Search
Caught live by critics on its measurement of purchasing power, deemed too general and too optimistic because it integrates the demographic dynamism , Insee releases this morning an "innovative European and even global level" study comprising the revenue and consumption by categories of households. The selected reference year is old (2003), but it was the common denominator between the sources necessary for the development of these results. They illustrate especially the gap between the two ends of the social scale. Thus, the 20 of the more affluent households (or 5 million households) had in 2003 40 of disposable income (993.4 billion euros), when the less affluent 20 received only 8. "The standard of living of the 20 of the more affluent households appears on average 5 times higher than that of the more modest", note the Insee. If available for the more modest income is constituted for more than half, of social benefits, more than a quarter is also paid in taxes and contributions. However, the balance between the perceived benefits and taxes, which reflects the redistribution is deficit in the second quintile (i.e. households located between 20 and 40 more affluent). 5 Million of the more affluent households so must their heritage: the revenue associated with it represents 36 of their disposable income. They thus capture 80 of the financial income. However, since 2003, the strong growth in financial income still increased revenues from the top of the distribution, said recent studies.
Concentration of the saving rate
If the extent of redistribution was already partly known, the Insee study also shows the very high concentration of savings rates (17.3 of disposable income): it reaches 10 for households that could be likened to the upper middle class (4th decile), but it explodes at 36 to 20 more affluent. They "produce 80 of the total mass of savings of households in 2003", said Insee. The 20 poorest households record, a negative savings rate ( 11), which means that their consumption exceeds their income. It is more often young people under 30 years old or inactive non-retired. By integrating private (from household to household) transfers, their savings rate is just positive (1). "It is possible that these households are financed by a credit (earlier, Editor's note), a previously accumulated or family assistance savings", notes the study.
Consequence of the savings, disparities in consumption are less strong among small and affluent households than income gaps (3.3 against 5). To the average household, a framework will spend 51, while a worker will spend about 20 less. Single-parent families are more constraints: they spend 22 less than the average household.
Three great posts
"Three major positions of consumption share of 50 to 60 of household spending: housing, food and transportation", note the Insee. Households spend 20 of their budget on food compared with 12 for the more affluent households. The expenditure of housing is similar (about a quarter of the budget) but it is because rents are "charged" to the owners, most affluent. Affluent households actually spend 5 points less of their budget on actual rents and 4 points less in water, gas or electricity.
Their most fearsome adversary is already there the Brazilian ValeToday the British market undertaking is expensiveToyota itself is not against the spread of these ideasChoirs on the other hand is directly movingThe interest is to get a foot in the doorIt was demolished some time after his death This is not a fixed dogma but a living approachl June 2005 the trust refused to VillepinBut not question to focus on this segmentThese are also the most expensive regions
