TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Column: What is a ‘high earner’ in Ireland today?

We tend to think of ‘high earners’ as being those with salaries above €100,000 – but the figures reveal a different story, writes Micheál Collins.

Micheál Collins

DISCUSSION ON VARIOUS policy options and decisions by Government is often framed in the context of the income distribution and the impact on families and individuals above and below certain income thresholds. Whether it is tax increases, welfare reductions, wage changes or the new property tax, political and media comment often refers to high and low income families, those earning more than €50,000 or €100,000 etc. Unfortunately, much of this comment tends to be distant from the reality of the income distribution in Ireland – something often cited but much misunderstood.

In its most recent Quarterly Economic Observer, the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) provides a new and detailed insight into Ireland’s income distribution. We do so using data from the Central Statistics Office’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) – an annual household survey which collects data from more than 5,000 households and 12,000 individuals to provide a representative sample of Irish society.

Our analysis compiles data for both gross income (earnings, pensions, investments and welfare benefits) and disposable income (gross income minus taxes and PRSI). Both these income concepts are useful as the former captures the overall sum of income a household/individual receives and is often used for classifying them (less than €50,000 etc). The latter, disposable income, captures the amount of post-tax and transfer income households/individuals have to live off; essentially what is in their pockets to spend on all their living expenses.
Starting with households and their gross income, among the key points we highlight are:

  • 33% of households have a gross income of less than €30,000
  • 56% of households have a gross income of less than €50,000
  • 62% of households have a gross income below the average (mean) household income of €56,500
  • The top 30% of households have a gross income of more than €70,000 per annum
  • The top 20% of households have a gross income of more than €80,000 per annum
  • 14% of household have a gross income above €100,000 per annum
  • 2% of households have gross incomes above €200,000 per annum

Among individuals, the key points on the gross income distribution are:

  • Almost 300,000 individuals aged 17 years and upwards (9% of the adult population) received no income. These are mainly individuals within households such as adults on home duties, full-time students and unemployed people with no entitlement to welfare payments
  • 50% of individuals have a gross annual income of less than €18,000
  • On average individuals in the Republic of Ireland have an annual gross income of €26,800
  • 1.5 million individuals (40%) have a gross income between €10,000 and €30,000 per annum
  • 2.6 million individuals (77%) have a gross income below €50,000 per annum – this excludes those with zero incomes
  • The top 10% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €60,000 per annum
  • The top 5% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €78,000 per annum
  • The top 1.5% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €120,000 per annum
  • The top 1% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €140,000 per annum

When you factor in taxation and social insurance deductions, the disposable income picture shows a similar distribution. The average household has a disposable income of just under €46,000 and the top 10% of households have a disposable income of more than €88,000 (almost €1,700 per week). Among individuals, excluding those with zero income, there were 2 million adults with a disposable income of less than €500 per week (€26,000 per annum) and 575,000 with a disposable income of less than €200 per week (€10,400 per annum). At the top of the income distribution, the top 0.8% (25,000 individuals) have a disposable income of more than €2,000 per week (€104,000 per annum).

The data used in our analysis, and in the charts published in the NERI report, are from the 2009 CSO SILC survey. While that data represents the most robust and recently available detailed data on income in Ireland, it is true that household and individual income have changed since then. The combined effects of tax increases, welfare reductions and an increase in unemployment will undoubtedly have shifted most households to a lower income. However, the general shape of our income distribution is unlikely to have changed.

Challenging beliefs

So what does all this income data imply for public policy? While there are a myriad of implications, it is clear that our discussions around Budget time tend to overestimate the number of high income individuals and households and similarly understate the numbers on low incomes. In fact, the data challenges many of the beliefs people have as regards what it is to be receiving a high or low income. While there are no formal definitions of these concepts, the oft-cited threshold that a person is on a high income if they are above €100,000 is questionable; that is a very high income. A person is certainly ‘high income’ if they are in the top 10%; that’s €60,000 plus per annum. Of course, given lifestyle and living expenses such an income may not feel ‘high’.

