New Zealand: Gini income inequality index: The latest value from is index points, unavailable from index points in . In comparison, the world average is 0.00 index points, based on data from countries. Historically, the average for New Zealand from to is index points. The minimum value, index points, was reached in while the maximum of index points was recorded in .

New Zealand Median Annual Household Disposable Income data was reported at 86,257.000 NZD in 2024. This records an increase from the previous number of 81,945.000 NZD for 2023. New Zealand Median Annual Household Disposable Income data is updated yearly, averaging 60,369.000 NZD from Jun 2007 (Median) to 2024, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 86,257.000 NZD in 2024 and a record low of 43,113.000 NZD in 2007. New Zealand Median Annual Household Disposable Income data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Stats NZ. The data is categorized under Global Database’s New Zealand – Table NZ.H026: Annual Household Income.

Students willdetermine patterns of wealth distribution globallyidentify sustainable suggestions for regions of the world.Other New Zealand GeoInquiry instructional material freely available at https://arcg.is/1GPDXe

In the year ended March 2022, the gross national income per capita in New Zealand was approximately 68,272 New Zealand dollars. This value has increased steadily over the past decade.

The sixth International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) survey by COMPASS Research Centre at the University of Auckland. More information on our surveys, including data visualisations, can be found at International Social Survey Programme - The University of Auckland.A verbose rundown on topics covered follows.Attitudes towards social inequality. Social background and good relations as most important prerequisites for success in society; estimation of actual and adequate annual income for occupational groups; responsibility of government to reduce income differences.Assessment of economic differences between poor and rich countries; attitude towards compensation by additional taxes in the wealthy countries; estimation of conflicts between social groups in the country; self-assessment on a top-bottom-scale and expectation of the individual level in 10 years' time.Criteria for the classification of payment for work; characterisation of actual and desired social system in New Zealand.Assessment of New Zealand against other countries; experience of discrimination in different settings; contact with much richer / much poorer people; more on government responsibility for reducing income gaps in society; respondent's current household financial situation; social mobility via parental occupations in respondent's childhood.Demography: age; sex; living together with a partner; marital status; education; religion; occupation status and ANZSCO code; working hours per week; net income of respondent and total household.Size of area lived in; voting status in last election; ethnicities of respondent and those represented in household; total number of adults and children in household.

We investigate whether changes in economic inequality affect mortality in rich countries. To answer this question we use a new source of data on income inequality: tax data on the share of pretax income going to the richest 10 percent of the population in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US between 1903 and 2003. Although this measure is not a good proxy for inequality within the bottom half of the income distribution, it is a good proxy for changes in the top half of the distribution and for the Gini coefficient. In the absence of country and year fixed effects, the income share of the top decile is negatively related to life expectancy and positively related to infant mortality. However, in our preferred fixed-effects specification these relationships are weak, statistically insignificant, and likely to change their sign. Nor do our data suggest that changes in the income share of the richest 10 percent affect homicide or suicide rates.

New Zealand’s Treasury, as illustrated by its Living Standards Framework, desires policy that not only promotes economic growth, but also sustainability and equity. This paper studies how taxation and abatement policy can work to keep an economy viable in regards to capital stocks, consumption, debt, environment and the relative factor share (a proxy for income inequality), as well as the trade-offs it faces in different levels of pollutant industry. This is done in the context of Viability Theory, a branch of mathematics suited for policy analysis. The results show that reducing an economies environmental impact is key for achieving the multi faceted growth laid out in the Living Standards Framework.

