e288,000 6.4% e261,000 5.8%
Top 0.1% e710,000 1.6% e777,000 1.7% e693,000 1.5%
Top 0.01% e1,620,000 0.4% e2,190,000 0.5% e1,940,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e3,680,000 0.1% e6,270,000 0.1% e5,560,000 0.1%
374

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.16.5
The distribution of national income growth in Netherlands, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2%
Bottom 50% 0.5% -0.1% 0.5% -0.3% 0.6% -0.1%
Bottom 20% 0.2% -1.0% 0.2% -2.0% 0.6% -1.1%
Next 30% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2%
Middle 40% 1.0% 0.5% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.7%
Top 10% 1.2% 0.1% 1.3% -0.2% 1.2% -0.2%
Top 1% 1.3% -1.0% 1.5% -1.3% 1.4% -1.4%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.17 Norway

Figure A.3.17.1
Norway: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

30

28

26
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

24 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
375

Pretax income, broad equal-split

22 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

20 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.17.2
Norway: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

34 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
32 Pretax income, broad equal-split
376

Pretax income, narrow equal-split

30
Harmonized survey data series
28 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
26

24

22
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.17.3
Norway: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
377

26
24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.4
Norway: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
378

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.5
Norway: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

44
42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
28
379

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.6
Norway: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
380

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.7
Norway: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
381

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.8
Norway: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
382

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.9
Norway: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
383

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.17.10
Norway: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 7
6
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

5
15 4
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10
2
5 1
384

0
0 -1
-2
-5
-3
-10 -4
-5
-15
-6
-20 -7

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.17.1
Norway: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1979 x x
1980 x x x x x x
1981 x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x
385

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.17.2
Norway: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 59.8%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 58.2%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 1.7%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 16.1%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 24%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 13.2%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 12.6%
386

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .6%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 32.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 2%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 11.6%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 11.3%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 7.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 32.9%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.6%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 18.8%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −0.2%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.17.3
Norway: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.1 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 83.6% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (LIS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 1979–2013; SILC, posttax income needed.
other survey sources, 2003–2017); pretax
sources. interpolation of income (LIS, 1979–2004;
survey SILC, 2003–2017)
tabulations, and
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1981–2011 (Aaberge and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Atkinson, 2010) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 2.8 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.5 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2006–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents) use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks and imputed rents. 15.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.3% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.2 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.3 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.7 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

387
 Table A.3.17.4
The distribution of national income in Norway, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e55,000 100% e55,000 100% e55,000 100%
Bottom 50% e28,600 26.0% e31,100 28.3% e34,000 30.9%
Bottom 20% e16,700 6.1% e18,600 6.8% e23,000 8.4%
Next 30% e36,400 19.9% e39,400 21.5% e41,300 22.5%
Middle 40% e60,500 44.0% e61,600 44.8% e60,800 44.2%
Top 10% e165,000 30.0% e148,000 26.9% e137,000 24.9%
Top 1% e516,000 9.4% e422,000 7.7% e378,000 6.9%
Top 0.1% e1,760,000 3.2% e1,310,000 2.4% e1,160,000 2.1%
Top 0.01% e6,200,000 1.1% e4,200,000 0.8% e3,700,000 0.7%
Top 0.001% e21,980,000 0.4% e13,570,000 0.2% e11,940,000 0.2%
388

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.17.5
The distribution of national income growth in Norway, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.4% 0.9% 2.4% 0.9% 2.4% 0.9%
Bottom 50% 2.2% 1.0% 2.3% 1.0% 2.3% 1.0%
Bottom 20% 2.1% 0.4% 2.3% 0.9% 2.4% 1.0%
Next 30% 2.3% 1.2% 2.3% 1.0% 2.3% 1.0%
Middle 40% 2.2% 1.5% 2.2% 1.2% 2.2% 1.2%
Top 10% 2.7% 0.2% 2.8% 0.4% 2.7% 0.4%
Top 1% 3.3% -1.4% 3.5% -1.4% 3.4% -1.4%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.18 Poland

Figure A.3.18.1
Poland: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26 Posttax income, per capita
389

Pretax income, broad equal-split

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.18.2
Poland: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34

32 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

Posttax income, per capita
28
Pretax income, broad equal-split
390

26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

24 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.18.3
Poland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
28
391

26
24
22
20
18
16
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.4
Poland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
392

22
20
18
16
14
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.5
Poland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42
40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
393

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.6
Poland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
394

22
20
18
16
14
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.7
Poland: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
395

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.8
Poland: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
396

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.9
Poland: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
397

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.18.10
Poland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

5 1
398

0 -1

-2

-5 -3

-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.18.1
Poland: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983 x x
1984 x x
1985 x x
1986 x x
1987 x x
1988 x x
1989 x x
1990 x
1991 x
1992 x x x x
1993 x x
1994 x x
1995 x x x
399

1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.18.2
Poland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 73.7%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 72.7%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 1%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 12.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 13.4%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 15.3%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 15%
400

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .3%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 23.6%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 5.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 14.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 24.5%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 3.1%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 4.9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 16.5%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −0.9%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.18.3
Poland: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.3 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 94.7% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1992–2016; SILC, the top 10% share is 1.0 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2005–2017; Atkinson and for pretax income than posttax
survey Micklewright 1992, income.
tabulations, and 1983–1989; Transmonee
harmonization 2005, 2003); pretax
using a machine income (SILC, 2005–2017)
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1983–2015 (Bukowski and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Novokmet, 2017b) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 7.0 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 4.2 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 2.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2014, 2016 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2004–2017 average, 27.1% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 17.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 22.1% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.5 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.2 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 0.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

401
 Table A.3.18.4
The distribution of national income in Poland, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e23,200 100% e23,200 100% e23,200 100%
Bottom 50% e9,500 20.5% e10,000 21.6% e10,800 23.3%
Bottom 20% e3,700 3.2% e4,800 4.1% e5,900 5.1%
Next 30% e13,400 17.3% e13,500 17.4% e14,100 18.2%
Middle 40% e24,600 42.4% e25,300 43.6% e25,100 43.4%
Top 10% e85,800 37.0% e80,700 34.8% e77,100 33.3%
Top 1% e335,000 14.5% e287,000 12.4% e271,000 11.7%
Top 0.1% e1,420,000 6.1% e1,160,000 5.0% e1,090,000 4.7%
Top 0.01% e6,110,000 2.6% e4,870,000 2.1% e4,570,000 2.0%
Top 0.001% e26,450,000 1.1% e20,580,000 0.9% e19,310,000 0.8%
402

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.18.5
The distribution of national income growth in Poland, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.0% 3.0%
Bottom 50% 0.9% 3.1% 1.0% 3.7% 1.1% 3.7%
Bottom 20% -0.4% 1.9% 0.2% 5.3% 0.7% 4.9%
Next 30% 1.2% 3.3% 1.2% 3.3% 1.3% 3.3%
Middle 40% 1.6% 3.0% 1.7% 2.9% 1.7% 2.9%
Top 10% 3.4% 3.0% 3.4% 2.8% 3.3% 2.8%
Top 1% 5.4% 2.2% 5.3% 2.1% 5.2% 2.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.19 Portugal

Figure A.3.19.1
Portugal: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

42

40

38
Raw survey data series
36 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

34 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
403

32 Posttax income, per capita

30 Posttax income, square root
Pretax income, broad equal-split
28 Harmonized survey data series
26 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
24

22

20
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.19.2
Portugal: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
28 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, households

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24 Posttax income, per capita
404

22 Posttax income, square root

Pretax income, broad equal-split
20 Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.19.3
Portugal: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
30
405

28
26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.4
Portugal: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
406

20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.5
Portugal: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
407

30
28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.6
Portugal: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
408

20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.7
Portugal: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
409

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.8
Portugal: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
410

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.9
Portugal: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
411

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.19.10
Portugal: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

5 1
412

0 -1

-2

-5 -3

-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.19.1
Portugal: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x x x
1981 x x
1982 x x
1983 x x
1984 x x
1985 x x
1986 x x
1987 x x
1988 x x
1989 x x
1990 x x x
1991 x x
1992 x x
1993 x x
1994 x x x x
1995 x x x x x x x x x
413

1996 x x x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.19.2
Portugal: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 78.6%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 77.4%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 1.2%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 8.7%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 12.7%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 22.7%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 20.9%
414

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.8%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 23.4%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −5.4%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 8.2%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 16.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 25.7%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 2.6%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 6.8%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 16.3%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −2.3%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.19.3
Portugal: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2006–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2003–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2006–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(EU-SILC, 2006–2017) social insurance system 2.1 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 53.0% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (ECHP, 1994–2001; SILC, the top 10% share is 2.2 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2003–2017; Gouveia and for pretax income than posttax
survey Tavares 1995, 1980–1990; income.
tabulations, and Atkinson, Rainwater and
harmonization Smeeding 1995a,
using a machine 1980–1990); pretax
learning income (SILC, 2006–2017)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2005 (Alvaredo, See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata 2009) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.4 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 0.5 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.4 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2013, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 37.5% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 20.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 22.4% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.6 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.1 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.6 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.5 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

415
 Table A.3.19.4
The distribution of national income in Portugal, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e24,500 100% e24,500 100% e24,500 100%
Bottom 50% e9,600 19.5% e9,700 19.8% e10,800 22.1%
Bottom 20% e4,000 3.2% e3,900 3.2% e5,400 4.4%
Next 30% e13,300 16.3% e13,600 16.6% e14,400 17.6%
Middle 40% e26,700 43.6% e27,500 44.9% e27,300 44.5%
Top 10% e90,700 36.9% e86,700 35.3% e82,100 33.4%
Top 1% e272,000 11.1% e233,000 9.5% e217,000 8.9%
Top 0.1% e829,000 3.4% e593,000 2.4% e550,000 2.2%
Top 0.01% e2,530,000 1.0% e1,480,000 0.6% e1,370,000 0.6%
Top 0.001% e7,760,000 0.3% e3,660,000 0.1% e3,380,000 0.1%
416

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.19.5
The distribution of national income growth in Portugal, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.3% -0.1% 1.3% -0.1% 1.3% -0.1%
Bottom 50% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% 0.9% 0.0%
Bottom 20% 0.1% 0.6% 0.2% -2.9% 0.8% -2.2%
Next 30% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6%
Middle 40% 1.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% 0.2%
Top 10% 2.0% -0.7% 2.0% -0.6% 1.9% -0.6%
Top 1% 2.6% 0.2% 2.4% 0.1% 2.3% 0.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.20 Romania

Figure A.3.20.1
Romania: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32
Raw survey data series
30 Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

28 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, households
417

26 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

24 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
22 Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.20.2
Romania: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, broad equal-split

28 Posttax income, households
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
418

26
Posttax income, per capita
24 Pretax income, broad equal-split
22 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized
18
16
14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.20.3
Romania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

48
46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
32
30
419

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.20.4
Romania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34
32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
420

20
18
16
14
12
10
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.20.5
Romania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

48
46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
32
421

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.20.6
Romania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
22
422

20
18
16
14
12
10
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.20.7
Romania: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
423

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses. Income and wealth taxes include
non-contributory social contributions (no data to separate the two).
 Figure A.3.20.8
Romania: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

35

30
Share of factor income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20
Social contributions
Corporate tax
15
424

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses. Income and wealth taxes include social contributions (no data to separate the two).
 Figure A.3.20.9
Romania: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
425

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.20.10
Romania: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

20
3
15

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

1
10
426

0
5
-1

0 -2

-3
-5
-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.20.1
Romania: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989 x x
1990 x x x x
1991 x x x x
1992 x x x x
1993 x x x x
1994 x x x x
1995 x x x x x x
427

1996 x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x
2015 x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.20.2
Romania: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 65.7%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 63.2%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 2.5%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 20.7%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 13.6%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 11.5%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 11%
428

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .5%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 21.2%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −0.3%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 4.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 14.4%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.8%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 21.5%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 3.2%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 4.7%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 13.6%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −0.3%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.20.3
Romania: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2006–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of No data from the OECD, See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social so we assume that social compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. contributions are pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
proportional to factor social insurance system 0.000009 pp. on average.
income. can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 92.0% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 1998–2016); posttax partially estimated from
other survey sources, income (SILC, 2007–2017; consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of PovcalNet, 1989–1997; 10% share is 2.8 pp. higher for
survey Transmonee 2004, posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and 1989–2000); pretax and 4.7 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization income (SILC, 2007–2017; consumption.
using a machine Milanovic 1998,
learning 1989–1994)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 2013 (Oancea, Andrei, See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata and Pirjol, 2017) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 4.3 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 4.7 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 4.2 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2006–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents); HBS, use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2010 (consumption) distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks. 16.9% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 19.6% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.7 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.6 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

429
 Table A.3.20.4
The distribution of national income in Romania, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e20,200 100% e20,200 100% e20,200 100%
Bottom 50% e6,900 17.0% e7,100 17.6% e7,900 19.6%
Bottom 20% e2,100 2.1% e2,200 2.2% e3,300 3.3%
Next 30% e10,100 15.0% e10,400 15.4% e11,000 16.3%
Middle 40% e22,600 44.8% e23,100 45.7% e22,900 45.3%
Top 10% e77,100 38.2% e74,100 36.7% e70,900 35.1%
Top 1% e253,000 12.5% e218,000 10.8% e205,000 10.1%
Top 0.1% e833,000 4.1% e643,000 3.2% e593,000 2.9%
Top 0.01% e2,740,000 1.4% e1,890,000 0.9% e1,710,000 0.8%
Top 0.001% e9,010,000 0.4% e5,580,000 0.3% e4,960,000 0.2%
430

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.20.5
The distribution of national income growth in Romania, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.3% 2.8% 1.3% 2.8% 1.3% 2.8%
Bottom 50% -0.1% 4.1% -0.2% 4.7% 0.1% 4.6%
Bottom 20% -1.9% 3.2% -1.8% 4.7% -0.9% 4.4%
Next 30% 0.3% 4.2% 0.2% 4.7% 0.3% 4.6%
Middle 40% 1.2% 3.7% 1.2% 3.8% 1.2% 3.7%
Top 10% 2.5% 1.3% 2.6% 1.0% 2.5% 0.9%
Top 1% 3.5% -0.1% 3.4% -1.0% 3.4% -1.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.21 Serbia

Figure A.3.21.1
Serbia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
34 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

32 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

Posttax income, per capita
431

30 Pretax income, broad equal-split

28 Pretax income, households
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26 Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.21.2
Serbia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36
34
32
30
Raw survey data series
28
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

24 Posttax income, per capita
22 Pretax income, broad equal-split
432

20 Pretax income, households

18 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
16 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
14
Posttax income, harmonized
12
10
8
6
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.21.3
Serbia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
433

30
28
26
24
22
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.4
Serbia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28
26
24
Share of income (%)

22
20
18
434

16
14
12
10
8
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.5
Serbia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
435

32
30
28
26
24
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.6
Serbia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

28
26
24
22
Share of income (%)

20
18
16
436

14
12
10
8
6
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.7
Serbia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

65
60
55
Share of pretax income (%)

50
45 Consumption and
indirect taxes
40
Social contributions
35 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
30
Corporate tax
437

25 Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.8
Serbia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
438

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.9
Serbia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
439

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.21.10
Serbia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

5 2
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

1
440

-1

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.21.1
Serbia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989
1990 x
1991
1992
1993
1994
441

1995
1996
1997 x x x
1998 x x x
1999 x x
2000 x x x x
2001 x x x x x
2002 x x x x
2003 x x x x
2004 x x x x
2005 x x x x
2006 x x x x
2007 x x x x
2008 x x x x
2009 x x x x
2010 x x x x
2011 x x x x
2012 x x
2013 x x
2014 x x
2015 x x
2016 x x
2017 x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.21.2
Serbia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 75%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 69.9%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 5.1%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 4.2%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 20.8%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 19.7%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 17.9%
442