Similarly, the large concentration of households on incomes between €10,000 and €50,000 – about half the nation’s households – underscores the challenges many households are facing making ends meet given recent tax and PRSI increases and welfare changes. For working households, it also points towards a much greater prevalence of low pay than many assume – a topic the NERI will publish further research on later this year.
The shape of Ireland’s income distribution also suggests that when we are looking for more income tax revenues, or changes to welfare payments (like taxing child benefit etc), that such changes have to be spread across individuals and households in a wide income range for them to generate significant revenues.

Understanding the nature, shape and composition of the income distribution is an important component of our understanding of society and the appropriateness of various policy options. Reflecting this, the NERI is developing a microeconomic model of the Republic of Ireland income distribution which will facilitate an enhanced understanding of the income distribution and the effect on it of changes to earnings, taxes, benefits and entitlements. In outlining the data above, here and in more detail in our recent report, our objective has been to highlight and make accessible information on Ireland’s income distribution. In doing so we hope to enhance broader understandings of incomes in Ireland so that current and future policy assessments can take a more detailed account of whom and how many are at different points of the distribution.

Dr Micheál Collins is Senior Research Officer at the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI). The NERI is a research company/think-tank on the Irish Economy launched in March 2012 and funded by a number of unions affiliated to the ICTU. The latest edition of the NERI QEO is available to download at NERInstitute.net.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (82 Comments)

  • Being a teenage daughter of a KPMG employee is nice work if you can get it.

    Reply
  • Surely the 9% (students etc) should be excluded from the data given they’re not in the workforce- in the same way children are excluded.

    Reply
  • Everyone earning more than me should be taxed to the hilt!

    Reply
  • Actually a very good article. Well done. I’ve been arguing the same points for years, despite the unavailability of true measures for median incomes. I’ve been arguing that the cost of living well exceeded typical household incomes from about 1999 onwards, and that almost all of the different was made up for by use of credit.

    Of course, the real issue is what is the true cost of living?

    If an individual has a generous (by this articles standard), income of 3800 per month, their real living standard will be determined by their outgoings. If they have no mortgage or rent, then their real annual income is oper 45k pa, if they pay 700pm, its reduced to 37k and if they were unfortunate or unwise enough to pay a mortgage/rent of 1600pm, then their income is reduced to 26k. There is an enormous gap between living on 26k and living on 45k. These kinds of matters need to be considered and taken into account when discussing incomes.

    Reply
  • Doesn’t matter a damn, the powers that be won’t take that data into consideration when they’re compiling the budget.
    All they can come up with is how many different forms of tax they can take from us.

    Reply
  • So the average household has a disposable income of €46,000 or €850 PW and they only have €50 left per month. Mmmmm

    Reply
    • Have to agree … i know my gross salary .. yearly and weekly … and i know my average weekly salary … and something doesnt add up … if the average income is 26,800 … according to the article above… and the CSo are saying that the average hourly rate in ireland is circa 19.60 …(which equates to 38k per annum)….
      Where the hell is the rest of the money going?
      Honestly, we are fed so much crap in this country by the media/government, its absolutely impossible to know what is going on …
      Is ther any chance Journal.ie could champion the cause for us… and get an honest, unbiased picture of the following indicators

      1) Average hourly rates
      2) Median hourly rates
      3) average private sector hourly rates
      4) average public sector hourly rates
      5) Median Hourly rates for all the above metrics

      Then
      Average gross salary numbers for all the above indicators .. in case the number of hours worked is skewing the data one way or the other

      Then, using the outliers, in the median, identify where the workers are working and position held vs a vi each other
      Without this information, everyone is going to finger point specific groups etc that can take pain, no pain, need help etc…
      We will not be in a positions to understand fully, what the problem statement is… and what actions need to be taken to address it. Just my honest input.

      Reply
    • @cal in response to your comment towards me regarding travellers , I’m just stating my experience with travellers . Also I live in oz now and they were up to they’re old tricks over here last year as well . How would you explain that to ozzies who ask me about them . Would you say most of them are honest and that must just have been a few bad apples . Because that simply isn’t the case and you know it .