The second of 20 years of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) surveys within New Zealand by Professor Philip Gendall, Department of Marketing, Massey University. A verbose rundown on topics covered follows.Judgement on social justice and social differences in the country. Social prestige of respondents and selected occupations. Most important prerequisites for personal success in society (scale); attitude to the welfare state and social differences (scale); chances to increase personal standard of living; importance of differentiated payment; higher payment with acceptance of increased responsibility; higher payment as incentive for additional qualification of workers.Avoidability of inequality of society; increased income expectation as motive for taking up studies; good profits for entrepreneurs as best prerequisite for increase in general standard of living; insufficient solidarity of the normal population as reason for the persistence of social inequalities; estimate of average annual income of selected occupational groups and information on a justified income for the members of these occupational groups from the point of view of the respondent.Judgement on the income differences in the country; reduction of income differences, employment guarantee, guaranteed minimum income and equal opportunities for children of poorer families in university admission as government task; attitude to a reduction of government tasks for those of low income; approval of government support for unemployed; judgement on total taxation for recipients of high, middle and low income.Perceived social conflicts in the country; self-classification on a top-bottom scale; social mobility; social origins; education status, responsibility accepted, span of control, family responsibility, good work performance or hard work as most important criteria for establishing work pay; income increase or income reduction of individual income in case of a hypothetical equalization of the total income of the population; personal self-employment and occupation at start of employment.Description of current condition of social pyramid as well as assessment of the situation 30 years ago as well as in 30 years; self-classification on a social prestige scale as well as classification of selected occupations; hours worked each week; employment in private or public sector; span of control; company size; personal union membership and membership of spouse; religiousness; self-classification of social class affiliation; party preference; party inclination; residential status; self-classification on a left-right scale; regional origins.

The ninth of 20 years of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) surveys within New Zealand, by Professor Philip Gendall, Department of Marketing, Massey University.A verbose rundown on topics covered follows.Attitudes towards social inequality. Social background and good relations as most important prerequisites for success in the society; most important criteria for social mobility (scale: personal effort, intelligence or corruption); reasons for and acceptance of social inequality; self-assessment of payment suitable for performance; estimation of actual and adequate monthly income for occupational groups; responsibility of government to reduce income differences; attitude to a progressive tax rate; assessment of the economic differences between poor and rich countries; attitude towards compensation by additional taxes in the wealthy countries (redistribution).Justification of better medical supply and better education for people with higher income; assumption of conflicts between social groups in the country; self-assessment on a top-bottom-scale and expectation of the individual level in 10 years; social mobility; criteria for the classification of payment for work (scale: responsibility, education, supervisor function, needed support for family and children or quality of job performance); feeling of a just payment; characterisation of the actual and the desired social system of the country, measured by classification on pyramid diagrams; Self-assessment of the respondent as well as classification of an unskilled factory worker and a chairman of a large corporation on a top-bottom-scale; number of books in the parental home in the respondent’s youth.Demography: Age; sex; living together with a partner; marital status; school education; denomination; occupation status; profession (ISCO code); occupation in the public sector; autonomy; working hours per week; net income of the respondent; supervisor function; occupation status, profession and supervisor function of the partner; household structure; family income; size of household; city size; region; own unemployment within the last few years and duration of this unemployment; religiousness; frequency of going to church; forms of the faith in God; Self-assessment of the social class; union membership; party preference; participation in elections; Living situation and living status; in some countries: ethnic membership of the respondent.

The nineteenth of 20 years of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) surveys in New Zealand by Professor Philip Gendall, Department of Marketing, Massey University.A verbose rundown on topics covered follows.Attitudes towards social inequality. Social background and good relations as most important prerequisites for success in society; most important criteria for social mobility (scale: personal effort, intelligence or corruption); reasons for and acceptance of social inequality; Self-assessment of payment suitable for performance; estimation of actual and adequate monthly income for occupational groups; responsibility of government to reduce income differences; attitude to a progressive tax rate.Assessment of the economic differences between poor and rich countries; attitude towards compensation by additional taxes in the wealthy countries (Redistribution); justification of better medical supply and better education for people with higher income; assumption of conflicts between social groups in the country; self-assessment on a top-bottom-scale and expectation of the individual level in 10 years; social mobility; criteria for the classification of payment for work (scale: responsibility, education, supervisor function, needed support for family and children or quality of job performance); feeling of a just payment.Characterisation of the actual and the desired social system of the country, measured by classification on pyramid diagrams; Self-assessment of the respondent as well as classification of an unskilled factory worker and a chairman of a large corporation on a top-bottom-scale; number of books in the parental home in the respondent’s youth.Demography: age; sex; living together with a partner; marital status; school education; denomination; occupation status; profession (ISCO code); occupation in the public sector; autonomy; working hours per week; net income of the respondent; supervisor function; occupation status, profession and supervisor function of the partner; household structure; family income; size of household; city size; region; own unemployment within the last few years and duration of this unemployment; religiousness; frequency of going to church; forms of the faith in God; Self-assessment of the social class; union membership; party preference; participation in elections; living situation and living status; in some countries: ethnic membership of the respondent.