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.8%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 23.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −4.1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 5.1%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 21.4%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 1.3%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 27%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 3.5%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 6.5%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 17%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −3.3%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.21.3
Serbia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2012–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of No data from the OECD, See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social so we assume that social compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. contributions are pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
proportional to factor social insurance system 0.7 pp. on average.
income. can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 81.0% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (SILC, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2012–2017; Transmonee from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, 2004, RS-ME, 1997–2001); the top 10% share is 0.9 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of pretax income (SILC, for pretax income than posttax
survey 2012–2017; Milanovic and income.
tabulations, and Ying 1996, YU,
harmonization 1983–1990; van Ginneken
using a machine and Park 1984, YU, 1978)
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 2017 (Authors) See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 6.3 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 5.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 4.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2012–2012 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents) use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks and imputed rents. 14.2% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 19.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.3 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.8 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.1 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 2.5 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

443
 Table A.3.21.4
The distribution of national income in Serbia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e12,100 100% e12,100 100% e12,100 100%
Bottom 50% e3,800 15.6% e3,100 12.9% e3,800 15.7%
Bottom 20% e700 1.2% e300 0.5% e1,200 2.0%
Next 30% e5,800 14.4% e5,000 12.4% e5,500 13.7%
Middle 40% e14,500 48.0% e14,500 48.1% e14,400 47.5%
Top 10% e44,100 36.4% e47,300 39.0% e44,600 36.8%
Top 1% e146,000 12.0% e166,000 13.7% e155,000 12.8%
Top 0.1% e547,000 4.5% e669,000 5.5% e620,000 5.1%
Top 0.01% e2,130,000 1.8% e2,790,000 2.3% e2,580,000 2.1%
Top 0.001% e8,360,000 0.7% e11,750,000 1.0% e10,860,000 0.9%
444

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.21.5
The distribution of national income growth in Serbia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population -1.0% 0.9% -1.0% 0.9% -1.0% 0.9%
Bottom 50% -2.0% -0.3% -2.4% -0.5% -2.1% -0.3%
Bottom 20% -4.4% -5.4% -6.0% -5.9% -3.5% -1.7%
Next 30% -1.6% 0.3% -2.0% -0.1% -1.9% 0.0%
Middle 40% -1.0% 1.1% -1.1% 1.0% -1.1% 1.0%
Top 10% -0.6% 1.2% -0.4% 1.2% -0.4% 1.3%
Top 1% -0.3% 1.4% 0.1% 2.3% 0.1% 2.4%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.22 Slovenia

Figure A.3.22.1
Slovenia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28 Raw survey data series

Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

26 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
24
445

Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, broad equal-split
22
Pretax income, households
20 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
18 Posttax income, harmonized

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.22.2
Slovenia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Posttax income, per capita
446

28
Pretax income, broad equal-split
26 Pretax income, households
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.22.3
Slovenia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
447

24

22

20

18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.4
Slovenia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
448

24

22

20

18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.5
Slovenia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
449

22
20
18
16
14
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.6
Slovenia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
450

24

22

20

18
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.7
Slovenia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
451

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.8
Slovenia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
452

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.9
Slovenia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
453

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.22.10
Slovenia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6

20 5
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10
2
5 1
454

0 0
-1
-5
-2
-10
-3
-15 -4
-20 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.22.1
Slovenia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987 x x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x
1991 x x
1992 x x
1993 x x x
1994 x
455

1995 x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.22.2
Slovenia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 79.1%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 78.3%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed .8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 5.3%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 15.6%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 18.4%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 17.5%
456

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 30.1%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 3.3%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 7.5%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 17.3%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 1.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 31.1%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.3%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 17.8%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −1.1%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.22.3
Slovenia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.5 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 82.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, 2010; See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data LIS, 2007–2012); posttax from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, income (LIS, 1997–2012; the top 10% share is 3.5 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of SILC, 2004–2017; for pretax income than posttax
survey Milanovic 1998, income.
tabulations, and 1987–1993); pretax
harmonization income (SILC, 2004–2017;
using a machine van Ginneken and Park
learning 1984, YU, 1978)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1991–2012 (Kump and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Novokmet, 2018) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.3 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 0.7 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.3 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 24.1% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 13.9% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 18.3% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.5 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

457
 Table A.3.22.4
The distribution of national income in Slovenia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e26,500 100% e26,500 100% e26,500 100%
Bottom 50% e12,800 24.2% e13,700 25.8% e14,800 27.9%
Bottom 20% e7,000 5.3% e7,300 5.5% e9,000 6.8%
Next 30% e16,700 18.9% e17,900 20.3% e18,700 21.1%
Middle 40% e31,100 47.0% e31,600 47.8% e31,200 47.1%
Top 10% e76,400 28.8% e70,000 26.4% e66,200 25.0%
Top 1% e198,000 7.5% e170,000 6.4% e158,000 6.0%
Top 0.1% e539,000 2.0% e452,000 1.7% e414,000 1.6%
Top 0.01% e1,490,000 0.6% e1,240,000 0.5% e1,130,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e4,140,000 0.2% e3,440,000 0.1% e3,140,000 0.1%
458

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.22.5
The distribution of national income growth in Slovenia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2%
Bottom 50% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5%
Bottom 20% 0.0% 2.1% -0.1% 1.6% 0.1% 1.4%
Next 30% -0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Middle 40% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1%
Top 10% 1.2% -0.2% 1.2% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
Top 1% 2.1% -0.3% 2.0% 0.4% 1.9% 0.4%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.23 Spain

Figure A.3.23.1
Spain: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32
Raw survey data series
Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30
Posttax income, broad equal-split
28 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
459

Pretax income, broad equal-split

26 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.23.2
Spain: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Consumption, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28
Posttax income, broad equal-split
26 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Pretax income, broad equal-split
460

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.23.3
Spain: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

42

40

38
Share of income (%)

36

34

32
461

30

28

26

24
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.4
Spain: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22
462

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.5
Spain: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42

40

38
Share of income (%)

36

34

32
463

30

28

26

24
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.6
Spain: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24

22
464

20

18

16

14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.7
Spain: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
465

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.8
Spain: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
466

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.9
Spain: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
467

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.23.10
Spain: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 3
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

2
10
1

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

5
0
468

-1
0

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.23.1
Spain: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x x x x
1981 x x x
1982 x x x
1983 x x x
1984 x x x
1985 x x x x x
1986 x x x
1987 x x x
1988 x x x
1989 x x x
1990 x x x x x
1991 x x x
1992 x x x
1993 x x x
1994 x x x
1995 x x x x x x x x x
469

1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.23.2
Spain: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 78.1%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 73.2%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 4.9%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 12.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 9.6%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 19.2%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 15.6%
470

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 3.6%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 20.7%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −2.9%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 9.3%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 11.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.5%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 25.9%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 2.3%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 16.6%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −5.2%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.23.3
Spain: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2005–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2003–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2005–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2005–2005, social insurance system 0.5 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 94.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, 2010; See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data LIS, 1985–1990); posttax from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, income (LIS, 1980–2013; the top 10% share is 2.0 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of SILC, 2006–2017); pretax for pretax income than posttax
survey income (SILC, 2009–2017) income.
tabulations, and
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1981–2012 (Alvaredo and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Saez, 2010) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.9 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.3 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2008, 2012 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 32.7% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 15.2% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 18.8% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 3.2 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.5 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.6 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

471
 Table A.3.23.4
The distribution of national income in Spain, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e30,400 100% e30,400 100% e30,400 100%
Bottom 50% e13,200 21.8% e12,600 20.8% e14,000 23.1%
Bottom 20% e6,900 4.5% e4,700 3.1% e6,600 4.4%
Next 30% e17,500 17.3% e18,000 17.8% e18,900 18.7%
Middle 40% e33,200 43.8% e34,500 45.5% e34,200 45.1%
Top 10% e104,000 34.4% e102,000 33.7% e96,700 31.9%
Top 1% e376,000 12.4% e351,000 11.6% e327,000 10.8%
Top 0.1% e1,490,000 4.9% e1,330,000 4.4% e1,230,000 4.1%
Top 0.01% e6,030,000 2.0% e5,190,000 1.7% e4,790,000 1.6%
Top 0.001% e24,630,000 0.8% e20,370,000 0.7% e18,800,000 0.6%
472

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.23.5
The distribution of national income growth in Spain, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.2% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4% 1.2% 0.4%
Bottom 50% 1.3% 0.7% 1.2% -0.2% 1.2% -0.1%
Bottom 20% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% -2.6% 1.1% -1.7%
Next 30% 1.2% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.3%
Middle 40% 1.1% 0.2% 1.2% 0.1% 1.2% 0.1%
Top 10% 1.2% 0.5% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%
Top 1% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 4.0% 1.4% 4.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.24 Sweden

Figure A.3.24.1
Sweden: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

30

28

26
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

24 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
22
473

Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20
Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.24.2
Sweden: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

40

38

36
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

34 Posttax income, broad equal-split

Posttax income, narrow equal-split
32 Pretax income, broad equal-split
474

Pretax income, narrow equal-split

30
Harmonized survey data series
28 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
26

24

22
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.24.3
Sweden: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
475

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.4
Sweden: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
476

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.5
Sweden: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
477

24
22
20
18
16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.6
Sweden: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
478

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.7
Sweden: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
479

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.8
Sweden: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
480

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.9
Sweden: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
481

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.24.10
Sweden: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 6
5
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

4
15
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10 2
1
5
482

0
0
-1
-5 -2
-3
-10
-4
-15
-5
-20 -6

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.24.1
Sweden: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1975 x x
1980 x x x x x x
1981 x x x x x x x x
1982 x x x x x x
1983 x x x x x x
1984 x x x x x x
1985 x x x x x x
1986 x x x x x x
1987 x x x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x
483

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.24.2
Sweden: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 67.2%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 66.6%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed .6%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 8.1%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 24.8%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 16.1%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 15.3%
484

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .7%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 36.6%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated −6.1%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 15.9%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 23.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 2.9%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 36.3%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 5.4%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 7.7%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 23.3%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income .2%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.24.3
Sweden: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2003–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2003–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2003–2005, social insurance system 0.2 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 40.3% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (LIS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 1975–2005; SILC, from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, 2003–2017); pretax the top 10% share is 2.9 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of income (LIS, 1975–2005; for pretax income than posttax
survey SILC, 2003–2017) income.
tabulations, and
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1980–2013 (Roine and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Waldenström, 2010) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 1.1 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 0.3 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.2 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2003–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents); HBS, use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2010 (consumption) distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks. 16.6% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 15.4% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 2.8 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.8 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.5 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.7 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

485
 Table A.3.24.4
The distribution of national income in Sweden, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e43,000 100% e43,000 100% e43,000 100%
Bottom 50% e21,900 25.4% e23,200 27.0% e25,300 29.4%
Bottom 20% e11,200 5.2% e13,400 6.2% e16,600 7.7%
Next 30% e29,000 20.2% e29,700 20.7% e31,100 21.7%
Middle 40% e48,800 45.4% e49,800 46.3% e49,100 45.6%
Top 10% e126,000 29.2% e115,000 26.7% e107,000 24.9%
Top 1% e387,000 9.0% e331,000 7.7% e300,000 7.0%
Top 0.1% e1,310,000 3.0% e1,110,000 2.6% e999,000 2.3%
Top 0.01% e4,530,000 1.1% e3,950,000 0.9% e3,530,000 0.8%
Top 0.001% e15,890,000 0.4% e14,240,000 0.3% e12,710,000 0.3%
486

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.24.5
The distribution of national income growth in Sweden, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.8% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1% 1.8% 1.1%
Bottom 50% 1.5% 1.3% 1.5% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3%
Bottom 20% 1.1% 0.7% 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 0.8%
Next 30% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.4%
Middle 40% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%
Top 10% 2.3% 0.2% 2.3% 0.1% 2.3% 0.1%
Top 1% 2.9% -1.1% 2.6% -1.5% 2.6% -1.5%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.25 Switzerland

Figure A.3.25.1
Switzerland: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

28
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26 Posttax income, per capita
487

Pretax income, broad equal-split

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.25.2
Switzerland: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32 Raw survey data series

Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
488

28
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
24 Posttax income, harmonized

22

20
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.25.3
Switzerland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
489

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.4
Switzerland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26
490

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.5
Switzerland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
491

26

24

22

20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.6
Switzerland: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26
492

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.7
Switzerland: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
493

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.8
Switzerland: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
494

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.9
Switzerland: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
495

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.25.10
Switzerland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

3
10
2

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

1
5
496

0
-1

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.25.1
Switzerland: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981 x
1982 x x
1983 x
1984
1985 x
1986
1987 x
1988
1989 x
1990 x x x x
1991 x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x
1994 x x x x
1995 x x x x x x
497

1996 x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.25.2
Switzerland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 90.1%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 92.9%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed −2.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 5.4%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 4.4%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 20.9%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 19.6%
498

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed 1.3%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 23.1%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 3.9%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 11.7%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 3.8%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3.6%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 21.6%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 6.4%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 2.9%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 12.3%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income 1.5%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.25.3
Switzerland: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2006–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2006–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(EU-SILC, 2006–2017) social insurance system 0.1 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 83.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of posttax income (LIS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 1982–2013; SILC, posttax income needed.
other survey sources, 2006–2017; PovcalNet,
sources. interpolation of 1982–2002; LIS,
survey 2000–2013); pretax
tabulations, and income (LIS, 1982–2013;
harmonization SILC, 2006–2017)
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1981–2014 (Foellmi and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Martı́nez, 2017) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 4.4 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 2.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.5 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2006–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents) use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks and imputed rents. 12.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 18.8% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.8 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.6 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.2 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 0.5 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

499
 Table A.3.25.4
The distribution of national income in Switzerland, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e48,400 100% e48,400 100% e48,400 100%
Bottom 50% e23,100 23.8% e23,700 24.4% e24,700 25.5%
Bottom 20% e11,900 4.9% e11,200 4.6% e12,700 5.2%
Next 30% e30,600 18.9% e32,000 19.8% e32,600 20.2%
Middle 40% e54,200 44.8% e55,300 45.7% e55,000 45.4%
Top 10% e152,000 31.4% e145,000 29.9% e141,000 29.1%
Top 1% e506,000 10.5% e463,000 9.6% e446,000 9.2%
Top 0.1% e1,990,000 4.1% e1,820,000 3.8% e1,750,000 3.6%
Top 0.01% e8,190,000 1.7% e7,580,000 1.6% e7,280,000 1.5%
Top 0.001% e34,110,000 0.7% e32,120,000 0.7% e30,820,000 0.6%
500

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.25.5
The distribution of national income growth in Switzerland, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3%
Bottom 50% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 1.0%
Bottom 20% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% 1.7% 0.8% 2.0%
Next 30% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.8%
Middle 40% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
Top 10% 0.8% -0.1% 0.8% -0.5% 0.7% -0.6%
Top 1% 1.1% -0.4% 0.9% -1.1% 0.9% -1.3%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 3.26 United Kingdom

Figure A.3.26.1
United Kingdom: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34

32 Raw survey data series

Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

30
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
501

28 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26
Harmonized survey data series
24
Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18

16
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.26.2
United Kingdom: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32

30 Raw survey data series

Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

28
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26 Pretax income, broad equal-split
502

Pretax income, narrow equal-split

24
Harmonized survey data series
22
Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.3.26.3
United Kingdom: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
503

30
28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.4
United Kingdom: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20
504

18

16

14

12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.5
United Kingdom: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
505

28
26
24
22
20
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.6
United Kingdom: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
506

