Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

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.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the Data DictionaryWhat is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

Abstract

The Global Consumption Database (GCD) contains information on consumption patterns at the national level, by urban/rural area, and by income level (4 categories: lowest, low, middle, higher with thresholds based on a global income distribution), for 92 low and middle-income countries, as of 2010. The data were extracted from national household surveys. The consumption is presented by category of products and services of the International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, which mostly corresponds to COICOP. For three countries, sub-national data are also available (Brazil, India, and South Africa). Data on population estimates are also included.

       The data file can be used for the production of the following tables (by urban/rural and income class/consumption segment):
       - Sample Size by Country, Area and Consumption Segment (Number of Households)
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the National Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the Area Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Age Group, Sex and Consumption Segment
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Category of Products/Services, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Percentage of Households who Reported Having Consumed the Product or Service by Country, Consumption Segment and Area (as of Survey Year)

Geographic coverage notes

For all countries, estimates are provided at the national level and at the urban/rural levels. For Brazil, India, and South Africa, data are also provided at the sub-national level (admin 1): - Brazil: ACR, Alagoas, Amapa, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Distrito Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaji, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondonia, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Sao Paolo, Sergipe, Tocatins - India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arinachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madya Pradesh, Maharastra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal - South Africa: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpulamanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape

Kind of data

Data derived from survey microdata

This indicator measures the amount of annual incremental federal revenue generated as a result of additional Federal Budget initiatives used to support Government of Canada responsibilities and priorities and the Agency's ultimate outcome: "Canadians meet their obligations, non-compliance is addressed, and Canadians have access to appropriate mechanisms for resolving disputes". This supports the Minister's Mandate commitment to crack down on tax evaders and combat tax avoidance, as well as the Government priority of growing the middle class. This indicator is on track to exceed the five-year target of $2.6B by March of 2021. The in-year target for 2018-19 was $1.4B with results of $1.99B. The reported result reflects 2018–19 investments from Budgets 2015, 2016, and 2017. Budgets 2016 and 2017 include some initiatives that extend Budget 2015 funding and expand some existing workloads. Therefore, revenue results include initiatives from all three years' budgets. The incremental revenue is comprised of federal income tax adjustments for the years audited plus future years’ adjustments discounted to the net present value and the value of GST/HST recoveries plus third-party, transfer pricing and gross negligence penalties. It does not account for the impact of appeals reversals and uncollected amounts.

This data package includes the underlying data files to replicate the data, tables, and charts presented in Why Trump’s tariff proposals would harm working Americans, PIIE Policy Brief 24-1.

If you use the data, please cite as: Clausing, Kimberly, and Mary E. Lovely. 2024. Why Trump’s tariff proposals would harm working Americans. PIIE Policy Brief 24-1. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.