Market income, government transfers, total income, income tax and after-tax income, by economic family type, annual.

The financial indicators are based on data compiled according to the 2008 SNA "System of National Accounts, 2008". Many indicators are expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or as a percentage of Gross Disposable Income (GDI) when referring to the Households and NPISHs sector. The definition of GDP and GDI are the following:

Gross Domestic Product:
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is derived from the concept of value added. Gross value added is the difference of output and intermediate consumption. GDP is the sum of gross value added of all resident producer units plus that part (possibly the total) of taxes on products, less subsidies on products, that is not included in the valuation of output [System of National Accounts, 2008, par. 2.138]. GDP is also equal to the sum of final uses of goods and services (all uses except intermediate consumption) measured at purchasers’ prices, less the value of imports of goods and services [System of National Accounts, 2008, par. 2.139]. GDP is also equal to the sum of primary incomes distributed by producer units [System of National Accounts, 2008, par. 2.140].

Gross Disposable Income:
Gross Disposable Income (GDI) is equal to net disposable income which is the balancing item of the secondary distribution income account plus the consumption of fixed capital. The use of the Gross Disposable Income (GDI), rather than net disposable income, is preferable for analytical purposes because there are uncertainty and comparability problems with the calculation of consumption of fixed capital. GDI measures the income available to the total economy for final consumption and gross saving [System of National Accounts, 2008, par. 2.145].

Definition of Debt:
Debt is a commonly used concept, defined as a specific subset of liabilities identified according to the types of financial instruments included or excluded. Generally, debt is defined as all liabilities that require payment or payments of interest or principal by the debtor to the creditor at a date or dates in the future. Consequently, all debt instruments are liabilities, but some liabilities such as shares, equity and financial derivatives are not debt [System of National Accounts, 2008, par. 22.104]. According to the SNA, most debt instruments are valued at market prices. However, some countries do not apply this valuation, in particular for securities other than shares, except financial derivatives (AF33). In this dataset, for financial indicators referring to debt, the concept of debt is the one adopted by the SNA 2008 as well as by the International Monetary Fund in “Public Sector Debt Statistics – Guide for compilers and users” (Pre-publication draft, May 2011). Debt is thus obtained as the sum of the following liability categories, whenever available / applicable in the financial balance sheet of the institutional sector:special drawing rights (AF12), currency and deposits (AF2), debt securities (AF3), loans (AF4), insurance, pension, and standardised guarantees (AF6), and other accounts payable (AF8). This definition differs from the definition of debt applied under the Maastricht Treaty for European countries. First, gross debt according to the Maastricht definition excludes not only financial derivatives and employee stock options (AF7) and equity and investment fund shares (AF5) but also insurance pensions and standardised guarantees (AF6) and other accounts payable (AF8). Second, debt according to Maastricht definition is valued at nominal prices and not at market prices.

To view other related indicator datasets, please refer to:
Institutional Investors Indicators [add link]
Household Dashboard [add link]

This table contains data on the average cost of a market basket of nutritious food items relative to income for female-headed households with children, for California, its regions, counties, and cities/towns. The ratio uses data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Census Bureau. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. An adequate, nutritious diet is a necessity at all stages of life. Inadequate diets can impair intellectual performance and have been linked to more frequent school absence and poorer educational achievement in children. Nutrition also plays a significant role in causing or preventing a number of illnesses, such as cardiovascular disease, some cancers, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and anemia. At least two factors influence the affordability of food and the dietary choices of families – the cost of food and family income. The inability to afford food is a major factor in food insecurity, which has a spectrum of effects including anxiety over food sufficiency or food shortages; reduced quality or desirability of diet; and disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Attachments.