22
20
18
16
14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.7
United Kingdom: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
507

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.8
United Kingdom: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

55
50
45
Share of factor income (%)

40
35 Consumption and
indirect taxes
30 Social contributions

25 Corporate tax
508

Income and
20 wealth taxes

15
10
5
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.9
United Kingdom: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
509

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.3.26.10
United Kingdom: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

25 7
6
20
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

5
15 4
3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

10
2
5 1
510

0
0 -1
-2
-5
-3
-10 -4
-5
-15
-6
-20 -7

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.3.26.1
United Kingdom: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1979 x x
1980 x
1981 x x
1982 x x
1983 x x
1984 x x
1985 x x
1986 x x x x
1987 x x x x x x
1988 x x x x x x
1989 x x x x x x
1990 x x x x x x x
1991 x x x x x x x x x
1992 x x x x x x x
1993 x x x x x x x
1994 x x x x x x x x x
511

1995 x x x x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.3.26.2
United Kingdom: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax income

Income concept Source Method Share of income

Factor national income 100%
(+) Household primary income 82.5%
Compensation of employees,
Survey + tax data Observed 77%
mixed and property income
Net imputed housing rents Survey + tax data Observed 5.5%
Proportional to equity ownership /
(+) Corporate primary income National accounts wages and pension for equity 5.7%
held through pension funds
(+) Government primary income National accounts Proportional to pretax income 11.8%
Pretax national income 100%
(+) Factor national income 100%
(−) Contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated 15.5%
(+) Pension benefits Survey + tax data Observed 14.7%
512

(+) Unemployment benefits Survey + tax data Observed .8%

Posttax national income 100%
(+) Pretax national income 100%
(−) Taxes 29.5%
Non-contributory social contributions Survey + tax data Observed/simulated .7%
Direct taxes on income and wealth Survey + tax data Observed 11.8%
Taxes on products National accounts Proportional to consumption 14%
Proportional to equity ownership /
Corporate income tax National accounts wages and pension for equity 3%
held through pension funds
(+) Transfers 32.1%
Cash transfers Survey + tax data Observed 8.1%
Public health expenditures National accounts Lump sum 8.6%
Other public expenditures National accounts Proportional to posttax income 15.5%
(+) Budget balance National accounts Proportional to posttax income −2.6%
Notes: The table reports the methodology used to distribute the various components of factor national income, pretax national
income, and posttax national income, together with the share of net national income each component typically represents
(average over the 2010-2017 period).
 Table A.3.26.3
United Kingdom: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2005–2018) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2005–2018); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2005–2006, social insurance system 0.6 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2007–2018) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 92.0% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income posttax income needed.
other survey sources, (LIS, 1979–2013; SILC,
sources. interpolation of 2006–2018); pretax
survey income (LIS, 1979–2013;
tabulations, and SILC, 2006–2018)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of 1981–2014 (Atkinson and See section 1.4.2. Using the same income concept as
Calibration of survey microdata Piketty, 2007) the tax data, we find that the top
survey sources on using the top 1% share is 5.0 pp. higher in the
the tax data. share series. tax data than the survey data.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 3.3 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 2.5 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and WAS, 2011, 2013, 2015 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2007–2018 average, 60.4% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 12.2% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 17.7% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.5 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 1.5 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.0 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 2.1 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.6 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

513
 Table A.3.26.4
The distribution of national income in United Kingdom, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e34,300 100% e34,300 100% e34,300 100%
Bottom 50% e14,500 21.1% e16,300 23.8% e18,000 26.3%
Bottom 20% e7,700 4.5% e9,000 5.3% e11,400 6.7%
Next 30% e19,100 16.7% e21,200 18.5% e22,400 19.6%
Middle 40% e36,600 42.7% e37,500 43.7% e37,200 43.4%
Top 10% e124,000 36.1% e112,000 32.5% e104,000 30.4%
Top 1% e467,000 13.6% e379,000 11.0% e346,000 10.1%
Top 0.1% e1,970,000 5.7% e1,450,000 4.2% e1,310,000 3.8%
Top 0.01% e8,510,000 2.5% e5,730,000 1.7% e5,190,000 1.5%
Top 0.001% e37,090,000 1.1% e22,890,000 0.7% e20,690,000 0.6%
514

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.3.26.5
The distribution of national income growth in United Kingdom, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Bottom 50% 1.7% 0.9% 1.6% 0.9% 1.7% 0.8%
Bottom 20% 1.7% 0.5% 1.6% 1.0% 1.8% 0.9%
Next 30% 1.7% 1.0% 1.6% 0.9% 1.7% 0.8%
Middle 40% 1.7% 0.2% 1.7% 0.2% 1.7% 0.2%
Top 10% 2.5% -0.6% 2.7% -0.8% 2.6% -0.8%
Top 1% 3.5% -0.7% 3.8% -1.4% 3.7% -1.5%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4 Results by country – Countries not covered in main paper (no tax data)
4.1 Bulgaria

Figure A.4.1.1
Bulgaria: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
34
Raw survey data series
32
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

515

28 Posttax income, per capita

26 Pretax income, broad equal-split
24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22 Pretax income, per capita
20 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
18
Posttax income, harmonized
16
14
12
10
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.1.2
Bulgaria: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

42
40
38
36 Raw survey data series
34 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

32 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

30 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
516

28
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26 Pretax income, per capita
24 Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18
16
14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.1.3
Bulgaria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

46
44
42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
28
26
517

24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.4
Bulgaria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36
34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
518

22
20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.5
Bulgaria: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

48
46
44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
30
28
519

26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.6
Bulgaria: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

38
36
34
32
Share of income (%)

30
28
26
24
520

22
20
18
16
14
12
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.7
Bulgaria: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
521

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.8
Bulgaria: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

35

30
Share of factor income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20
Social contributions
Corporate tax
15
522

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.9
Bulgaria: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
523

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.1.10
Bulgaria: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

5 3
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

2

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

0
1
524

0
-5

-1

-10 -2

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.1.1
Bulgaria: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1975 x
1976 x
1979 x
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x
1991
1992 x
525

1993 x
1994 x
1995 x x
1996 x x
1997 x x
1998 x x
1999 x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x
2004 x x x x x
2005 x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.1.2
Bulgaria: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2006–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employer contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (EU-SILC, 2006–2017) compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
social insurance system 0.02 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 95.4% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (SILC, 2006–2017; the top 10% share is 0.9 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of Transmonee 2004, for pretax income than posttax
survey 1992–2000; Transmonee income.
tabulations, and 2011, 2001–2002); pretax
harmonization income (SILC, 2006–2017;
using a machine Milanovic 1998,
learning 1989–1993; Statistical
algorithm. Yearbook, 1975–1990)

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.7 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.3 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and EU-SILC, 2006–2017 Due to lack of data, we We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (imputed rents); HBS, use the average European pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2010 (consumption) distribution for corporate average, 33.9% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents stocks. 16.5% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock account for 21.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.5 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.9 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.5 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

526
 Table A.4.1.3
The distribution of national income in Bulgaria, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e15,600 100% e15,600 100% e15,600 100%
Bottom 50% e5,700 18.2% e5,200 16.6% e5,800 18.7%
Bottom 20% e3,100 4.0% e2,500 3.2% e3,300 4.2%
Next 30% e7,400 14.2% e7,000 13.5% e7,500 14.5%
Middle 40% e15,700 40.2% e15,600 39.9% e15,600 39.9%
Top 10% e65,000 41.6% e67,900 43.5% e64,700 41.4%
Top 1% e267,000 17.1% e285,000 18.2% e268,000 17.2%
Top 0.1% e1,140,000 7.3% e1,230,000 7.9% e1,150,000 7.4%
Top 0.01% e4,910,000 3.1% e5,330,000 3.4% e5,000,000 3.2%
Top 0.001% e21,200,000 1.4% e23,150,000 1.5% e21,740,000 1.4%
527

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.1.4
The distribution of national income growth in Bulgaria, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.2% 2.8% 2.2% 2.8% 2.2% 2.8%
Bottom 50% 0.8% 1.8% 0.6% 1.8% 0.8% 2.1%
Bottom 20% 0.4% 3.9% -0.2% 5.3% 0.4% 5.0%
Next 30% 1.0% 1.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.0% 1.5%
Middle 40% 1.6% 1.2% 1.5% 0.8% 1.5% 0.8%
Top 10% 4.2% 5.2% 4.4% 5.6% 4.4% 5.5%
Top 1% 7.3% 9.7% 7.7% 11.2% 7.6% 11.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.2 Cyprus

Figure A.4.2.1
Cyprus: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

30
Posttax income, per capita
528

28 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.2.2
Cyprus: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
28 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

26
Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
529

24
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22
Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.2.3
Cyprus: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
530

32
30
28
26
24
22
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.4
Cyprus: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20
531

18

16

14

12
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.5
Cyprus: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

46
44
42
40
Share of income (%)

38
36
34
532

32
30
28
26
24
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.6
Cyprus: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

28
26
24
22
Share of income (%)

20
18
16
14
533

12
10
8
6
4
2
90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.7
Cyprus: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
534

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.8
Cyprus: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
535

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.9
Cyprus: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
536

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.2.10
Cyprus: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 5

4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10 3

(% of national income)
2
(% of pretax income)

5 1
537

0 -1

-2

-5 -3

-4

-10 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.2.1
Cyprus: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x x
1991 x
1992 x
1993 x
1994 x
1995 x x x x x
538

1996 x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x
1998 x x x x x
1999 x x x x x
2000 x x x x x
2001 x x x x x
2002 x x x x x
2003 x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.2.2
Cyprus: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employer contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2005, compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. EU-SILC, 2006–2017) pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
social insurance system 0.3 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that all social
contributions, and also, on
average, 79.7% of income
taxes, are contributory
(i.e., pay for pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (SILC, 2004–2017; WYD, the top 10% share is 1.9 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 1990–1996); pretax for pretax income than posttax
survey income (SILC, 2004–2017) income.
tabulations, and
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.7 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.4 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 28.6% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 15.8% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 18.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 3.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.9 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 1.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.8 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 0.6 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

539
 Table A.4.2.3
The distribution of national income in Cyprus, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e31,600 100% e31,600 100% e31,600 100%
Bottom 50% e12,800 20.2% e13,800 21.8% e14,400 22.8%
Bottom 20% e6,100 3.9% e7,100 4.5% e7,900 5.0%
Next 30% e17,200 16.4% e18,200 17.3% e18,700 17.8%
Middle 40% e35,400 44.9% e36,300 45.9% e36,100 45.7%
Top 10% e110,000 34.9% e102,000 32.3% e99,500 31.5%
Top 1% e305,000 9.7% e259,000 8.2% e252,000 8.0%
Top 0.1% e833,000 2.6% e632,000 2.0% e612,000 1.9%
Top 0.01% e2,260,000 0.7% e1,520,000 0.5% e1,470,000 0.5%
Top 0.001% e6,100,000 0.2% e3,620,000 0.1% e3,490,000 0.1%
540

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.2.4
The distribution of national income growth in Cyprus, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.9% -1.5% 1.9% -1.5% 1.9% -1.5%
Bottom 50% 2.0% 0.4% 2.2% 9.4% 2.2% 7.4%
Bottom 20% 2.1% 2.9% 2.9%
Next 30% 2.0% -3.0% 2.0% -2.9% 2.0% -2.8%
Middle 40% 1.9% -2.8% 1.9% -3.5% 1.9% -3.4%
Top 10% 1.8% -0.6% 1.7% -2.6% 1.7% -2.5%
Top 1% 1.7% 0.3% 1.4% -3.1% 1.4% -3.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.3 Latvia

Figure A.4.3.1
Latvia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

30 Posttax income, broad equal-split

28 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
541

Posttax income, per capita

26
Pretax income, broad equal-split
24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized
18
16
14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.3.2
Latvia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
30 Consumption, per capita
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

28
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
26 Posttax income, per capita
542

24 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
22
Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
18 Posttax income, harmonized
16
14
12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.3.3
Latvia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
30
543

28
26
24
22
20
18
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.4
Latvia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
544

20
18
16
14
12
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.5
Latvia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

44
42
40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
545

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.6
Latvia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32
30
28
26
Share of income (%)

24
22
20
546

18
16
14
12
10
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.7
Latvia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
547

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.8
Latvia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
548

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.9
Latvia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
549

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.3.10
Latvia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

5 3
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

2

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

0 1
550

-5 -1

-2

-10 -3

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.3.1
Latvia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 x
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993 x
1994
1995 x x x x x
551

1996 x x x x x
1997 x x x x x
1998 x x x x x
1999 x x x x x
2000 x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.3.2
Latvia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (pretax, See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and 2006–2017; posttax,
survey pretax post-tax income 2004–2017)
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2006–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(EU-SILC, 2006–2017) social insurance system 0.7 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 95.4% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, 2010; See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data PovcalNet, 1997–2009); from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, posttax income (SILC, the top 10% share is 1.6 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2017; Milanovic for pretax income than posttax
survey 1998, 1995; PovcalNet, income.
tabulations, and 1988–1996; Transmonee
harmonization 2004, 1997–2002;
using a machine Transmonee 2005, 2003);
learning pretax income (SILC,
algorithm. 2006–2017)

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 27.4% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 17.3% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 21.5% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.3 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents increase the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

552
 Table A.4.3.3
The distribution of national income in Latvia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e20,200 100% e20,200 100% e20,200 100%
Bottom 50% e7,300 18.1% e7,100 17.5% e7,600 18.9%
Bottom 20% e3,700 3.6% e3,100 3.1% e3,900 3.8%
Next 30% e9,700 14.4% e9,700 14.4% e10,200 15.1%
Middle 40% e23,100 45.6% e23,400 46.4% e23,300 46.1%
Top 10% e73,400 36.3% e73,100 36.1% e70,800 35.0%
Top 1% e224,000 11.1% e214,000 10.6% e206,000 10.2%
Top 0.1% e692,000 3.4% e629,000 3.1% e603,000 3.0%
Top 0.01% e2,150,000 1.1% e1,850,000 0.9% e1,770,000 0.9%
Top 0.001% e6,710,000 0.3% e5,440,000 0.3% e5,210,000 0.3%
553

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.3.4
The distribution of national income growth in Latvia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%
Bottom 50% 0.2% 2.4% -0.1% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5%
Bottom 20% 0.0% 2.3% -0.6% 3.8% -0.5% 3.5%
Next 30% 0.2% 2.4% 0.1% 2.2% 0.1% 2.2%
Middle 40% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9%
Top 10% 2.1% 0.8% 2.3% 0.9% 2.3% 0.8%
Top 1% 3.4% 1.4% 3.7% 1.7% 3.7% 1.6%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.4 Lithuania

Figure A.4.4.1
Lithuania: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
28 Posttax income, per capita
554

26 Pretax income, broad equal-split

Pretax income, narrow equal-split
24
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18
16
14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.4.2
Lithuania: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38
36
34
32 Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

30
Posttax income, narrow equal-split
28 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
555

26
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
24
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18
16
14
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.4.3
Lithuania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

46
44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
556

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.4
Lithuania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
557

20
18
16
14
12
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.5
Lithuania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

46
44
42
40
38
Share of income (%)

36
34
32
30
558

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.6
Lithuania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
559

20
18
16
14
12
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.7
Lithuania: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
560

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.8
Lithuania: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
561

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.9
Lithuania: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
562

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.4.10
Lithuania: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

3
10

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

2
5
563

0
0

-5
-1

-10 -2

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.4.1
Lithuania: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 x
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993 x
1994 x
1995 x x x x x x
564

