Finland - Inequality of income distribution was 3.73 in December of 2024, according to the EUROSTAT. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Finland - Inequality of income distribution - last updated from the EUROSTAT on June of 2025. Historically, Finland - Inequality of income distribution reached a record high of 3.78 in December of 2023 and a record low of 3.54 in December of 2017.

The Gini coefficient in Finland increased between 2011 and 2021, indicating a slight growth in income inequality. In 2021, the Gini coefficient stood at 28.5 percent, increasing from the previous year.

The Gini coefficient measures the distribution of income among individuals or households within an economy. A Gini index of 0 corresponds to perfect income equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect income inequality.

Finland - Income inequality for older people: Males was 3.15 in December of 2024, according to the EUROSTAT. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Finland - Income inequality for older people: Males - last updated from the EUROSTAT on June of 2025. Historically, Finland - Income inequality for older people: Males reached a record high of 3.48 in December of 2022 and a record low of 3.06 in December of 2011.

In 2024, men earned on average 4,419 euros per month in Finland, while women's average monthly earnings amounted to 3,709 euros. Average monthly earnings increased for both genders during the past year; however, the gender pay gap remained nearly unchanged.

Finland - Income inequality for older people: Females was 3.03 in December of 2024, according to the EUROSTAT. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Finland - Income inequality for older people: Females - last updated from the EUROSTAT on July of 2025. Historically, Finland - Income inequality for older people: Females reached a record high of 3.14 in December of 2012 and a record low of 2.87 in December of 2021.

The 2019 International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) studied economic inequality in Finland. The respondents' attitudes were surveyed on income disparity between social groups, occupations and societies as well as which actors in society should solve these disparities. In addition, the survey charted the respondents' socio-economic situation, Finnish taxation, and conflicts between social groups. The previous ISSP survey regarding inequality was collected in 2009. First, the respondents' opinions were charted concerning the importance of different factors for succeeding in life, such as parents' wealth, ambition, social networks, corruption, or gender. Additionally, views were canvassed on fairness of differences in wealth between rich and poor countries. The respondents were also asked to estimate what persons in different occupations earned (euros/month, gross) and what the respondents thought they ought to be paid. Next, the respondents were presented with a set of statements that they were asked to agree or disagree with on a 5-point Likert scale. The questions concerned, for example, whether income disparity was too great in Finland, who should intervene with income disparity, whether the policies of the government were justified and whether the current level of taxation was justified. The respondents also placed themselves on a 10-point scale according to whether they considered themselves to be at the top or the bottom in society - currently, in childhood home and ten years into the future. Their views were also enquired on which factors they deemed important in deciding one's level of pay. Views on the hierarchical structure of society were examined by showing the respondents five figures representing differently built societies and asking which of the figures corresponded most closely to the situation in the respondent's own country, and which figure corresponded most closely to an optimal situation. The respondents were also asked questions regarding their economic situation at the time of the survey. Background variables included, for instance, gender, year of birth, region of residence (NUTS2), occupation, educational background, religious affiliation, which party the respondent voted for in previous elections, number of children, income, marital status, and statistical grouping of municipalities (urban, semi-urban, rural). The survey also included questions concerning the respondent's spouse/partner and parents' occupations.