      Reply
    • @cal1… I know that in first year if service a garda gets 12 Euro per hour and after 21 years of service about 20 Euro per hour… know little of other wages…private sector wages not available online too readily

      Reply
    • Sister company daft has done something similar in the past with it’s property report; perhaps an opportunity for j.ie to stand against it’s old media naysayers and show just what a modern progressive news outlet can do!

      Reply
  • A possibly interesting article totally ruined by comparing the gross income of individuals to the net ( or as you call it disposable) income of households.
    You might as well compare the weight of coal and the weight of ash after that coal is burnt

    Nonsense..waffle and more nonsense

    Reply
  • The high earners work hard to get their large salaries! Initially Long Days & tough times to get off their feet! Then Taxed to the hills? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Reply
    • Ireland has the lowest tax rate on high earners in western Europe.

      Reply
    • Pay the tax as high as Patrick hill in cork….for those Junks who never bother to work their whole life.. or to those who spreaded their legs had fun and bought a baby in this world who they cant take care off…. totallyyy brutal and annoying…

      Reply
    • As previously said many people work very hard indeed, but don’t necessarily reap huge rewards. Many other people have really cushy jobs but earn a fortune. It doesn’t work out that hard workers get rich or that dossers stay poor. People inherit wealth then live on interest, or have wealthy parents, private education and then a lovely easy job with loads of perks – like a politician for example! Then take care workers, nurses, single parents who work and maybe study too – trying to improve their lot, but never really “making it”. Many people work 24/7 looking after an invalid relative – they’re never going to rich are they?

      Reply
    • Barry how dare you speak about women, mothers like that. Firstly, it takes two to make a child and your inference is that only the mother is responsible for raising it. Secondly, the reasons why people may be raising their children on their own and on benefits are many and varied- they could be widowed, or could have escaped a violent relationship eg. In a country where abortion is illegal, you just have to live with the consequence of having to support people struggling to raise children.

      Reply
    • Yes but I was referring to the majority of high earners! (Nothing is ever 100% safe/true/reflective of ones theory) in relation to others working 24/7 yes that is true & I know many people who do so but working hard doesn’t just mean putting in hours of physical work it is also being initiative & “working smarter not harder”.

      Reply
    • According to my colleagues in France they would have difficulty moving here because of high personal taxes (apart from weather, food, and what have you!). The top rate here may be lower but allowances, bands, etc. make Ireland much more onerous for personal taxes, especially for families with kids for whom France is very tax friendly. Just one example, and that’s supposed to be a high tax jurisdiction…..

      Reply
  • The real high earners are not individuals – they are corporations that pay very little tax – and in the case of multinationals like Starbucks and Google – little if any tax through transfer pricing and use of tax havens. To put it more simply : individuals pay high tax BECAUSE companies pay low tax. Is that clear?

    Reply
    • Very clear and true, but someone doesn’t like your comment! I can’t think why?

      Reply
    • Because with higher corporate taxes there will be far fewer jobs (those lost being higher earning than average) and so less personal income to tax. Changing tax rates changes behaviour. Many service and high value-added exporters would simply relocate. We need to set our tax policy, given that we are a small island economy that needs to be open and allow free movement of capital and investments because we do not have the wealth to generate enough of our own. It would be nice if it were otherwise but it’s not, so just let’s deal with reality not delusion.

      Reply
  • Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
    Entire Senate: F**k THE POOR!

    History of the world part 1

    Reply
  • Wow, I feel so much better.

    I mean, I’m still in the bottom tier but working in Dublin 2, it’s easy to feel like I’m the only one.

    Reply
  • @Bari Khan, what a disgusting turn of phrase you used to describe baby making, and which has little relevance to the topic of income distribution. Is that all you can interpret from this article? Scarey! I suppose you would be the one oogling the young ones at the disco. As an adult, a woman and a mother, I find your remark very insulting.

    Reply
    • Did you see how many likes he got for that nasty comment? Where do these people come from? In my reply I pointed out these were mothers who could be widows or could have escaped violent relationships and I got more dislikes than likes – this goes to show the state of our society and it’s attitude to women and motherhood. Very worrying

      Reply
    • You got the red thumbs because while those situations are horrible they are a minority and its not reality the majority of the time. The point being (crudely) made was that the welfare system especially for child allowance is broken. Up until this year you actually got an increased allowance after your second child!