Iversen and Soskice’s (2006) notion that electoral rules affect democracies’ propensity for income redistribution is one of the political economy’s most discussed concepts. Yet, it comes with a number of caveats. Most importantly, it is not clear whether electoral rules indeed affect states’ propensity for redistribution or vice versa and thus whether or not Iversen and Soskice’s findings are endogenous and spurious. In this article, we focus on the critical case of New Zealand’s electoral reform of the 1990s and offer a comprehensive test of Iversen and Soskice’s concept. We employ the recently developed dynamic multilevel latent factor model, a Bayesian alternative to synthetic controls (Pang et al. 2021), and compare the relevant dynamics for New Zealand to those of six majoritarian democracies. Our test largely supports Iversen and Soskice’s claims; due to the lower prevalence of right (center-right) governments, proportional representation democracies tend to redistribute more than majoritarian ones.

The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) is an ongoing program of crossnational collaboration. Formed in 1983, the group develops topical modules dealing with important areas of social science as supplements to regular national surveys. This collection, the second module on social inequality (see INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: SOCIAL INEQUALITY, 1987 [ICPSR 9383]), contains data from Australia, Germany (West and East), Great Britain, the United States, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Bulgaria, Russia, New Zealand, Canada, and the Philippines. Questions asked of respondents focused on equality of income, wealth, and opportunity. Respondents were asked for their perceptions of the extent of present inequality, explanations for inequality, and support for government programs to reduce inequality. Demographic data on respondents such as age, sex, employment, income, marital status, education, religion, political affiliation, and trade union membership also are provided.

Note: For information on data collection, confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..Due to COVID-19 restrictions impacting data collection for the 2020 Census of the U.S. Virgin Islands, data tables reporting social and economic characteristics do not include the group quarters population in the table universe. As a result, impacted 2020 data tables should not be compared to 2010 and other past census data tables reporting the same characteristics. The Census Bureau advises data users to verify table universes are the same before comparing data across census years. For more information about data collection limitations and the impacts on the U.S. Virgin Island's data products, see the 2020 Island Areas Censuses Technical Documentation..[1] United States excludes U.S. Island Areas and Puerto Rico..[2] Oceania includes Australia, New Zealand, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and the other U.S. Island Areas in these regions..[3] Latin America and the Caribbean includes Puerto Rico and Navassa Island..Explanation of Symbols: 1.An "-" means the statistic could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of observations. 2. An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.3. An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.4. An "N" means data are not displayed for the selected geographic area due to concerns with statistical reliability or an insufficient number of cases.5. An "(X)" means not applicable..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census, U.S. Virgin Islands.

The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) is an ongoing program of crossnational collaboration. Formed in 1983, the group develops topical modules dealing with important areas of social science as supplements to regular national surveys. This collection, the third module on social inequality (see INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: SOCIAL INEQUALITY, 1987 [ICPSR 9383] and INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: SOCIAL INEQUALITY, 1992 [ICPSR 6493]), contains data from Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany (West and East), Great Britain, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Questions asked of respondents focused on equality of income, wealth, and opportunity. Respondents were asked for their perceptions of the extent of present inequality, explanations for inequality, and the role of government to reduce inequality. Demographic data on respondents such as age, sex, employment, income, marital status, education, religion, political affiliation, region of residence, and trade union membership also are provided.