The survey charted Finnish opinions on and experiences of welfare and inequality. The study was part of a project entitled Tackling Inequalities in Time of Austerity (TITA) funded by the Strategic Research Council of the Academy of Finland (decision numbers: 293103 and 314250), as well as the Inequalities, Interventions and a New Welfare State (INVEST) project funded by the Academy of Finland (decision number: 320162). First, the respondents were asked about their life satisfaction, mood, ability to achieve goals, perceived status in society and trust in other people. Feelings of loneliness, depression, failure, and happiness in the previous 12 months were also charted. Regarding income and personal finance, net income of the household and the ease of covering usual expenses with the income were surveyed. The respondents were asked whether they had received social assistance (minimum income scheme) in the previous year. The respondents' sense of safety was examined with questions on how often they interacted with or helped their neighbours, how safe they felt it was to walk outside in their own neighbourhood or in the population centre of the municipality late at night, and whether they had recently been concerned about becoming the victim of certain crimes (e.g. burglary, assault, sexual harassment). The respondents' views on how safe Finland is in general were also investigated. A number of statements about social assistance and social security were presented (e.g. all Finns are treated equally, the funding of social security is not sustainable, and that EU membership is a disadvantage to social security). Finally, the respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with statements about their own welfare and well-being, and how satisfied they were with their lives overall. Background variables included the respondent's gender, year of birth, household composition, household characteristics, housing tenure, type of accommodation, level of education, household income and expenses, and NUTS3 region of residence.

Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data was reported at 1.500 % in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 1.400 % for 2020. Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data is updated yearly, averaging 0.950 % from Dec 2008 (Median) to 2021, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1.600 % in 2017 and a record low of 0.700 % in 2011. Multidimensional Poverty Headcount Ratio: World Bank: % of total population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Finland – Table FI.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The multidimensional poverty headcount ratio (World Bank) is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Multidimensional Poverty Measure. The Multidimensional Poverty Measure includes three dimensions – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to capture a more complete picture of poverty.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

The study charted Finnish opinions on welfare and inequality. The study was part of the Wellbeing and social cohesion in an unequal society (WEBE) project funded by the Academy of Finland (decision number: 252317). First, the respondents' satisfaction with their financial circumstances was charted with questions regarding, for example, whether they would want to earn more money, own more clothes, be able to eat out more often, and be able to go on holiday to exotic places more often. The respondents' self-perceived success in important areas of life, such as relationships and self-esteem, was charted next by using the Flourishing Scale (FS). The respondents were then asked about their general life satisfaction, mood, ability to achieve things and perceived status in society. Next, satisfaction with specific domains of life, such as standard of living, personal health and personal safety, was examined by using the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI). Regarding income and personal finance, net income of the household and the ease of covering usual expenses with the income were surveyed. The respondents' perceptions regarding various different groups in Finland, for example, the homeless, immigrants, middle class, and rich, were surveyed. Some questions focused on the respondents' personal health, and they were asked, for example, whether they had had problems with moving or exercise, felt pain or suffering, or experienced fears or depression on the day the survey was conducted. The respondents were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with various statements concerning work and family life, living circumstances, communities they belonged to, and environment and nature. Feelings of loneliness, depression, failure, happiness and being loved or in love in the past 12 months were charted. The respondents were also asked how well various statements described them (e.g. whether they thought people should live independently, spoke directly and openly with others, and liked talking to their neighbours). Next, the respondents were asked how much they cared about the well-being of different groups (e.g. the homeless, immigrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, children in poor families, the elderly). The respondents' opinions concerning the people living in their neighbourhood were charted and trust in other people was examined. The help the respondents received from people close to them was surveyed with questions on, for example, who helped them with practical issues and who would help them financially if they needed it. The respondents were then asked whether they thought Finnish society had offered or would offer them better or worse opportunities compared to others of the same age (e.g. in standard of living, income, hobbies and starting a family). Some questions concerned the respondents' life management, for instance, whether they ate healthy food, used alcohol or drugs, and took care of people close to them. Negative life events were surveyed with questions on whether the respondents, a family member or a friend had experienced challenging life circumstances (e.g. homelessness, substance abuse, over-indebtedness, disability). A number of statements about social assistance (the social security benefit of the last resort) and social security were presented (e.g. whether the respondents thought that many people apply for social assistance on fraudulent grounds or that EU membership is a disadvantage for social security). Finally, the respondents were asked whether differences in income, health, neighbourhoods and education were too high in Finland. Background variables included the respondent's gender, age, year of birth, marital status, household composition, type of accommodation, housing tenure, level of education, economic activity and occupational status, municipality and NUTS3 region of residence, and whether R's municipality of residence at present was the same as R's municipality of residence at birth.

Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data was reported at 7.800 % in 2021. This records an increase from the previous number of 7.600 % for 2020. Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data is updated yearly, averaging 7.800 % from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2021, with 23 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 8.400 % in 2010 and a record low of 4.200 % in 1995. Poverty Headcount Ratio at Societal Poverty Lines: % of Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Finland – Table FI.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The poverty headcount ratio at societal poverty line is the percentage of a population living in poverty according to the World Bank's Societal Poverty Line. The Societal Poverty Line is expressed in purchasing power adjusted 2017 U.S. dollars and defined as max($2.15, $1.15 + 0.5*Median). This means that when the national median is sufficiently low, the Societal Poverty line is equivalent to the extreme poverty line, $2.15. For countries with a sufficiently high national median, the Societal Poverty Line grows as countries’ median income grows.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 0.000 % in 2015. This stayed constant from the previous number of 0.000 % for 2014. Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2015, with 13 observations. Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $3.20 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Finland – Table FI.World Bank: Poverty. Poverty gap at $3.20 a day (2011 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $3.20 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

This paper examines whether income transparency - the public release of citizens’ income information - affects support for redistribution. We leverage a quasi-experiment in Finland, where every year on the so-called tax day, the authorities release income information on Finland’s top earners to the public. To identify causal effects we compare respondents who took part in the European Social Survey shortly before and after the event. We find that the tax day increases perceptions that earnings of the top 10% are unfair, but that public support for redistribution remains largely unaffected. A notable exception are top earners, who decrease their support for redistribution, and young people, who increase their support for redistribution. Our results highlight the scope conditions of previous experimental studies, and suggest that increasing exposure to inequality through a real-world policy, rather than experimental treatments, may trigger only marginal changes in support for redistribution.

The survey charted views on social inequality in Finland. The questions and statements covered topics such as working and studying, important things for succeeding in life, and the taxation in various income brackets. Some questions charted income disparity. The respondents were asked about whether it is just or unjust that people with higher incomes can buy better health care and better education for their children than people with lower incomes. Views were probed on how much the respondents thought various occupational groups earn, as well as how much they should earn. In addition, the respondents were asked about the amount of conflict between different social groups, and where they would put themselves and their childhood family on a social scale. The respondents indicated their parents' jobs at the time they themselves were 15 years of age, and they were asked whether their own present job had higher or lower status compared to their parents' jobs. In addition, they were asked about their parents' occupations and type of employer. The industry of employment of the respondents' first employer was charted, as well as the respondents' occupation in their first place of work. In view of their current job, type of employer and present occupation were queried. Views were also canvassed on whether the respondents experienced their pay to be just or unjust. The respondents were presented with five diagrams showing different types of hierarchy in society and asked to indicate which of them corresponded best with Finnish society. They were also asked what they thought Finnish society should be like. The number of books in childhood home present home was charted. The respondents' wealth was investigated by asking whether there would be any money left if they sold their home and paid off their mortgage. In addition, the respondents were also asked whether there would be any money left if they converted their savings, stocks, or bonds they owned to cash and paid off any personal debts they had. Background variables included the respondent's gender, age, marital status, level and duration of education, employment status, occupation, spouse's employment status and occupation, and variables related to social background such as parents' level of education.

This statistic shows the results of a survey conducted by Cint on the distribution of personal income levels before tax in Finland in 2018. During the survey, 30.27 percent of respondents stated that their personal income before tax is between 20,000 and 40,000 Euros.

Finland FI: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data was reported at 27.100 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 26.800 % for 2014. Finland FI: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data is updated yearly, averaging 27.600 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2015, with 13 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 28.300 % in 2007 and a record low of 26.800 % in 2014. Finland FI: Gini Coefficient (GINI Index): World Bank Estimate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Finland – Table FI.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income (or, in some cases, consumption expenditure) among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Finland - Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group - EU-SILC survey was 68.10% in December of 2024, according to the EUROSTAT. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Finland - Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group - EU-SILC survey - last updated from the EUROSTAT on June of 2025. Historically, Finland - Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group - EU-SILC survey reached a record high of 74.30% in December of 2010 and a record low of 68.10% in December of 2024.

Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data was reported at 0.100 % in 2015. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.000 % for 2014. Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data is updated yearly, averaging 0.100 % from Dec 2003 (Median) to 2015, with 13 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.100 % in 2015 and a record low of 0.000 % in 2014. Finland FI: Poverty Gap at $5.50 a Day: 2011 PPP: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Finland – Table FI.World Bank: Poverty. Poverty gap at $5.50 a day (2011 PPP) is the mean shortfall in income or consumption from the poverty line $5.50 a day (counting the nonpoor as having zero shortfall), expressed as a percentage of the poverty line. This measure reflects the depth of poverty as well as its incidence.; ; World Bank, Development Research Group. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm).; ; The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than one thousand six hundred household surveys across 164 countries in six regions and 25 other high income countries (industrialized economies). While income distribution data are published for all countries with data available, poverty data are published for low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia) only. The aggregated numbers for low- and middle-income countries correspond to the totals of 6 regions in PovcalNet, which include low- and middle-income countries and countries eligible to receive loans from the World Bank (such as Chile) and recently graduated countries (such as Estonia). See PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/WhatIsNew.aspx) for definitions of geographical regions and industrialized countries.

Over the last decade, the unadjusted gender pay gap decreased in all five Nordic countries. In 2021, Iceland had the lowest pay gap between men and women at **** percent. The pay gap was highest in Finland, above ** percent. In Europe, Luxembourg had the lowest gender pay gap, whereas it was highest in Estonia.

The study charted Finnish people's values and attitudes. The themes of the 2018 survey included the powers of the president, income distribution, the impact of robotics and artificial intelligence on work and employment, success in life and freedom in society. First, the respondents were presented with attitudinal statements concerning a variety of social topics. Regarding automation, views were examined on whether replacing human work with machines would increase unemployment, exacerbate income disparity, or make a robot tax an essential factor in funding social services. Some questions covered inequality, whether income disparity was acceptable, if shortening work times would improve employment, and if zero-hour contracts, tax reliefs and aid to enterprises were needed. It was also asked if it could be possible to temporarily lower immigrants' wages to make it more profitable to employ them, thus helping them to integrate. Next, the respondents' opinions on the powers of the president in different matters, such as foreign and security policy, education and research, and EU matters, were charted. Further questions on robots and artificial intelligence surveyed whether these factors had affected the respondent's own work in terms of salary, safety and working hours. Attitudes were examined towards utilising robots in e.g. self-driving cars and freight, social and healthcare services, warfare, industry, and surveillance. Income-related questions covered the respondents' perceived income group and their estimation of how effortless it was to get by with the current income in the household. The respondents were presented with five different figures depicting hierarchy in society, and they were asked to evaluate which figure best described the situation in Finland and which figure they would choose for Finland in an optimal situation. Finally, it was queried how important the respondents deemed a wealthy family background, education, ambition or chance for succeeding in life. It was also asked if different spheres of life in Finland, such as entrepreneurship, living and building, gambling, and traffic, allowed too little, the right amount, or too much freedom. Background variables included gender, age group, size of municipality of residence, region of residence (NUTS3), basic education, professional or vocational education, occupational status, type of employer, contractual (employment) relationship, industry of employment, perceived socioeconomic class, political party preference, and trade union confederation.

Finland - Gender differences in the relative income of elderly people (65+) was 0.09% in December of 2024, according to the EUROSTAT. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for Finland - Gender differences in the relative income of elderly people (65+) - last updated from the EUROSTAT on July of 2025. Historically, Finland - Gender differences in the relative income of elderly people (65+) reached a record high of 0.14% in December of 2015 and a record low of -0.03% in December of 2020.