      If I was to be in power I would change it so that you got an allowance for the first 2.4 children (the average family) if you want more children after that you fund it yourself.

      Reply
    • My second and third children were twins. Any judgement there? Do you think women should get on the boat if they’re having twins or if they accidentally get pregnant a third or fourth time. Point is, the nasty diatribe is aimed at mothers who are there taking responsibility. Where’s the diatribe for fathers of these children. As I said, in a country that is anti abortion, where the poorest women wouldn’t be able to afford to travel, but are the most likely to get pregnant in error and are told by all the agencies here “we care, there’s support” society should follow through and not be so brutal, disrespectful and downright misogynistic

      Reply
    • I have no issue with people who have more children or twins for that matter. You can choose to have as many children as you like it is a life choice in the same way having no children is. I don’t see why it should be funded though no matter how many children you choose to have.

      I don’t believe anything I have said is misogynist, I assume that was targeted at the poster above

      Reply
    • Any man who thinks what he said was just crude and not downright nasty and misogynistic is cut from the same cloth. No man or woman on this thread should let it pass without comment. A society that disallows abortion, yet doesn’t support women who find themselves pregnant with however many children is misogynistic and any man who says women should bear the brunt financially and every other way of children they have no choice in bearing (no abortions) is a misogynist. Fit in there?

      Reply
  • MBas 18/01/13 #

    As has been mentioned by some, the problem isn’t with the ‘rich’, at least they’re paying taxes.
    The problem is with those at the bottom who are a drain on the state by collecting ridiculously high benefits while also working part or full time doing nixers. I’m not Irish, nor have I lived here that long, yet I know loads of people ripping off the benefit system.

    Reply
  • I haz no moneys aneewayz. Teehee.

    Reply
  • How many of the top 1% of earners are politicians or civil servants?

    No way someone in the Dáil should be on 100,000 a year. 40,000-50,000 should do them fine.

    If they want high wages, make it 1 or 2 million a year. That might attract successful people from industry. You know, the guys who actually achieve things?

    Reply
  • Its the people at the bottom who are causing the problem. Social Welfare rates are far too high, they are often of indefinite duration and are not monitored. Get rid of these so people who have studied hard and worked hard to make a better life for them,selves and their families can do so!

    Reply
    • During the “celtic tiger” we had near full employment in Ireland, so if there were jobs to be had people would take them. You can’t just get rid of people on social welfare. What do you plan on doing with them? Shooting them? The task is to create employment that pays a living wage. I suppose that would “get rid” of the problem, but this is where our politicians are failing Irish society. They’re paid huge salaries to come up with creative ideas to solve this problem.

      Reply
    • tom 17/01/13 #

      Yes it was these lower earners that bought lots of property and speculated in the bond market. Where have you been all these years ?

      Reply
    • What an elitist remark Frank, you sure you are not Joan Burton in disguise, we have elderly, disabled, sick, carers, etc and in case you missed out, we have thousands who lost their jobs, hope you don’t, but then with an attitude like yours I hope you end up on welfare, call back again if you end up that way.

      Reply
    • All I can do is laugh at the ignorance of this original comment…. You have to be trolling!

      Reply
  • The worse off are always the worse hit

    Reply
    • It may seem that way, but your statement is factually incorrect. Whether you measure it in absolute terms or as a % of income, the “higher” earners have been hit harder than those on low pay or welfare.

      Reply
    • Jim,

      Social welfare has been hit from €204 to €188 per week.

      Reply
    • …and I hope it is hit again.

      Reply
    • Still far to high.

      Reply
    • I think he means proportionally worse hit. And he’s right. But I still agree with most of the sentiments posted – you’re cutting your nose off to spite your face if you dis incentivise higher earners.

      Reply
    • “There’s no point in working – I’ll make more on the dole…”

      Not everyone says this but I have heard it many many times.