We have collected data on the retirement income market since April 2015. The data helps us monitor developments. For example, it gives us insight into the actions consumers take the first time they access a pension pot. Previously published data up to March 2018 is also included in separate tables. The data for these periods was initially drawn from a representative sample. We started collecting data from all regulated firms that provide retirement income products from 1 April 2018. This change means users should be careful if comparing the more complete data to data from before April 2018. ##What’s included in the data * Numbers and types of pension plans accessed for the first time. * Number of plans where the plan holder made a regular or ad hoc partial withdrawal. * Use of advice when purchasing retirement products. * Types of annuity options sold. * Sources of business for retirement product providers. * Number of defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) pension transfers received. * Total value withdrawn by Pension Commencement Lump Sum (PCLS) and by all fully encashed plans. * Stock data and advice on drawdowns. This can be found in the underlying tables 19,19A, 19B, 19C and 20.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) is pleased to announce that Fair Market Rents and Income Limits data are now available via an application programming interface (API). With this API, developers can easily access and customize Fair Market Rents and Income Limits data for use in existing applications or to create new applications. To create an account and get an access token, please visit the API page here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/dataset/fmr-api.html. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs including the Public Housing, Section 8 project-based, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 202 housing for the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities programs. HUD develops income limits based on Median Family Income estimates and Fair Market Rent area definitions for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county.

Dataset replaced by: http://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/f5wt4ZF25sX6Ozy2DCSJw This indicator is defined as the value at market prices of EU imports from the DAC countries, as they have been determined by the OECD Development Assistance Committee. The indicator is successively broken down by income groups of countries referring to the World Bank definition. DAC (Development Assistance Committee) countries refer to developing countries and territories on Part I of the OECD/DAC list of Aid Recipients for which there is a long-standing United Nations target of 0.7% of donors' gross national product.

This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) periodically receives "custom tabulations" of Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. These datasets, known as "CHAS" (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data, demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The primary purpose of CHAS data is to demonstrate the number of households in need of housing assistance. This is estimated by the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). CHAS data provides counts of the numbers of households that fit these HUD-specified characteristics in a variety of geographic areas. In addition to estimating low-income housing needs, CHAS data contributes to a more comprehensive market analysis by documenting issues like lead paint risks, "affordability mismatch," and the interaction of affordability with variables like age of homes, number of bedrooms, and type of building. This dataset is a special tabulation of the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) and reflects conditions over that time period. The dataset uses custom HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) figures calculated by HUD PDR staff based on 2016-2020 ACS income data. CHAS datasets are used by Federal, State, and Local governments to plan how to spend, and distribute HUD program funds. To learn more about the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), visit: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. To learn more about the American Community Survey (ACS), and associated datasets visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs Data Dictionary: DD_ACS 5-Year CHAS Estimate Data by Tract Date of Coverage: 2016-2020

Registered pension plans (RPPs), active members and market value of assets, by earnings base for defined benefit plans, sector and contributory status.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are geography-specific; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% income threshold of Nova Scotian tax filers. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.

The Swedish income panel was originally set up in the beginning of the 90s to make studies of how immigrants assimilate in the Swedish labour market possible. It consists of large samples of foreign-born and Swedish-born persons. Income information from registers is added for nearly 40 years. In addition income information relating to spouses is also available as well as for a subset of mothers and fathers. This makes it possible to construct measures of household income based on a relatively narrow definition. However, starting in 1998 there is also more information making it possible to include children over 18 and their incomes in the family. By matching with some different additional registers information has been added for people who have been unemployed or involved in labour market programmes during the 90s, on causes of deaths for people who have deceased since 1978 and on recent arrived immigrants from various origins. It has turned out that the data-base is quite useful for analysing research-questions other than originally motivating construction of the panel. The panel has been used for cross country comparisons of immigrants in the labour market and to analyse income mobility for different breakdowns of the population, and analyses the development in cohort income. There have been analyses of social assistance receipt among immigrants as well as studies of intergeneration mobility of income, the labour market situation of young immigrants and the second generation of immigrants. On-going work includes evaluation of labour market training programmes and studies of early retirement among immigrants. Planned work includes studies of the economic transition from child to adulthood during the 80s and 90s as well as studies of how frequent immigrant children are subject to measures under the Social Service Act and the Care of Youth Persons Act. The potentials of the Swedish Income Panel can be understood if one compares it with better known income-panels in other countries. For example SWIP covers more years and has a larger sample than the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP). On the other hand, the fact that information is obtained from registers only makes this Swedish panel less rich in variables. There are striking parallels between the Gothenburg Income Panel and the labour market panel at the Centre for Labour Market and Social Research in Aarhus for the Danish population.