1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.4.2
Lithuania: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.2 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 78.1% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 2010–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 1.8 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2017; Milanovic for pretax income than posttax
survey 1998 (raw), 1994; income.
tabulations, and PovcalNet, 1988–1993;
harmonization Transmonee 2004,
using a machine 1998–2000; Transmonee
learning 2005, 2003; Transmonee
algorithm. 2011, 1996–2002); pretax
income (SILC, 2004–2017)

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.1 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2016 (corporate We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of stocks); EU-SILC, pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, 2006–2017 (imputed average, 29.3% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents rents); HBS, 2010 17.0% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock (consumption) account for 18.1% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.4 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.2 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.8 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

565
 Table A.4.4.3
The distribution of national income in Lithuania, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e25,900 100% e25,900 100% e25,900 100%
Bottom 50% e9,400 18.2% e9,200 17.7% e10,200 19.7%
Bottom 20% e4,800 3.7% e4,300 3.3% e5,700 4.4%
Next 30% e12,500 14.5% e12,400 14.4% e13,300 15.3%
Middle 40% e28,400 43.7% e28,000 43.2% e27,900 43.0%
Top 10% e98,700 38.1% e101,000 39.1% e96,700 37.3%
Top 1% e314,000 12.1% e338,000 13.1% e316,000 12.2%
Top 0.1% e996,000 3.8% e1,130,000 4.4% e1,040,000 4.0%
Top 0.01% e3,170,000 1.2% e3,780,000 1.5% e3,390,000 1.3%
Top 0.001% e10,060,000 0.4% e12,610,000 0.5% e11,090,000 0.4%
566

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.4.4
The distribution of national income growth in Lithuania, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 2.1%
Bottom 50% 0.6% 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 0.5% 1.7%
Bottom 20% -0.1% 2.0% -0.5% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4%
Next 30% 0.8% 1.5% 0.6% 1.4% 0.7% 1.5%
Middle 40% 1.4% 2.1% 1.4% 1.9% 1.4% 1.9%
Top 10% 3.0% 2.4% 3.2% 2.7% 3.2% 2.6%
Top 1% 4.6% 2.4% 5.1% 3.2% 5.0% 3.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.5 Malta

Figure A.4.5.1
Malta: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

26 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
567

Pretax income, broad equal-split

24 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

22 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.5.2
Malta: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38

36

34
Raw survey data series
32
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, broad equal-split

30 Posttax income, narrow equal-split
Pretax income, broad equal-split
568

28 Pretax income, narrow equal-split

26 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
24
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.5.3
Malta: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
569

26

24

22

20
06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.4
Malta: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24
570

22

20

18

16
06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.5
Malta: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
571

26

24

22

20
06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.6
Malta: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24
572

22

20

18

16
06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.7
Malta: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

45

40
Share of pretax income (%)

35

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
Social contributions
25 (excl. pension
and unemployment)
20 Corporate tax
573

Income and
15 wealth taxes

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.8
Malta: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
574

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.9
Malta: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
575

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.5.10
Malta: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 4
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

3
10
2

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

1
5
576

0
-1

-2
-5
-3

-10 -4

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.5.1
Malta: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980 x
1981 x
1982 x
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989 x
1990 x
1991 x
1992 x
1993 x
1994 x
1995 x
577

1996 x x
1997 x x
1998 x x
1999 x x
2000 x x x
2001 x x x
2002 x x x
2003 x x x
2004 x x x
2005 x x x
2006 x x x x x
2007 x x x x x
2008 x x x x x
2009 x x x x x
2010 x x x x x
2011 x x x x x
2012 x x x x x
2013 x x x x x
2014 x x x x x
2015 x x x x x
2016 x x x x x
2017 x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.5.2
Malta: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2006–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employer contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (EU-SILC, 2006–2017) compulsory levies that mandatory levies increases the top
contributions. pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
social insurance system 0.1 pp. on average.
can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 98.9% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. No estimation of pretax and
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income posttax income needed.
other survey sources, (SILC, 2006–2013; SILC,
sources. interpolation of 2006–2017); pretax
survey income (SILC, 2006–2013;
tabulations, and SILC, 2006–2017)
harmonization
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2016 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2013 average, 25.4% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 11.0% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 17.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.8 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.4 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.9 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 1.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.0 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

578
 Table A.4.5.3
The distribution of national income in Malta, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e32,300 100% e32,300 100% e32,300 100%
Bottom 50% e13,900 21.5% e13,700 21.2% e15,100 23.4%
Bottom 20% e7,400 4.6% e6,600 4.1% e8,600 5.3%
Next 30% e18,200 16.9% e18,400 17.1% e19,500 18.1%
Middle 40% e36,800 45.5% e37,600 46.6% e37,200 46.1%
Top 10% e106,000 33.0% e104,000 32.2% e98,500 30.5%
Top 1% e310,000 9.6% e256,000 7.9% e238,000 7.4%
Top 0.1% e919,000 2.8% e571,000 1.8% e529,000 1.6%
Top 0.01% e2,740,000 0.8% e1,230,000 0.4% e1,130,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e8,150,000 0.3% e2,590,000 0.1% e2,390,000 0.1%
579

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.5.4
The distribution of national income growth in Malta, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.6%
Bottom 50% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9%
Bottom 20% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 2.1% 2.3%
Next 30% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 2.0% 1.8%
Middle 40% 2.2% 2.0% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 2.0%
Top 10% 2.6% 3.9% 2.7% 4.3% 2.6% 4.2%
Top 1% 2.9% 6.3% 2.7% 6.2% 2.6% 6.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.6 Slovakia

Figure A.4.6.1
Slovakia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
26 Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

Posttax income, narrow equal-split

24 Posttax income, per capita
580

Pretax income, broad equal-split

22
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
20 Pretax income, per capita
Harmonized survey data series
18 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
16

14

12
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.6.2
Slovakia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

42
40
38
36 Raw survey data series
Posttax income, broad equal-split
Share of income (%)

34 Posttax income, narrow equal-split

32 Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, broad equal-split
581

30
Pretax income, narrow equal-split
28 Pretax income, per capita
26 Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
24 Posttax income, harmonized
22
20
18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.6.3
Slovakia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28

26

24
582

22

20

18

16
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.4
Slovakia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32
Share of income (%)

30

28

26
583

24

22

20

18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.5
Slovakia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
584

22
20
18
16
14
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.6
Slovakia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
585

26
24
22
20
18
80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.7
Slovakia: distribution of taxes
Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax income

35

30
Share of pretax income (%)

25
Consumption and
indirect taxes
20 Social contributions
(excl. pension
and unemployment)
15 Corporate tax
586

Income and
wealth taxes
10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Pretax income group

Notes. The figure represents total non-contributory taxes (that is, all taxes except social contributions financing the pension and
unemployment insurance systems) paid by pretax income group, expressed as a share of pretax income, over the 2007-2017 period. The
unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.8
Slovakia: distribution of taxes
Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population)

45

40

35
Share of factor income (%)

30 Consumption and
indirect taxes
25 Social contributions
Corporate tax
20
587

Income and
wealth taxes
15

10

0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Factor income group

Notes. The figure represents total taxes (including all direct and indirect taxes, as well as all social contributions) paid by factor income
group, expressed as a share of factor income, over the 2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged between 25
and 59. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.9
Slovakia: distribution of transfers

100
90
80
Share of posttax income (%)

Cash transfers
70 Family and
assistance
60 Unemployment
and disability
50 Pension
In-kind transfers
40
588

Health
30 Other (incl. collective
expenditures)
20
10
0
0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

5%

9%

1%
–2

–3

–4

–5

–6

–7

–8

–9

–9

–9

p
To
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

95

Posttax national income group

Notes. The figure represents the share of transfers received by posttax income group, expressed as a share of posttax income, over the
2007-2017 period. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.6.10
Slovakia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system
(a) Net redistribution (% of average pretax income) (b) Net redistribution (% of national income)

15 6
5
Gap between posttax and pretax income

Gap between posttax and pretax income

10
4

5 3

(% of national income)
(% of pretax income)

2
0
1
589

0
-5
-1
-10 -2
-3
-15
-4
-20 -5

Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10% Bottom 50% Middle 40% Top 10%

Notes. The figure represents the net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system between pretax income groups in 2017, expressed as a
share of pretax average income (panel a) and as a share of net national income (panel b). The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or
above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.6.1
Slovakia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1976 x
1977 x
1980 x
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985 x
1986
1987
1988 x
1989
1990
1991 x
1992 x x x
1993 x
590

1994 x
1995 x x x x x x
1996 x x x x x x x
1997 x x x x x x x
1998 x x x x x x x
1999 x x x x x x x
2000 x x x x x x x
2001 x x x x x x x
2002 x x x x x x x
2003 x x x x x x x
2004 x x x x x x x x
2005 x x x x x x
2006 x x x x x x
2007 x x x x x x x x
2008 x x x x x x x x
2009 x x x x x x x x
2010 x x x x x x x x
2011 x x x x x x x x
2012 x x x x x x x x
2013 x x x x x x x x
2014 x x x x x x x x
2015 x x x x x x x x
2016 x x x x x x x x
2017 x x x x x x x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.6.2
Slovakia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of EU-SILC (2004–2017) See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of Employee contributions See section 1.2.2. The The deduction of contributory
microdata. social (OECD, 2004–2017); compulsory levies that mandatory levies decreases the top
contributions. Employer contributions pay for the contributory 10% share of pretax income by
(OECD, 2004–2005, social insurance system 0.5 pp. on average.
EU-SILC, 2006–2017) can vary over time and
between countries. Here,
we estimate that, on
average, 79.8% of social
contributions are
contributory (i.e., pay for
pensions and
unemployment).

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (HBS, See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data 2010); posttax income from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, (LIS, 1992–2013; SILC, the top 10% share is 1.2 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 2004–2017; Atkinson and for pretax income than posttax
survey Micklewright 1992, CS, income.
tabulations, and 1976–1988; PovcalNet,
harmonization 1992–1996; Transmonee
using a machine 2004, 1998–2002;
learning Transmonee 2005, 2003;
algorithm. Transmonee 2011,
1996–2001; UN 1981, CS,
1977); pretax income
(SILC, 2004–2017;
Milanovic and Ying 1996,
CS, 1991–1992)

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.0 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.7 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and HFCS, 2010, 2014, 2017 We estimate that the top 10% of
Distribution of calibration of (corporate stocks); pretax income earners own, on
additional consumption, EU-SILC, 2006–2017 average, 19.5% of stocks, capture
income imputed rents (imputed rents); HBS, 14.7% of imputed rents, and
components. and stock 2010 (consumption) account for 19.0% of consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.0 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.5 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.8 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.9 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

591
 Table A.4.6.3
The distribution of national income in Slovakia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e23,200 100% e23,200 100% e23,200 100%
Bottom 50% e13,100 28.2% e13,900 30.0% e14,800 31.8%
Bottom 20% e7,400 6.4% e7,700 6.7% e9,200 7.9%
Next 30% e16,900 21.8% e18,000 23.3% e18,500 24.0%
Middle 40% e27,900 48.2% e28,000 48.4% e27,600 47.6%
Top 10% e54,800 23.6% e50,100 21.6% e47,600 20.5%
Top 1% e130,000 5.6% e100,000 4.3% e92,900 4.0%
Top 0.1% e368,000 1.6% e225,000 1.0% e206,000 0.9%
Top 0.01% e1,120,000 0.5% e535,000 0.2% e487,000 0.2%
Top 0.001% e3,530,000 0.2% e1,310,000 0.1% e1,190,000 0.1%
592

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.6.4
The distribution of national income growth in Slovakia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 2.1% 1.7% 2.1%
Bottom 50% 1.4% 3.3% 1.6% 3.6% 1.7% 3.5%
Bottom 20% 1.0% 4.4% 1.3% 5.5% 1.5% 4.8%
Next 30% 1.6% 3.0% 1.7% 3.2% 1.8% 3.1%
Middle 40% 1.7% 2.3% 1.7% 2.4% 1.7% 2.4%
Top 10% 1.9% 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%
Top 1% 2.7% 0.1% 2.2% -1.9% 2.1% -1.9%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.7 Albania

Figure A.4.7.1
Albania: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28 Raw survey data series

Consumption, per capita
26
593

24 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18

16
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.7.2
Albania: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

Raw survey data series

28
Consumption, per capita
26
594

24 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
22
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16

14
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.7.3
Albania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30
595

28

26

24

22
96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.7.4
Albania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20
596

18

16

14
96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.7.5
Albania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30
597

28

26

24

22
96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.7.6
Albania: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24

22
598

20

18

16

14
96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.7.1
Albania: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
599

1996 x
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002 x
2003
2004
2005 x
2006
2007
2008 x
2009
2010
2011
2012 x
2013
2014 x
2015 x
2016 x
2017 x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.7.2
Albania: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 1996–2017) entirely estimated from
other survey sources, consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of 10% share is 1.9 pp. higher for
survey posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and and 3.8 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization consumption.
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.6 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.2 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

600
 Table A.4.7.3
The distribution of national income in Albania, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e11,100 100% e11,100 100% e11,100 100%
Bottom 50% e4,300 19.3% e4,700 21.2% e5,200 23.4%
Bottom 20% e1,800 3.2% e2,100 3.8% e2,700 5.0%
Next 30% e6,000 16.1% e6,500 17.5% e6,800 18.4%
Middle 40% e12,900 46.7% e13,500 48.8% e13,300 48.2%
Top 10% e37,700 34.0% e33,200 30.0% e31,600 28.5%
Top 1% e100,000 9.1% e76,500 6.9% e71,200 6.4%
Top 0.1% e267,000 2.4% e176,000 1.6% e161,000 1.4%
Top 0.01% e711,000 0.6% e406,000 0.4% e362,000 0.3%
Top 0.001% e1,890,000 0.2% e936,000 0.1% e816,000 0.1%
601

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.7.4
The distribution of national income growth in Albania, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 1.4% 1.9% 1.4% 1.9% 1.4% 1.9%
Bottom 50% 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3%
Bottom 20% 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 1.9% 1.6% 1.9%
Next 30% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Middle 40% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.7% 1.3% 1.8%
Top 10% 1.8% 3.0% 1.7% 2.7% 1.7% 2.7%
Top 1% 2.2% 4.1% 2.1% 3.4% 2.0% 3.4%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.8 Bosnia and Herzegovina

Figure A.4.8.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28 Consumption, per capita

Pretax income, households
602

Pretax income, per capita

26

Harmonized survey data series

24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.8.2
Bosnia and Herzegovina: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28
Consumption, per capita
Pretax income, households
26
Pretax income, per capita
603

24
Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
22
Posttax income, harmonized
20

18

16
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.8.3
Bosnia and Herzegovina: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
604

26

24

22

20
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.8.4
Bosnia and Herzegovina: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24

22
605

20

18

16

14
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.8.5
Bosnia and Herzegovina: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
606

26
24
22
20
18
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.8.6
Bosnia and Herzegovina: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
Share of income (%)

28
26
24
607

22
20
18
16
14
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.8.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989
1990 x
1991
1992
1993
1994
608

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001 x
2002
2003
2004 x
2005
2006
2007 x
2008
2009
2010
2011 x
2012
2013
2014
2015 x
2016
2017
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.8.2
Bosnia and Herzegovina: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 2001–2015); pretax partially estimated from
other survey sources, income (Milanovic and consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of Ying 1996, YU, 10% share is 0.8 pp. higher for
survey 1983–1990; van Ginneken posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and and Park 1984, YU, 1978) and 3.1 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization consumption.
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.3 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.7 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