      Reply
    • The reason people say they’re better off on the dole is because minimum wage is too low and tax relief for larger families is also too low, not because sw is too high! A living wage for a week’s work and proper help for families raising children! People earning higher wages aren’t going to starve or go cold or lose their homes because they pay a higher rate of tax on inflated wages. Nobodies work is worth so much more than somebody else’s and the begrudgery of those more fortunate on this thread is terrible. Don’t lose sight of the fact that the low paid and people on sw didn’t run up the €billions of debt this country is in. It was bankers, developers and the politicians who turned a blind eye while they profited.

      Reply
  • Meanwhile in US Obama defines “middle class” as households not exceeding $250.000

    Reply
  • @cooperguy, the idea of the state not funding peoples children is a very dangerous one. Should we introduce limits on the family size for social welfare entitlements? What happens to a family which finds itself relying on sw but can only claim for, lets say, the first 2 or 3 kids? What about people who are forced to terminate pregnancies because of a sw rule? Should we follow Chinas 1 child rule and have babies thrown in dumpsters or being sold into slavery? The social and psychological implications are mind boggling. My 3rd and 4th born (twins) took me out of my career as a teacher as they have special needs and will need life long care provided by me and their daddy, without pay. How would that rule apply to us? Also, lone parents who apply for sw will get the same rates per dependent as a 2 parent family doing the same. Nobody has kids for the 29 sw. Try feeding, clothing and educating a child on that, whether single/married/cohabiting. Or maybe we should let our children die in the slums like they do in other countries for the sake of 29 per week!

    Reply
    • Hi Sarah, I’m not claiming I have all the answers or I have thought all the ins and outs of it through. I do think there is room for healthy debate in the area though.

      My first point though is I would be 100% against putting a limit on the size of the family. However I don’t believe the state should fund a lifestyle choice of an extra large family.

      I said above that I realise accidents/twins/etc. could happen so I would change my initial number of suggested covered children to 4. Also as I think about it, its also a good thing for the country to have a growing population so it works on a few levels.

      Maybe if a family was to find themselves on social welfare extra payments can kick in at that point to support the family while they get back on their feet.

      I’m sorry to hear about your childrens difficulties. Firstly can I say that I have nothing but admiration for all the carers in this country. I would fully support increasing the carers allowance using some of the money saved from the other cuts. This may address the point you brought up. I think carers should get a lot more support, it even makes sense from the governments point of view, they save the health system money.

      My only other point is that if removing the 29 would have a child on the street that person should consider not having the child as it sounds like they can’t afford it. (I should point out I wouldn’t propose to take benefits away from families that currently have them)

      Reply
  • Wow more “sons and daughters of thatcher” on a thread… 100,000 a year they should be paying much more tax as usual the poor get hammered

    Reply
    • Where did they come from? No sense of responsibility for their community, only looking for rewards for big salaries. What was it she said about society? Now she’s living in the Ritz at taxpayers’ expense – with a pension of ?500,000 a year!

      Reply
    • Why get paid more for empowering positions that improve your skill set and knowledge? And yet you get paid less for more onerouse work?
      Why should you get paid for genetic inheritance or training obtained largely at public or parent’s expense?

      A market in remuneration makes feck all sense and needs to be corrected by a progressive taxation system. Leading to a removal of the market entirely imho and replaced with something more participatory
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

      Reply
  • @Anita Tuesley my 3rd and 4th born were twins after years of parenting alone as a young widow. Not surprised that nobody else took this man up on his comment. The country is full of people who still use the expression “unmarried mother” and are oblivious to the different profiles of people, male and female, who parent alone for a variety of reasons. And as I explained to my non Irish friend recently, young woman all over the world get pregnant in their teens/early 20s since they possess ovaries but here there is a culture of women keeping their babies as well as not having the option to chose termination.

    Reply
    • They won’t be begrudging us when they’re pensions are coming out of our babies wages I’m sure! They’re completely missing the point that it’s not the women who are being responsible and there raising the babies they should be having a go at, but the fathers who opt out of funding or sharing the rearing!

      Reply
  • 100k+ should be taxed to the hilt.
    I REALLY don’t want to hear sob-stories about second mortgages because they were taken out with the intention of renting them out at mortgage + X%.
    All the greed has gone pear shaped, so now the unemployed and the sick and pensioners have to take the hit for fear that the chap with 2 homes won’t have to go rotten on his loan.
    News flash!! A house is for living in, not a cash cow to fluff up your pillows in retirement!!