609
 Table A.4.8.3
The distribution of national income in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e11,400 100% e11,400 100% e11,400 100%
Bottom 50% e4,700 20.6% e5,300 23.3% e5,800 25.3%
Bottom 20% e2,100 3.6% e2,500 4.3% e3,100 5.5%
Next 30% e6,500 17.0% e7,200 19.0% e7,500 19.8%
Middle 40% e13,400 47.1% e13,800 48.5% e13,600 47.8%
Top 10% e36,900 32.3% e32,200 28.2% e30,700 26.9%
Top 1% e99,000 8.7% e72,600 6.4% e68,100 6.0%
Top 0.1% e287,000 2.5% e169,000 1.5% e157,000 1.4%
Top 0.01% e857,000 0.8% e396,000 0.3% e368,000 0.3%
Top 0.001% e2,580,000 0.2% e938,000 0.1% e868,000 0.1%
610

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.8.4
The distribution of national income growth in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 4.8% 1.8% 4.8% 1.8% 4.8% 1.8%
Bottom 50% 4.2% 1.8% 4.3% 2.1% 4.4% 2.1%
Bottom 20% 3.3% 1.1% 3.5% 2.6% 3.9% 2.4%
Next 30% 4.4% 2.0% 4.5% 2.0% 4.5% 2.0%
Middle 40% 4.7% 1.6% 4.8% 1.6% 4.8% 1.6%
Top 10% 5.4% 2.0% 5.2% 1.9% 5.2% 1.9%
Top 1% 6.0% 3.3% 5.1% 3.2% 5.1% 3.2%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.9 Kosovo

Figure A.4.9.1
Kosovo: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

28 Raw survey data series

Consumption, per capita
26
611

24 Harmonized survey data series

Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18

16
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.9.2
Kosovo: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36

34

32

30
Share of income (%)

Raw survey data series

28 Consumption, per capita
612

26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18

16
2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.9.3
Kosovo: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30
613

28

26

24

22
02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.9.4
Kosovo: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22
614

20

18

16

14
02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.9.5
Kosovo: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38

36

34
Share of income (%)

32

30

28
615

26

24

22

20
02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.9.6
Kosovo: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

32

30

28
Share of income (%)

26

24
616

22

20

18

16
02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.9.1
Kosovo: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
617

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 x
2004
2005 x
2006 x
2007
2008 x
2009 x
2010 x
2011 x
2012 x
2013 x
2014 x
2015 x
2016 x
2017 x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.9.2
Kosovo: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 2003–2017; WYD, 2008) entirely estimated from
other survey sources, consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of 10% share is 1.3 pp. higher for
survey posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and and 3.5 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization consumption.
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.2 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.9 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.7 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

618
 Table A.4.9.3
The distribution of national income in Kosovo, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e9,600 100% e9,600 100% e9,600 100%
Bottom 50% e4,200 21.8% e4,800 24.8% e5,100 26.7%
Bottom 20% e1,900 3.9% e2,300 4.8% e2,900 5.9%
Next 30% e5,700 17.9% e6,400 20.0% e6,700 20.8%
Middle 40% e11,300 46.8% e11,500 47.7% e11,300 47.1%
Top 10% e30,100 31.4% e26,400 27.5% e25,200 26.2%
Top 1% e83,000 8.6% e64,300 6.7% e60,200 6.3%
Top 0.1% e241,000 2.5% e169,000 1.8% e157,000 1.6%
Top 0.01% e717,000 0.7% e459,000 0.5% e426,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e2,140,000 0.2% e1,260,000 0.1% e1,170,000 0.1%
619

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.9.4
The distribution of national income growth in Kosovo, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Bottom 50% 2.4% 2.6% 2.5%
Bottom 20% 2.8% 3.5% 3.1%
Next 30% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%
Middle 40% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%
Top 10% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1%
Top 1% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.10 North Macedonia

Figure A.4.10.1
North Macedonia: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

34

32

30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28 Posttax income, per capita

Pretax income, households
620

Pretax income, per capita

26

Harmonized survey data series

24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.10.2
North Macedonia: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32

30

28
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

26
Posttax income, per capita
Pretax income, households
24
Pretax income, per capita
621

22
Harmonized survey data series
Pretax income, harmonized
20
Posttax income, harmonized
18

16

14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.10.3
North Macedonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
622

26
24
22
20
18
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.10.4
North Macedonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

30

28

26
Share of income (%)

24

22

20
623

18

16

14

12
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.10.5
North Macedonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
624

26
24
22
20
18
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.10.6
North Macedonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
625

20
18
16
14
12
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.10.1
North Macedonia: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989
1990 x
1991
1992
1993
1994
626

1995 x
1996 x
1997 x
1998
1999 x
2000 x
2001 x
2002 x
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 x
2011 x
2012 x
2013 x
2014 x
2015 x
2016 x
2017 x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.10.2
North Macedonia: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of posttax income See section 1.3. Pretax income partially estimated
Harmonization of other data (PovcalNet, 2010–2017; from posttax income. On average,
other survey sources, Transmonee 2004, the top 10% share is 1.9 pp. higher
sources. interpolation of 1999–2000; Transmonee for pretax income than posttax
survey 2011, 1995–2002); pretax income.
tabulations, and income (Milanovic and
harmonization Ying 1996, YU,
using a machine 1983–1990; van Ginneken
learning and Park 1984, YU, 1978)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.1 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 0.9 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.7 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

627
 Table A.4.10.3
The distribution of national income in North Macedonia, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e11,800 100% e11,800 100% e11,800 100%
Bottom 50% e5,000 20.9% e5,800 24.4% e6,200 26.3%
Bottom 20% e1,900 3.2% e2,600 4.4% e3,300 5.5%
Next 30% e7,000 17.7% e7,900 20.1% e8,200 20.8%
Middle 40% e14,400 48.6% e14,600 49.3% e14,400 48.6%
Top 10% e36,200 30.5% e31,200 26.3% e29,800 25.1%
Top 1% e94,000 7.9% e72,000 6.1% e67,600 5.7%
Top 0.1% e264,000 2.2% e181,000 1.5% e168,000 1.4%
Top 0.01% e766,000 0.6% e471,000 0.4% e437,000 0.4%
Top 0.001% e2,250,000 0.2% e1,240,000 0.1% e1,150,000 0.1%
628

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.10.4
The distribution of national income growth in North Macedonia, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population -0.2% 1.9% -0.2% 1.9% -0.2% 1.9%
Bottom 50% -0.8% 3.3% -0.6% 3.5% -0.5% 3.2%
Bottom 20% -2.0% 6.6% -1.4% 8.0% -1.1% 5.7%
Next 30% -0.5% 2.8% -0.4% 2.8% -0.3% 2.7%
Middle 40% -0.2% 1.4% -0.2% 1.4% -0.2% 1.4%
Top 10% 0.2% 1.8% 0.0% 1.4% -0.1% 1.5%
Top 1% 0.6% 3.8% 0.0% 3.1% -0.1% 3.1%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.11 Moldova

Figure A.4.11.1
Moldova: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32

30 Raw survey data series

Share of income (%)

Consumption, per capita

28
Pretax income, per capita
629

26
Harmonized survey data series
24
Pretax income, harmonized
22 Posttax income, harmonized

20

18

16
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.11.2
Moldova: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

38
36
34
32
30 Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28 Consumption, per capita

Pretax income, per capita
26
630

24
Harmonized survey data series
22 Pretax income, harmonized
20 Posttax income, harmonized

18
16
14
12
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.11.3
Moldova: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
631

28
26
24
22
20
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.11.4
Moldova: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
632

20
18
16
14
12
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.11.5
Moldova: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

40
38
36
34
Share of income (%)

32
30
28
633

26
24
22
20
18
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.11.6
Moldova: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

34
32
30
28
Share of income (%)

26
24
22
634

20
18
16
14
12
88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.11.1
Moldova: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988 x
1989
1990
1991 x
1992 x
1993 x x
1994 x
1995 x
635

1996 x
1997 x x
1998 x x
1999 x
2000 x x
2001 x x
2002 x x
2003 x x
2004 x x
2005 x x
2006 x x
2007 x x
2008 x x
2009 x x
2010 x x
2011 x x
2012 x x
2013 x x
2014 x x
2015 x x
2016 x x
2017 x x
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.11.2
Moldova: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 1997–2018); pretax partially estimated from
other survey sources, income (Milanovic 1998, consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of 1993; Milanovic 1998 10% share is 1.2 pp. higher for
survey (raw), 1988–1993) posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and and 2.5 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization consumption.
using a machine
learning
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.1 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 1.1 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.5 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.4 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 0.9 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

636
 Table A.4.11.3
The distribution of national income in Moldova, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e5,400 100% e5,400 100% e5,400 100%
Bottom 50% e2,300 21.2% e2,600 23.7% e2,700 25.3%
Bottom 20% e900 3.4% e1,200 4.3% e1,400 5.3%
Next 30% e3,200 17.8% e3,500 19.4% e3,600 20.0%
Middle 40% e6,200 46.2% e6,400 47.7% e6,400 47.2%
Top 10% e17,600 32.6% e15,400 28.6% e14,800 27.5%
Top 1% e53,800 10.0% e42,500 7.9% e40,200 7.5%
Top 0.1% e181,000 3.4% e135,000 2.5% e127,000 2.4%
Top 0.01% e631,000 1.2% e450,000 0.8% e422,000 0.8%
Top 0.001% e2,220,000 0.4% e1,520,000 0.3% e1,430,000 0.3%
637

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.11.4
The distribution of national income growth in Moldova, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population -0.7% 2.7% -0.7% 2.7% -0.7% 2.7%
Bottom 50% -1.3% 3.7% -1.2% 3.8% -1.1% 3.8%
Bottom 20% -1.7% 2.9% -1.3% 4.1% -1.1% 4.1%
Next 30% -1.2% 3.9% -1.1% 3.8% -1.1% 3.7%
Middle 40% -0.8% 2.6% -0.7% 2.7% -0.8% 2.6%
Top 10% 0.0% 2.2% -0.2% 1.9% -0.3% 1.8%
Top 1% 0.8% 3.7% 0.4% 3.4% 0.3% 3.3%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 4.12 Montenegro

Figure A.4.12.1
Montenegro: harmonization of survey data
Top 10% pretax income share

36

34

32
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

30 Consumption, per capita

Posttax income, per capita
28
638

Pretax income, households

Pretax income, per capita
26
Harmonized survey data series
24 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
22

20

18
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.12.2
Montenegro: harmonization of survey data
Bottom 50% pretax income share

36
34
32
30
Raw survey data series
Share of income (%)

28 Consumption, per capita

Posttax income, per capita
26
Pretax income, households
639

24 Pretax income, per capita

22
Harmonized survey data series
20 Pretax income, harmonized
Posttax income, harmonized
18
16
14
12
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Notes. The figure shows how raw survey data sources covering different income concepts and equivalence scales are converted to a single harmonized
pretax income and posttax income survey data series, where income is split equally among couples (narrow equal-split).
 Figure A.4.12.3
Montenegro: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
640

28
26
24
22
20
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Top 10% (raw surveys) Top 10% (tax & surveys) Top 10% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.12.4
Montenegro: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share

28

26

24
Share of income (%)

22

20

18
641

16

14

12

10
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Bottom 50% (raw surveys) Bottom 50% (tax & surveys) Bottom 50% (DINA)

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.12.5
Montenegro: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share

40
38
36
Share of income (%)

34
32
30
642

28
26
24
22
20
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Figure A.4.12.6
Montenegro: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share

30
28
26
Share of income (%)

24
22
20
643

18
16
14
12
10
82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

00

02

04

06

08

10

12

14

16

18
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
 Table A.4.12.1
Montenegro: data sources available by year

Survey Survey Tax Retained of which: Imputed Taxes on Corporate Health

Year tabulation microdata data earnings households’ share rents products income tax expenditures
1978 x
1980
1981
1982
1983 x
1984 x
1985 x
1986 x
1987 x
1988 x
1989
1990 x
1991
1992
1993
1994
644

1995
1996
1997 x
1998 x
1999
2000
2001 x
2002
2003
2004
2005 x
2006 x
2007 x
2008 x
2009 x
2010
2011 x
2012 x
2013 x
2014 x
2015 x
2016
2017
Notes. The table shows the years for which surveys, tax data and key national accounts aggregates are available.
 Table A.4.12.2
Montenegro: impact of the different methodological steps
Methodological Detailed Sources and Coverage Detailed Methodology Discussion /
Step Steps Impact

Step 1: Construction of See section 1.2.1.

Estimation of pretax and
survey pretax post-tax income
and post-tax variables.
distributions
using survey Imputation of See section 1.2.2.
microdata. social
contributions.

Step 2: Collection of Consumption (PovcalNet, See section 1.3. Pretax and posttax incomes
Harmonization of other data 2005–2014); posttax partially estimated from
other survey sources, income (PovcalNet, consumption. On average, the top
sources. interpolation of 2012–2015; Transmonee 10% share is 2.7 pp. higher for
survey 2004, RS-ME, 1997–2001); posttax income than consumption
tabulations, and pretax income (Milanovic and 4.6 pp. for pretax income than
harmonization and Ying 1996, YU, consumption.
using a machine 1983–1990; van Ginneken
learning and Park 1984, YU, 1978)
algorithm.

Step 3: Calibration of Since no tax data is See section 1.4.2.

Calibration of survey microdata available in this country,
survey sources on using the top we use the average
the tax data. share series. nonresponse profile of
other countries.

Application of See section 1.4.3. After corrections using tax data,

the correction to the top 1% share of pretax income
all survey is 1.4 pp. higher than in the raw
distributions. survey. The top 1% share of
posttax income is 1.0 pp. higher
than in the raw survey.

Step 4: Estimation and Due to lack of data, we NA

Distribution of calibration of use the average European
additional consumption, distribution for corporate
income imputed rents stocks, imputed rents and
components. and stock consumption.
ownership.

Missing incomes See section 1.5. Undistributed corporate profits

matched increase the top 10% share of
statistically to income by 0.6 pp. on average;
calibrated survey Imputed rents decrease the top
distributions. 10% share of income by 0.3 pp. on
average; The corporate tax
increase the top 10% share of
pretax income by 0.5 pp. on
average; Taxes on products
increase the top 10% share of
posttax income by 0.3 pp. on
average; Government final
expenditures decrease the top 10%
share of posttax income by 1.1 pp.
on average
Notes: The table describes the impact of the different methodological steps on our series. Statistics in the table refer to averages over the
entire available data period.

645
 Table A.4.12.3
The distribution of national income in Montenegro, 2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

Average income Income share Average income Income share Average income Income share
Full population e17,400 100% e17,400 100% e17,400 100%
Bottom 50% e5,500 15.7% e5,800 16.7% e6,700 19.2%
Bottom 20% e1,600 1.8% e1,100 1.3% e2,300 2.7%
Next 30% e8,100 13.9% e9,000 15.4% e9,600 16.5%
Middle 40% e21,000 48.1% e21,800 50.0% e21,500 49.3%
Top 10% e63,000 36.2% e57,900 33.2% e54,900 31.5%
Top 1% e177,000 10.1% e143,000 8.2% e134,000 7.7%
Top 0.1% e519,000 3.0% e362,000 2.1% e337,000 1.9%
Top 0.01% e1,550,000 0.9% e928,000 0.5% e861,000 0.5%
Top 0.001% e4,640,000 0.3% e2,390,000 0.1% e2,210,000 0.1%
646

Notes. Figures are reported in 2017 PPP euros. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among
spouses.

Table A.4.12.4
The distribution of national income growth in Montenegro, 1980-2017

Pretax national income Posttax disposable income Posttax national income

1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017 1980-2017 2007-2017
Full population -0.6% 1.6% -0.6% 1.6% -0.6% 1.6%
Bottom 50% -1.6% -0.4% -1.6% -0.3% -1.4% 0.1%
Bottom 20% -2.9% -3.3% -3.9% -5.6% -2.4% -2.4%
Next 30% -1.4% 0.0% -1.3% 0.4% -1.2% 0.5%
Middle 40% -0.6% 1.7% -0.6% 1.8% -0.6% 1.8%
Top 10% 0.2% 2.6% 0.1% 2.5% 0.1% 2.5%
Top 1% 0.8% 3.3% 0.6% 4.7% 0.5% 4.7%
Notes. The unit of observation is the adult individual aged 20 or above. Income is split equally among spouses.
5 References
Aaberge, R. and A. B. Atkinson (2010). “Top incomes in Norway”. In: Top incomes: a global
perspective. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson and Thomas Piketty. Dataset. Oxford University Press.
Chap. 9, pp. 448–481.
Altzinger, W., C. Berka, S. Humer, and M. Moser (2010). “The Evolution of Income Concentration
in Austria: Investigating the Development of Top Income Shares”. Dataset.
Alvaredo, Facundo (2009). “Top incomes and earnings in Portugal 1936-2005”. In: Explorations in
Economic History 46.1. Dataset, pp. 404–417.
Alvaredo, Facundo and Elena Pisano (2010). “Top incomes in Italy, 1974-2004”. In: Top incomes: a
global perspective. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson and Thomas Piketty. Dataset. Oxford University Press.
Chap. 12, pp. 625–663.
Alvaredo, Facundo and Emmanuel Saez (2010). “Income and wealth concentration in Spain in a
historical and fiscal perspective”. In: Top incomes: a global perspective. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson
and Thomas Piketty. Dataset. Oxford University Press. Chap. 10, pp. 482–559.
Atkinson, A. B. and Thomas Piketty (2007). Top incomes over the twentieth century: a contrast
between continental European and English-speaking countries. Oxford University Press, p. 585.
isbn: 9780199286881. url: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/top-incomes-over-
the-twentieth-century-9780199286881?lang=en&cc=fr.
Atkinson, A.B. and J.E. Søgaard (2013). “The long-run history of income inequality in Denmark:
Top incomes from 1870 to 2010”. In: EPRU Working Paper Series 2013-01. Dataset.
Auten, Gerald and David Splinter (2019). “Income inequality in the United States: Using tax data
to measure long-term trends”. In: Working Paper.
Barro, Robert and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1992). “Convergence”. In: Journal of Political Economy
100.2, pp. 223–251.
Bartels, Charlotte (2017). “Top incomes in Germany, 1871-2013”. In: WID.world Working Paper
Series 2017/18. Dataset.
Blanchet, Thomas, Ignacio Flores, and Marc Morgan (2018). “The Weight of the Rich: Improving
Surveys Using Tax Data”.
Blanchet, Thomas, Juliette Fournier, and Thomas Piketty (Apr. 16, 2021). “Generalized Pareto
Curves: Theory and Applications”. In: Review of Income and Wealth, roiw.12510. issn: 0034-6586,
1475-4991. doi: 10.1111/roiw.12510. url: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1111/roiw.12510 (visited on 06/07/2021).
Bolt, Jutta and Jan Luiten van Zanden (2020). Maddison Project Database, version 2020. url: https:
/ / www . rug . nl / ggdc / historicaldevelopment / maddison / releases / maddison - project -
database-2020?lang=en.
Bukowski, Pawel and Filip Novokmet (2017a). “Inequality in Poland: Estimating the whole dis-
tribution by g-percentile, 1983-2015”. Dataset. url: https://wid.world/document/bukowski-
novokmet-poland-1983-2015-wid-world-working-paper-2017-21/.

647
Bukowski, Pawel and Filip Novokmet (2017b). “Top incomes during wars, communism and capitalism:
Poland 1892-2015”. In: WID.world Working Paper Series 2017/22. Dataset.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2018). Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State. Accessed on
July 24th, 2018. url: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state.
Canberra Group (2011). Canberra Group Handbook on Household Income Statistics, Second Edition.
Geneva. url: https : / / unstats . un . org / unsd / EconStatKB / KnowledgebaseArticle10347 .
aspx.
Chen, Tianqi and Carlos Guestrin (2016). “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System”. url:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.
Chrissis, Kostas and Franciscos Koutentakis (2017). “From dictatorship to crisis: the evolution of
top income shares in Greece (1967-2013)”. In: Working Paper. Dataset.
Conseil Economique et Social (2015). Analyse des données fiscales au Luxembourg, 2015. Tech. rep.
url: https://ces.public.lu/dam-assets/fr/avis/prix-salaires/2015-fiscalite.pdf.
– (2018). Analyse des données fiscales au Luxembourg, 2018. Tech. rep. url: https://ces.public.
lu/dam-assets/fr/avis/prix-salaires/Avis-Fiscalite-2018-221118-VF.pdf.
Cook, R. Dennis and Sanford Weisberg (Nov. 1980). “Characterizations of an Empirical Influence
Function for Detecting Influential Cases in Regression”. In: Technometrics 22.4, pp. 495–508. issn:
0040-1706, 1537-2723. doi: 10.1080/00401706.1980.10486199. url: http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/00401706.1980.10486199 (visited on 06/07/2021).
Decoster, André, Koen Dobbeleer, and Sebastiaan Maes (2017). “Using fiscal data to estimate the
evolution of top income shares in Belgium from 1990 to 2013”. In: Ku Leuven Discussion Paper
Series DPS17.18. Dataset.
Deville, Jean-Claude and Carl-Erik Särndal (1992). “Calibration Estimators in Survey Sampling”.
In: Journal of the American Statistical Association 87.418, pp. 376–382. doi: 10.1080/01621459.
1992.10475217.
Eurostat (2020a). Expenditure on social protection. Accessed on July 20th, 2020. url: https :
//ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00098/default/table?lang=en.
– (2020b). Non-financial transactions. Accessed on July 8th, 2020. url: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/databrowser/view/nasa_10_ki/default/table?lang=en.
– (2021a). General government expenditure by function (COFOG). Accessed on February 12th, 2021.
url: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/gov_10a_exp/default/table?
lang=en.
– (2021b). Income quintile share ratio (S80/S20). Accessed on September 29th, 2020. url: https:
//ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tessi180/default/table?lang=en.
Fang, Yixin (2011). “Asymptotic Equivalence between Cross-Validations and Akaike Information
Criteria in Mixed-Effects Models”. In: Journal of Data Science 9, pp. 15–21.
Ferreira, Ana and Laurens de Haan (2006). Extreme Value Theory: An Introduction. Springer Series
in Operations Research. Springer.

648
Foellmi, Reto and Isabel Z. Martı́nez (2017). “Volatile top income shares in Switzerland? Reassessing
the evolution between 1981 and 2010”. In: Review of Economics and Statistics 99.5. Dataset,
pp. 793–809.
Friedman, Jerome H. (2001). “Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine”. In:
The Annals of Statistics 29.5, pp. 1189–1232. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2699986.
Garbinti, B, J Goupille-Lebret, and T Piketty (2018). “Income inequality in France, 1900–2014:
Evidence from Distributional National Accounts (DINA)”. In: Journal of Public Economics 162.1.
Dataset, pp. 63–77.
Hosking, J R M and J R Wallis (1987). “Parameter and Quantile Estimation for the Generalized
Pareto Distribution”. In: Technometrics 29.3, pp. 339–349. issn: 0040-1706. doi: 10 . 1080 /
00401706.1987.10488243. url: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00401706.
1987.10488243.
Jäntti, M., M. Riihelä, R. Sullström, and M. Tuomala (2007). “Long-term trends in top income
shares in Ireland”. In: Top incomes over the 20th century. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson and Thomas
Piketty. Dataset. Oxford University Press. Chap. 12, pp. 501–530.
– (2010). “Trends in top income shares in Finland”. In: Top incomes: a global perspective. Ed. by
A.B. Atkinson and Thomas Piketty. Dataset. Oxford University Press. Chap. 8, pp. 371–447.
Kleven, Henrik, Camille Landais, Mathilde Muñoz, and Stefanie Stantcheva (2020). “Taxation and
Migration: Evidence and Policy Implications”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 34.2. Dataset,
pp. 119–42. doi: 10.1257/jep.34.2.119. url: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.
1257/jep.34.2.119.
Kleven, Henrik Jacobsen, Camille Landais, and Emmanuel Saez (2013). “Taxation and International
Migration of Superstars: Evidence from the European Football Market”. In: American Economic
Review 103.5. Dataset, pp. 1892–1924. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.5.1892. url: https://www.
aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.5.1892.
Kump, Nataša and Filip Novokmet (2018). “Top incomes in Croatia and Slovenia, from 1960s until
today”. In: WID.world Working Paper Series 2018/8. Dataset.
Langel, Matti and Yves Tillé (2011). “Statistical inference for the quintile share ratio”. In: Journal
of Statistical Planning and Inference 141.8, pp. 2976–2985. issn: 03783758. doi: 10.1016/j.jspi.
2011.03.023.
Lesage, Éric (2009). “Calage non linéaire”.
Matsaganis, Manos and Maria Flevotomou (2010). “Distributional implications of tax evasion in
Greece”.
Mavridis, Dimitris and Pálma Mosberger (2017). “Income inequality and incentives: the quasi-natural
experiment of Hungary, 1914-2008”. In: WID.world Working Paper Series 2017/17. Dataset.
Milanović, Branko (1998). Income, inequality, and poverty during the transition from planned to
market economy. World Bank regional and sectoral studies. Washington, D.C: World Bank. 237 pp.
isbn: 978-0-8213-3994-7.

649
National Cancer Institute (2017). U.S. Population Data - 1969-2017. Accessed on November 6th,
2017. url: https://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/.
Nielsen, Didrik (2016). Tree Boosting With XGBoost Why Does XGBoost Win ”Every” Machine
Learning Competition? Tech. rep. December, p. 2016. url: https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/
bitstream/handle/11250/2433761/16128_FULLTEXT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Norges Bank (2018). Total holdings sorted by country (Equities). Accessed on December 5th, 2018.
url: https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/investments/#/.
Novokmet, Filip (2018). “The long-run evolution of inequality in the Czech lands, 1898-2015”. In:
WID.world Working Paper Series 2018/6. Dataset. url: https://wid.world/document/7736/.
Oancea, B., T. Andrei, and D. Pirjol (2017). “Income inequality in Romania: The exponential-Pareto
distribution”. In: Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 469.1, pp. 486–498.
OECD (2020a). 14A. Non-financial accounts by sectors. Accessed on September 21st, 2020. url:
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE14A.
– (2020b). 41. Use, Value added and its components, GFCF and assets by activity. Accessed on July
22nd, 2020. url: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE41.
– (2020c). Social Expenditure - Aggregated data. Accessed on July 22nd, 2020. url: https://stats.
oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG.
– (2021a). 11. Government expenditure by function (COFOG). Accessed on February 17th, 2021.
url: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11.
– (2021b). 720. Financial balance sheets - non consolidated. Accessed on February 10th, 2021. url:
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE720R.
– (2021c). Funded Pensions Indicators. Accessed on May 3rd, 2021. url: https://stats.oecd.
org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PNNI_NEW.
– (2021d). Health expenditure and financing. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. url: https://
stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA.
– (2021e). The OECD Tax Database. url: https : / / www . oecd . org / tax / tax - policy / tax -
database/.
Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Stefanie Stantcheva (2014). “Optimal Taxation of Top Labor
Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities”. In: American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6.1.
Dataset, pp. 230–71. doi: 10.1257/pol.6.1.230. url: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?
id=10.1257/pol.6.1.230.
Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman (2018). “Distributional National Accounts:
Methods and Estimates for the United States”. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics 133.2, pp. 553–
609.
Roine, Jesper, Jonas Vlachos, and Daniel Waldenström (2009). “The long-run determinants of
inequality: What can we learn from top income data?” In: Journal of Public Economics 93.7.
Dataset, pp. 974–988. issn: 0047-2727. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.04.
003. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272709000383.

650
Roine, Jesper and Daniel Waldenström (2010). “Top incomes in Sweden over the twentieth century”.
In: Top incomes: a global perspective. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson and Thomas Piketty. Dataset. Oxford
University Press. Chap. 7, pp. 299–370.
Roodman, David, Morten Ørregaard Nielsen, James G. MacKinnon, and Matthew D. Webb (Mar.
2019). “Fast and wild: Bootstrap inference in Stata using boottest”. en. In: The Stata Journal:
Promoting communications on statistics and Stata 19.1, pp. 4–60. issn: 1536-867X, 1536-8734.
doi: 10 . 1177 / 1536867X19830877. url: http : / / journals . sagepub . com / doi / 10 . 1177 /
1536867X19830877 (visited on 06/04/2021).
Salverda, W. and A. B. Atkinson (2007). “Top incomes in the Netherlands over the twentieth
century”. In: Top incomes over the 20th century. Ed. by A. B. Atkinson and Thomas Piketty.
Dataset. Oxford University Press. Chap. 10, pp. 426–471.
Serbia and Montenegro Ministry of Social Affairs (2002). Living Standards Measurement Survey.
url: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/81.
– (2003). Living Standards Measurement Survey. url: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.
php/catalog/2291.
– (2007). Living Standards Measurement Survey. url: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.
php/catalog/80.
Staatliche Zentralverwaltung für Statistik (SZS) (1990). Statistisches Jahrbuch der deutschen
Demokratischen Republik. url: http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514402644.
State Institute of Statistics of Prime Ministry of Turkey (2000). Kosovo Living Standards Measure-
ment Survey (LSMS). url: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/77.
Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (2021). Income Tax Statistics.
Statistics Iceland (2020). Distribution of total income by sex and age 1990-2020. url: {https:
//px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__launogtekjur__3_tekjur__1_
tekjur_skattframtol/TEK01006.px}.
Tax and Customs Board (2020). Estonian Tax Statistics. url: https : / / www . emta . ee / et /
kontaktid-ja-ametist/uudised-pressiinfo/pressimaterjalid.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019). World Marriage Data. url:
https://population.un.org/MarriageData/Index.html#/home.
United Nations Population Division (2019). Database on Household Size and Composition 2019.
Accessed on July 27th, 2020. url: https : / / www . un . org / development / desa / pd / data /
household-size-and-composition.
United Nations Statistics Division (2020). National Accounts Official Country Data. Accessed on
July 9th, 2020. url: http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=SNA#f_1.
World Bank. Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS). url: https://microdata.worldbank.
org/index.php/catalog/lsms.
– (2020a). Gross savings (% of GDP). Accessed on July 27th, 2020. url: https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/NY.GNS.ICTR.ZS.

651
World Bank (2020b). Tax revenue (% of GDP). Accessed on July 28th, 2020. url: https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS.
– (2020c). Taxes on income, profits and capital gains (% of revenue). Accessed on July 28th, 2020.
url: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.YPKG.RV.ZS.
– (2021). PovcalNet. url: http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/home.aspx.
World Inequality Lab (2021). World Inequality Database. url: https://wid.world/.