    Reply
    • Yes Stephen. Because working hard and achieving things is a crime and should be punished. Wanting to better yourself and aspiring to better things is unforgivable after all.

      Reply
    • News flash: *someone* needs to own all of those rental properties that so many people want to rent at the moment.
      Why shouldn’t that someone be an individual, instead of GloboMegaCorp?

      Reply
    • Are you in the 100K+ group Stephen?

      Reply
    • If you tax most of someone’s income over a certain point they won’t bother working beyond that point so the state doesn’t get the extra revenue.

      Can’t believe people don’t get this.

      Reply
    • The top 1% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €140,000 per annum
      If you factor in unvouched expenses that puts our elected representatives in clover

      Reply
    • Thanks Stephen!
      Anyone claiming that a 100k income isn’t all that much, needs too look at their spending!

      Reply
    • Vincent – Is your assumption that the people who aren’t earning high wages never aspired to anything? So nurses, teachers, police and fire officers don’t aspire to much?

      What about those people who work hard all their lives and don’t seek high wages as a reward – because they believe that having more cash than they actually leads to having more than you need. If you don’t think that the rich should be taxed more for their part in society (serving themselves), why tax these people at all?

      Taxes are supposed to be a fair assessment on someone’s ability to pay. The reason you (as in a rich person – not you personally as I have no idea and don’t care what you earn/own) have to pay more when you earn SO MUCH more is because paying the same level of tax as everyone else doesn’t actually affect the rich. It’s a drop in the ocean – you are supposed to feel taxes or they wouldn’t be a burden.

      But that doesn’t mean that the rich paying lots of taxes should have more “rights” either – you shouldn’t get to buy your way into behaving how you wish.

      Being rich brings it’s own rewards and the majority of people don’t get where they are just because of “working hard”. Someone sweeps your streets, makes the things you buy, puts things on the shops shelves and serves you at your table – so be glad that not everyone is successful or you’d be a hungry and dirty rich bloke who didn’t have much to spend his money on. Privilege comes in many forms and the wealthy owe it to society to pay more taxes.

      Reply
    • We are very naive to expect our representatives to properly act impartially and in the public interest when they are cocooned in the top percentile of income earners. How do we expect them to reign in the bankers and high flyers when they are sitting beside them in their fancy restaurants, golf clubs and at alumni dinners? There is nothing wrong with high earners but not when the income is from the public purse and the citizens interests are being sidelined to benefit the top strata in society.

      Reply
    • @Leigh Barker, in fairness, I don’t think that was Vincent’s sentiment at all. Agree with the second half of your post though.

      Reply
    • What do you do for a crust Stephen?

      Reply
    • Kevin 17/01/13 #

      Stephen = complete and utter plant pot.

      Reply
    • @leigh- I cast no aspersions whatsoever on lower income workers. I was simply arguing against the demonisation to people who have done well. People on 100k already pay substantially more tax than someone on 30k. Water doesn’t come out of their tax any faster or cleaner, though. They pay more for the same services so we shouldn’t call them names while they do so. It’s wrong to dis incentivise success.

      Reply
    • 838 red thumbs didnt even know it went that high

      Reply
    • Straight out of the west wing. Well done sir.

      Reply
    • @pat- sadly I’m no Rob Lowe!

      Reply
    • Smiley 18/01/13 #

      Well, Kevin, that was a constructive comment.

      Reply
    • Easy talking but those on incomes of 100k+ tend to have the power and ability to be mobile and/or adjust/negotiate incomes in a more tax-favourable manner. A lot of very high earners are reputedly considering tax exile because of the way in which capital gains and savings are taxed – 30%+ here as compared to 20% in the US. This is why a lot of the efforts to increase taxation on higher earners tends to fail miserably.

      Reply
    • Sob stories, next time your in the local pub why don’t you buy a round for the 19 people nearest you & continue to do that all night long. That is what being in the top 5% of income earners means – a requirement to contribute 50% of the income tax take for the nation.

      Reply

Add New Comment