652
6 List of Figures
A.1.7.1 Top 10% income share in Estonia: survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey 19
A.1.7.2 Top 10% income share in Italy: survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey . 21
A.1.7.3 Top 10% income share in Luxembourg: survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected
survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.1.7.4 Top 10% income share in Portugal: survey data vs. tax data vs. corrected survey 23
A.1.7.5 Top Marginal Tax Rate and Inequality in Europe: Time Series . . . . . . . . . 25
A.1.7.6 Top Marginal Tax Rate and Inequality in Europe: Cross-country Evidence . . . 25
A.2.1.1 Level and composition of capital income in Europe, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.2.1.2 Level and composition of government final expenditures in Europe, 1980–2017 . 28
A.2.1.3 Average regional incomes per adult relative to European-wide average, 1980-2017 29
A.2.1.4 The level and composition of taxes in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017 30
A.2.1.5 The level and composition of taxes in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017
(non-contributory taxes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.2.1.6 The level and composition of transfers in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017 32
A.2.1.7 Average posttax income quintile share ratio in the European Union: Eurostat
vs. posttax disposable income vs. posttax national income . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.2.1.8 Posttax income quintile share ratio in Europe: DINA vs. Eurostat . . . . . . . 34
A.2.1.9 Comparison of our Results with Other DINA Studies in France: Bottom 50%
Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.2.1.10 From surveys to DINA: top 10% pretax income share by country, 2017 . . . . . 36
A.2.1.11 From surveys to DINA: percentage point change in estimated top 10% pretax
income share by country, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.2.1.12 From surveys to DINA: top 1% pretax income share by country, 2017 . . . . . . 38
A.2.1.13 From surveys to DINA: percentage point change in estimated top 1% pretax
income share by country, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.2.1.14 Robustness Check: Exclusion of Countries with Imputed Nonresponse instead
of Tax Data (pretax income inequality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.2.1.15 Robustness Check: Exclusion of Countries with Imputed Nonresponse instead
of Tax Data (posttax income inequality) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.2.1.16 Pretax income shares in Europe: distribution of taxes on products . . . . . . . 42
A.2.1.17 Pretax income shares in Europe: broad equal-split vs. narrow equal-split . . . . 43
A.2.1.18 Top 1% income share in Europe and the United States: comparison of estimates 44
A.2.2.1 Average annual pretax income growth by percentile in Europe and the United
States, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.2.2.2 Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Western Europe . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.2.2.3 Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Northern Europe . . . . . . . . . . 47
A.2.2.4 Cumulated growth by pretax income group: Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.2.2.5 Cumulated growth by pretax income group: United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

653
A.2.2.6 Top 10% pretax income share in Europe: Geographical decomposition . . . . . 50
A.2.2.7 Bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe: counterfactual decomposition . . . 51
A.2.2.8 Top 10% pretax income share by country: Western Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A.2.2.9 Top 10% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A.2.2.10 Top 10% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A.2.2.11 Top 1% pretax income share by country: Western Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
A.2.2.12 Top 1% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A.2.2.13 Top 1% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A.2.2.14 Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Western Europe . . . . . . . . . 58
A.2.2.15 Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Northern Europe . . . . . . . . . 59
A.2.2.16 Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . 60
A.2.2.17 Top 10% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A.2.2.18 Top 1% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
A.2.2.19 Bottom 50% pretax income share by country: 1980 versus 2017 . . . . . . . . . 63
A.2.2.20 Change in top 10% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 64
A.2.2.21 Change in top 1% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . 65
A.2.2.22 Change in top 50% pretax income share by country, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 66
A.2.2.23 Average national incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . 67
A.2.2.24 Average national incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017 . . . . . . . . 68
A.2.2.25 Average bottom 50% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980 . . 69
A.2.2.26 Average bottom 50% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017 . . 70
A.2.2.27 Average top 10% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 1980 . . . . 71
A.2.2.28 Average top 10% pretax incomes in Europe and the United States, 2017 . . . . 72
A.2.3.1 Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-age population) in Europe
and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A.2.3.2 Effective tax rate of the top 10% by country (non-contributory taxes, % of
pretax income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.2.3.3 Effective tax rate of the bottom 50% by country (non-contributory taxes, % of
pretax income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
A.2.3.4 Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% effective tax rates by country (non-contributory
taxes, % of pretax income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.2.3.5 Effective tax rate of the top 10% by country (all taxes, % of factor income,
working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A.2.3.6 Effective tax rate of the bottom 50% by country (all taxes, % of factor income,
working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
A.2.3.7 Ratio of top 10% to bottom 50% effective tax rates by country (all taxes, % of
factor income, working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
A.2.4.1 Total transfers received by the bottom 50% by country (% of posttax income) . 80
A.2.4.2 Total transfers received by the middle 40% by country (% of posttax income) . 81

654
A.2.5.1 Top 1% and Bottom 50% posttax income shares in Europe and the US . . . . . 82
A.2.5.2 Average annual posttax income growth by percentile, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 83
A.2.5.3 Bottom 50% incomes in Europe, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A.2.5.4 Bottom 50% and Top 10% real incomes in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . 85
A.2.5.5 Middle 40% and Bottom 20% incomes in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . 86
A.2.5.6 Redistribution in Europe and the United States, 1980-2017: Ratio of top 10%
to bottom 50% average incomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A.2.5.7 Net redistribution in Europe and the US (% of pretax income) . . . . . . . . . 88
A.2.5.8 Net redistribution in Europe and the US (decomposing the bottom 50%) . . . . 89
A.2.5.9 Top 10% and bottom 50% posttax income shares in Europe and the United
States: lump-sum vs. proportional allocation of collective expenditure . . . . . 90
A.2.5.10 Net redistribution (% of group average income): lump-sum vs. proportional
allocation of collective expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A.2.5.11 Net redistribution (% of national income): lump-sum vs. proportional allocation
of collective expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A.2.5.12 Bottom 50% factor income share, working-age population, Europe vs. US,
2007-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
A.2.5.13 Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country (% of national income) . . 94
A.2.5.14 Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country (% of national income) . . 95
A.2.5.15 Net transfer received by the top 10% by country (% of national income) . . . . 96
A.2.5.16 Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country (% of pretax income) . . . 97
A.2.5.17 Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country (% of pretax income) . . . 98
A.2.5.18 Net transfer received by the top 10% by country (% of pretax income) . . . . . 99
A.2.5.19 Net transfer received by the bottom 50% by country (% of national income,
lump sum allocation of collective expenditure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
A.2.5.20 Net transfer received by the middle 40% by country (% of national income, lump
sum allocation of collective expenditure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
A.2.5.21 Net transfer received by the top 10% by country (% of national income, lump
sum allocation of collective expenditure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
A.2.6.22 Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
A.2.6.23 Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
A.2.6.24 Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
A.2.6.25 Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
A.2.6.26 Map of top 10% pretax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
A.2.6.27 Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
A.2.6.28 Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
A.2.6.29 Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A.2.6.30 Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
A.2.6.31 Map of top 10% posttax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

655
A.2.6.32 Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A.2.6.33 Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
A.2.6.34 Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
A.2.6.35 Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A.2.6.36 Map of top 1% pretax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
A.2.6.37 Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
A.2.6.38 Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
A.2.6.39 Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
A.2.6.40 Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
A.2.6.41 Map of top 1% posttax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
A.2.6.42 Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
A.2.6.43 Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
A.2.6.44 Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
A.2.6.45 Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
A.2.6.46 Map of bottom 50% pretax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
A.2.6.47 Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
A.2.6.48 Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
A.2.6.49 Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
A.2.6.50 Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
A.2.6.51 Map of bottom 50% posttax income share in Europe, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
A.3.1.1 Austria: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 151
A.3.1.2 Austria: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 152
A.3.1.3 Austria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
A.3.1.4 Austria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
A.3.1.5 Austria: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
A.3.1.6 Austria: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
A.3.1.7 Austria: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
A.3.1.8 Austria: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
A.3.1.9 Austria: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
A.3.1.10 Austria: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 160
A.3.2.1 Belgium: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 165
A.3.2.2 Belgium: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 166

656
A.3.2.3 Belgium: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
A.3.2.4 Belgium: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
A.3.2.5 Belgium: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
A.3.2.6 Belgium: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
A.3.2.7 Belgium: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
A.3.2.8 Belgium: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
A.3.2.9 Belgium: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
A.3.2.10 Belgium: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 174
A.3.3.1 Croatia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 179
A.3.3.2 Croatia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 180
A.3.3.3 Croatia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
A.3.3.4 Croatia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
A.3.3.5 Croatia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
A.3.3.6 Croatia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
A.3.3.7 Croatia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
A.3.3.8 Croatia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
A.3.3.9 Croatia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
A.3.3.10 Croatia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 188
A.3.4.1 Czech Republic: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . 193
A.3.4.2 Czech Republic: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share 194
A.3.4.3 Czech Republic: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
A.3.4.4 Czech Republic: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
A.3.4.5 Czech Republic: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top
10% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

657
A.3.4.6 Czech Republic: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom
50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
A.3.4.7 Czech Republic: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of
pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
A.3.4.8 Czech Republic: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor
income (working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
A.3.4.9 Czech Republic: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
A.3.4.10 Czech Republic: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . 202
A.3.5.1 Denmark: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 207
A.3.5.2 Denmark: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 208
A.3.5.3 Denmark: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
A.3.5.4 Denmark: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
A.3.5.5 Denmark: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
A.3.5.6 Denmark: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
A.3.5.7 Denmark: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
A.3.5.8 Denmark: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
A.3.5.9 Denmark: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
A.3.5.10 Denmark: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 216
A.3.6.1 Estonia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 221
A.3.6.2 Estonia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 222
A.3.6.3 Estonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
A.3.6.4 Estonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
A.3.6.5 Estonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
A.3.6.6 Estonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
A.3.6.7 Estonia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
A.3.6.8 Estonia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
A.3.6.9 Estonia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

658
A.3.6.10 Estonia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 230
A.3.7.1 Finland: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 235
A.3.7.2 Finland: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 236
A.3.7.3 Finland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
A.3.7.4 Finland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
A.3.7.5 Finland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
A.3.7.6 Finland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
A.3.7.7 Finland: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
A.3.7.8 Finland: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
A.3.7.9 Finland: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A.3.7.10 Finland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 244
A.3.8.1 France: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 249
A.3.8.2 France: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 250
A.3.8.3 France: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
A.3.8.4 France: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
A.3.8.5 France: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
A.3.8.6 France: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
A.3.8.7 France: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
A.3.8.8 France: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
A.3.8.9 France: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
A.3.8.10 France: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 258
A.3.9.1 Germany: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 263
A.3.9.2 Germany: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 264
A.3.9.3 Germany: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
A.3.9.4 Germany: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

659
A.3.9.5 Germany: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
A.3.9.6 Germany: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
A.3.9.7 Germany: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
A.3.9.8 Germany: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
A.3.9.9 Germany: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
A.3.9.10 Germany: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 272
A.3.10.1 Greece: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 277
A.3.10.2 Greece: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 278
A.3.10.3 Greece: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
A.3.10.4 Greece: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
A.3.10.5 Greece: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
A.3.10.6 Greece: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
A.3.10.7 Greece: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
A.3.10.8 Greece: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
A.3.10.9 Greece: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
A.3.10.10 Greece: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 286
A.3.11.1 Hungary: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 291
A.3.11.2 Hungary: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 292
A.3.11.3 Hungary: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
A.3.11.4 Hungary: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
A.3.11.5 Hungary: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
A.3.11.6 Hungary: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
A.3.11.7 Hungary: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

660
A.3.11.8 Hungary: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
A.3.11.9 Hungary: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
A.3.11.10 Hungary: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 300
A.3.12.1 Iceland: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 305
A.3.12.2 Iceland: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 306
A.3.12.3 Iceland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
A.3.12.4 Iceland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
A.3.12.5 Iceland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
A.3.12.6 Iceland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
A.3.12.7 Iceland: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
A.3.12.8 Iceland: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
A.3.12.9 Iceland: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
A.3.12.10 Iceland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 314
A.3.13.1 Ireland: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 319
A.3.13.2 Ireland: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 320
A.3.13.3 Ireland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
A.3.13.4 Ireland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
A.3.13.5 Ireland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
A.3.13.6 Ireland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
A.3.13.7 Ireland: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
A.3.13.8 Ireland: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
A.3.13.9 Ireland: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
A.3.13.10 Ireland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 328
A.3.14.1 Italy: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . 333
A.3.14.2 Italy: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . 334

661
A.3.14.3 Italy: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
A.3.14.4 Italy: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom 50%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
A.3.14.5 Italy: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
A.3.14.6 Italy: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
A.3.14.7 Italy: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
A.3.14.8 Italy: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-
age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
A.3.14.9 Italy: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
A.3.14.10 Italy: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . . 342
A.3.15.1 Luxembourg: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . 347
A.3.15.2 Luxembourg: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . 348
A.3.15.3 Luxembourg: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top
10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
A.3.15.4 Luxembourg: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
A.3.15.5 Luxembourg: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
A.3.15.6 Luxembourg: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom
50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
A.3.15.7 Luxembourg: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of
pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
A.3.15.8 Luxembourg: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
A.3.15.9 Luxembourg: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
A.3.15.10 Luxembourg: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . 356
A.3.16.1 Netherlands: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . 361
A.3.16.2 Netherlands: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . 362
A.3.16.3 Netherlands: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top
10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
A.3.16.4 Netherlands: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bot-
tom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
A.3.16.5 Netherlands: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

662
A.3.16.6 Netherlands: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom
50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
A.3.16.7 Netherlands: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of
pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
A.3.16.8 Netherlands: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
A.3.16.9 Netherlands: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
A.3.16.10 Netherlands: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . 370
A.3.17.1 Norway: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 375
A.3.17.2 Norway: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 376
A.3.17.3 Norway: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
A.3.17.4 Norway: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
A.3.17.5 Norway: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
A.3.17.6 Norway: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
A.3.17.7 Norway: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
A.3.17.8 Norway: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
A.3.17.9 Norway: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
A.3.17.10 Norway: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 384
A.3.18.1 Poland: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 389
A.3.18.2 Poland: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 390
A.3.18.3 Poland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
A.3.18.4 Poland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
A.3.18.5 Poland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
A.3.18.6 Poland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
A.3.18.7 Poland: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
A.3.18.8 Poland: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
A.3.18.9 Poland: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

663
A.3.18.10 Poland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 398
A.3.19.1 Portugal: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 403
A.3.19.2 Portugal: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 404
A.3.19.3 Portugal: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
A.3.19.4 Portugal: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
A.3.19.5 Portugal: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
A.3.19.6 Portugal: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
A.3.19.7 Portugal: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
A.3.19.8 Portugal: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
A.3.19.9 Portugal: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
A.3.19.10 Portugal: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 412
A.3.20.1 Romania: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 417
A.3.20.2 Romania: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 418
A.3.20.3 Romania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
A.3.20.4 Romania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
A.3.20.5 Romania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
A.3.20.6 Romania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
A.3.20.7 Romania: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
A.3.20.8 Romania: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424
A.3.20.9 Romania: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
A.3.20.10 Romania: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 426
A.3.21.1 Serbia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . 431
A.3.21.2 Serbia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . 432
A.3.21.3 Serbia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
A.3.21.4 Serbia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434

664
A.3.21.5 Serbia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
A.3.21.6 Serbia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
A.3.21.7 Serbia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
A.3.21.8 Serbia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
A.3.21.9 Serbia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
A.3.21.10 Serbia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 440
A.3.22.1 Slovenia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 445
A.3.22.2 Slovenia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 446
A.3.22.3 Slovenia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
A.3.22.4 Slovenia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
A.3.22.5 Slovenia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
A.3.22.6 Slovenia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
A.3.22.7 Slovenia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
A.3.22.8 Slovenia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
A.3.22.9 Slovenia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
A.3.22.10 Slovenia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 454
A.3.23.1 Spain: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . 459
A.3.23.2 Spain: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . 460
A.3.23.3 Spain: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
A.3.23.4 Spain: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
A.3.23.5 Spain: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
A.3.23.6 Spain: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
A.3.23.7 Spain: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

665
A.3.23.8 Spain: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-
age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
A.3.23.9 Spain: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
A.3.23.10 Spain: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . . 468
A.3.24.1 Sweden: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 473
A.3.24.2 Sweden: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 474
A.3.24.3 Sweden: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
A.3.24.4 Sweden: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
A.3.24.5 Sweden: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
A.3.24.6 Sweden: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
A.3.24.7 Sweden: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
A.3.24.8 Sweden: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
A.3.24.9 Sweden: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
A.3.24.10 Sweden: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 482
A.3.25.1 Switzerland: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . 487
A.3.25.2 Switzerland: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . 488
A.3.25.3 Switzerland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top
10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
A.3.25.4 Switzerland: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bot-
tom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
A.3.25.5 Switzerland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
A.3.25.6 Switzerland: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom
50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
A.3.25.7 Switzerland: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of
pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
A.3.25.8 Switzerland: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
A.3.25.9 Switzerland: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
A.3.25.10 Switzerland: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . 496
A.3.26.1 United Kingdom: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . 501
A.3.26.2 United Kingdom: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share502

666
A.3.26.3 United Kingdom: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
A.3.26.4 United Kingdom: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
A.3.26.5 United Kingdom: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top
10% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
A.3.26.6 United Kingdom: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
A.3.26.7 United Kingdom: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share
of pretax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
A.3.26.8 United Kingdom: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor
income (working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
A.3.26.9 United Kingdom: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
A.3.26.10 United Kingdom: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . 510
A.4.1.1 Bulgaria: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 515
A.4.1.2 Bulgaria: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 516
A.4.1.3 Bulgaria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
A.4.1.4 Bulgaria: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
A.4.1.5 Bulgaria: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
A.4.1.6 Bulgaria: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
A.4.1.7 Bulgaria: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
A.4.1.8 Bulgaria: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
A.4.1.9 Bulgaria: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
A.4.1.10 Bulgaria: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 524
A.4.2.1 Cyprus: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 528
A.4.2.2 Cyprus: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 529
A.4.2.3 Cyprus: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
A.4.2.4 Cyprus: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
A.4.2.5 Cyprus: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532

667
A.4.2.6 Cyprus: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
A.4.2.7 Cyprus: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
A.4.2.8 Cyprus: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
A.4.2.9 Cyprus: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
A.4.2.10 Cyprus: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 537
A.4.3.1 Latvia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . 541
A.4.3.2 Latvia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 542
A.4.3.3 Latvia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
A.4.3.4 Latvia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
A.4.3.5 Latvia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
A.4.3.6 Latvia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
A.4.3.7 Latvia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
A.4.3.8 Latvia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
A.4.3.9 Latvia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
A.4.3.10 Latvia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . 550
A.4.4.1 Lithuania: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 554
A.4.4.2 Lithuania: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 555
A.4.4.3 Lithuania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top
10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
A.4.4.4 Lithuania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
A.4.4.5 Lithuania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
A.4.4.6 Lithuania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
A.4.4.7 Lithuania: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
A.4.4.8 Lithuania: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
A.4.4.9 Lithuania: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562

668
A.4.4.10 Lithuania: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . 563
A.4.5.1 Malta: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . 567
A.4.5.2 Malta: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . 568
A.4.5.3 Malta: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
A.4.5.4 Malta: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
A.4.5.5 Malta: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10% income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
A.4.5.6 Malta: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572
A.4.5.7 Malta: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
A.4.5.8 Malta: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income (working-
age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
A.4.5.9 Malta: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
A.4.5.10 Malta: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . . . 576
A.4.6.1 Slovakia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 580
A.4.6.2 Slovakia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 581
A.4.6.3 Slovakia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
A.4.6.4 Slovakia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
A.4.6.5 Slovakia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
A.4.6.6 Slovakia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
A.4.6.7 Slovakia: distribution of taxes Non-contributory taxes paid as a share of pretax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
A.4.6.8 Slovakia: distribution of taxes Total taxes paid as a share of factor income
(working-age population) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
A.4.6.9 Slovakia: distribution of transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588
A.4.6.10 Slovakia: net redistribution operated by the tax-and-transfer system . . . . . . 589
A.4.7.1 Albania: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 593
A.4.7.2 Albania: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 594
A.4.7.3 Albania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595
A.4.7.4 Albania: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596

669
A.4.7.5 Albania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
A.4.7.6 Albania: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598
A.4.8.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income
share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602
A.4.8.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603
A.4.8.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina: from harmonized surveys to distributional national
accounts Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
A.4.8.4 Bosnia and Herzegovina: from harmonized surveys to distributional national
accounts Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
A.4.8.5 Bosnia and Herzegovina: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Top 10% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606
A.4.8.6 Bosnia and Herzegovina: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607
A.4.9.1 Kosovo: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . 611
A.4.9.2 Kosovo: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . 612
A.4.9.3 Kosovo: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
A.4.9.4 Kosovo: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614
A.4.9.5 Kosovo: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615
A.4.9.6 Kosovo: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616
A.4.10.1 North Macedonia: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share 620
A.4.10.2 North Macedonia: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share621
A.4.10.3 North Macedonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622
A.4.10.4 North Macedonia: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts
Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623
A.4.10.5 North Macedonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top
10% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624
A.4.10.6 North Macedonia: from pretax national income to posttax national income
Bottom 50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625
A.4.11.1 Moldova: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . . 629
A.4.11.2 Moldova: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . . . 630

670
A.4.11.3 Moldova: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top 10%
pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631
A.4.11.4 Moldova: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bottom
50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632
A.4.11.5 Moldova: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
A.4.11.6 Moldova: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom 50%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634
A.4.12.1 Montenegro: harmonization of survey data Top 10% pretax income share . . . . 638
A.4.12.2 Montenegro: harmonization of survey data Bottom 50% pretax income share . 639
A.4.12.3 Montenegro: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Top
10% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
A.4.12.4 Montenegro: from harmonized surveys to distributional national accounts Bot-
tom 50% pretax income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
A.4.12.5 Montenegro: from pretax national income to posttax national income Top 10%
income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
A.4.12.6 Montenegro: from pretax national income to posttax national income Bottom
50% income share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643

671
7 List of Tables
A.1.3.1 5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when im-
puting pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using our benchmark
machine learning algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1.3.2 5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when
imputing pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using a machine
learning algorithm without auxiliary variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1.3.3 5-fold cross validation mean relative error on the average by percentile when
imputing pretax and posttax incomes from different concepts using a single
correction coefficient by percentile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1.8.4 Elasticity of the Top 1% Share With Respect to the Top Marginal Tax Rate . . 26
A.1.9.5 Elasticity of the Bottom 50% Share With Respect to Redistribution to the
Bottom 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.2.7.1 Coverage of data sources (all European countries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
A.2.7.2 Total taxes and transfers in Europe and the United States, 2007-2017 (% of
national income) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 135
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 136
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 137
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 138
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 139
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 140
A.2.7.3 Summary measures of inequality in Europe and the US, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 141
A.2.7.4 Performance of European countries and the United States in reaching SDG 10.1,
1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
A.2.7.4 Performance of European countries and the United States in reaching SDG 10.1,
1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
A.2.7.5 Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
A.2.7.5 Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
A.2.7.5 Average national incomes in Europe, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
A.2.7.6 Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
A.2.7.6 Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
A.2.7.6 Average state incomes in the United States, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
A.2.7.7 Predistribution versus redistribution in Europe and the United States: estimates
of the top 1% share and of Gini and Theil indices using different concepts and
data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
A.3.1.1 Austria: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
A.3.1.2 Austria: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

672
A.3.1.3 Austria: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
A.3.1.4 The distribution of national income in Austria, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
A.3.1.5 The distribution of national income growth in Austria, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 164
A.3.2.1 Belgium: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
A.3.2.2 Belgium: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
A.3.2.3 Belgium: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
A.3.2.4 The distribution of national income in Belgium, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
A.3.2.5 The distribution of national income growth in Belgium, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 178
A.3.3.1 Croatia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
A.3.3.2 Croatia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
A.3.3.3 Croatia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
A.3.3.4 The distribution of national income in Croatia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
A.3.3.5 The distribution of national income growth in Croatia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 192
A.3.4.1 Czech Republic: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
A.3.4.2 Czech Republic: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income,
and posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
A.3.4.3 Czech Republic: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . 205
A.3.4.4 The distribution of national income in Czech Republic, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . 206
A.3.4.5 The distribution of national income growth in Czech Republic, 1980-2017 . . . 206
A.3.5.1 Denmark: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
A.3.5.2 Denmark: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
A.3.5.3 Denmark: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
A.3.5.4 The distribution of national income in Denmark, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
A.3.5.5 The distribution of national income growth in Denmark, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 220
A.3.6.1 Estonia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
A.3.6.2 Estonia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
A.3.6.3 Estonia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
A.3.6.4 The distribution of national income in Estonia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
A.3.6.5 The distribution of national income growth in Estonia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 234
A.3.7.1 Finland: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
A.3.7.2 Finland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
A.3.7.3 Finland: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
A.3.7.4 The distribution of national income in Finland, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
A.3.7.5 The distribution of national income growth in Finland, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 248

673
A.3.8.1 France: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
A.3.8.2 France: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
A.3.8.3 France: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
A.3.8.4 The distribution of national income in France, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
A.3.8.5 The distribution of national income growth in France, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 262
A.3.9.1 Germany: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
A.3.9.2 Germany: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
A.3.9.3 Germany: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
A.3.9.4 The distribution of national income in Germany, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
A.3.9.5 The distribution of national income growth in Germany, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 276
A.3.10.1 Greece: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
A.3.10.2 Greece: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
A.3.10.3 Greece: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
A.3.10.4 The distribution of national income in Greece, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
A.3.10.5 The distribution of national income growth in Greece, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 290
A.3.11.1 Hungary: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
A.3.11.2 Hungary: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
A.3.11.3 Hungary: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
A.3.11.4 The distribution of national income in Hungary, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
A.3.11.5 The distribution of national income growth in Hungary, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 304
A.3.12.1 Iceland: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
A.3.12.2 Iceland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
A.3.12.3 Iceland: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
A.3.12.4 The distribution of national income in Iceland, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
A.3.12.5 The distribution of national income growth in Iceland, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 318
A.3.13.1 Ireland: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
A.3.13.2 Ireland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
A.3.13.3 Ireland: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
A.3.13.4 The distribution of national income in Ireland, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
A.3.13.5 The distribution of national income growth in Ireland, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 332
A.3.14.1 Italy: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
A.3.14.2 Italy: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

674
A.3.14.3 Italy: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
A.3.14.4 The distribution of national income in Italy, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
A.3.14.5 The distribution of national income growth in Italy, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . . 346
A.3.15.1 Luxembourg: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
A.3.15.2 Luxembourg: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
A.3.15.3 Luxembourg: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
A.3.15.4 The distribution of national income in Luxembourg, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
A.3.15.5 The distribution of national income growth in Luxembourg, 1980-2017 . . . . . 360
A.3.16.1 Netherlands: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
A.3.16.2 Netherlands: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
A.3.16.3 Netherlands: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
A.3.16.4 The distribution of national income in Netherlands, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
A.3.16.5 The distribution of national income growth in Netherlands, 1980-2017 . . . . . 374
A.3.17.1 Norway: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
A.3.17.2 Norway: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
A.3.17.3 Norway: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
A.3.17.4 The distribution of national income in Norway, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
A.3.17.5 The distribution of national income growth in Norway, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 388
A.3.18.1 Poland: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
A.3.18.2 Poland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
A.3.18.3 Poland: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
A.3.18.4 The distribution of national income in Poland, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
A.3.18.5 The distribution of national income growth in Poland, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 402
A.3.19.1 Portugal: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
A.3.19.2 Portugal: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
A.3.19.3 Portugal: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
A.3.19.4 The distribution of national income in Portugal, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
A.3.19.5 The distribution of national income growth in Portugal, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 416
A.3.20.1 Romania: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
A.3.20.2 Romania: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
A.3.20.3 Romania: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
A.3.20.4 The distribution of national income in Romania, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
A.3.20.5 The distribution of national income growth in Romania, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 430

675
A.3.21.1 Serbia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
A.3.21.2 Serbia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
A.3.21.3 Serbia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
A.3.21.4 The distribution of national income in Serbia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
A.3.21.5 The distribution of national income growth in Serbia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 444
A.3.22.1 Slovenia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
A.3.22.2 Slovenia: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
A.3.22.3 Slovenia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
A.3.22.4 The distribution of national income in Slovenia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
A.3.22.5 The distribution of national income growth in Slovenia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 458
A.3.23.1 Spain: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
A.3.23.2 Spain: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and posttax
income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
A.3.23.3 Spain: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
A.3.23.4 The distribution of national income in Spain, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
A.3.23.5 The distribution of national income growth in Spain, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 472
A.3.24.1 Sweden: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
A.3.24.2 Sweden: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
A.3.24.3 Sweden: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
A.3.24.4 The distribution of national income in Sweden, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
A.3.24.5 The distribution of national income growth in Sweden, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 486
A.3.25.1 Switzerland: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
A.3.25.2 Switzerland: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income, and
posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
A.3.25.3 Switzerland: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
A.3.25.4 The distribution of national income in Switzerland, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
A.3.25.5 The distribution of national income growth in Switzerland, 1980-2017 . . . . . . 500
A.3.26.1 United Kingdom: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
A.3.26.2 United Kingdom: methodology used to distribute factor income, pretax income,
and posttax income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
A.3.26.3 United Kingdom: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . 513
A.3.26.4 The distribution of national income in United Kingdom, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . 514
A.3.26.5 The distribution of national income growth in United Kingdom, 1980-2017 . . . 514
A.4.1.1 Bulgaria: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
A.4.1.2 Bulgaria: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
A.4.1.3 The distribution of national income in Bulgaria, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

676
A.4.1.4 The distribution of national income growth in Bulgaria, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 527
A.4.2.1 Cyprus: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
A.4.2.2 Cyprus: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
A.4.2.3 The distribution of national income in Cyprus, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
A.4.2.4 The distribution of national income growth in Cyprus, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 540
A.4.3.1 Latvia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
A.4.3.2 Latvia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
A.4.3.3 The distribution of national income in Latvia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
A.4.3.4 The distribution of national income growth in Latvia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 553
A.4.4.1 Lithuania: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
A.4.4.2 Lithuania: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
A.4.4.3 The distribution of national income in Lithuania, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
A.4.4.4 The distribution of national income growth in Lithuania, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 566
A.4.5.1 Malta: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577
A.4.5.2 Malta: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
A.4.5.3 The distribution of national income in Malta, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
A.4.5.4 The distribution of national income growth in Malta, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . . 579
A.4.6.1 Slovakia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
A.4.6.2 Slovakia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591
A.4.6.3 The distribution of national income in Slovakia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592
A.4.6.4 The distribution of national income growth in Slovakia, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 592
A.4.7.1 Albania: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
A.4.7.2 Albania: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600
A.4.7.3 The distribution of national income in Albania, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
A.4.7.4 The distribution of national income growth in Albania, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 601
A.4.8.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608
A.4.8.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . 609
A.4.8.3 The distribution of national income in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2017 . . . . . . 610
A.4.8.4 The distribution of national income growth in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1980-2017610
A.4.9.1 Kosovo: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
A.4.9.2 Kosovo: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618
A.4.9.3 The distribution of national income in Kosovo, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619
A.4.9.4 The distribution of national income growth in Kosovo, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . . 619
A.4.10.1 North Macedonia: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626
A.4.10.2 North Macedonia: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . 627
A.4.10.3 The distribution of national income in North Macedonia, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . 628
A.4.10.4 The distribution of national income growth in North Macedonia, 1980-2017 . . 628
A.4.11.1 Moldova: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
A.4.11.2 Moldova: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636

677
A.4.11.3 The distribution of national income in Moldova, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
A.4.11.4 The distribution of national income growth in Moldova, 1980-2017 . . . . . . . 637
A.4.12.1 Montenegro: data sources available by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644
A.4.12.2 Montenegro: impact of the different methodological steps . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
A.4.12.3 The distribution of national income in Montenegro, 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646
A.4.12.4 The distribution of national income growth in Montenegro, 1980-2017 . . . . . 646

678