Earl Evleth

INSEE is the French statistical research institute which measures a number
of things, its web site provides information in English and some of the
reports are in English.

http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp

One report I down loaded was on "The living standards of French households
between 1970-1999² by Guillemin and Roux.

The report uses data which is more detailed than I have been able to
extract from the US census economic data. The French report computes
family standard of livings by dividing the family income by the number
of consumption units, calculated on the basis of 1 for one person, plus 0.5
for adults over 14 and 0.3 for children under. Thus a family of two adults
and two children would have 2.1 cus, and the family income divided by that
to get the standard of living. Here the income used is "disposible" income
which takes into account taxes (income, home taxes deducted) and transfers
(added). So one can not compare these figures with the US figures which
are income per family. But the % improvement data is comparable.

Next the French report breaks down the date in to deciles, each 10% of
of the income earning populations, while most of the American data
divides by 20% hunks, except for the top 5%.

So the comparison I make between what has happened in the US and France
are not fully comparable but indicative.

Some important points in France

1) Effect of transfers: The lowest 10% In France have standard of livings
which are composed of 35% transfers. Thus they earn 65% and are given 35%.
This means their incomes are increased about 50% because of transfers.
This is probably the reason why poverty rates are much lower in France
than the USA.

Transfers diminish in importance as incomes rise, representing about
20% in the second decile (10-20% group).

2) The impact of taxes increases with income, no surprise, reaching
to about 30% in the top 10% group.

3) Since 1970 the overall median standard of living has risen at an average
of 2.6% per year.

However, the median rise in the 1970-79 period was 5.3%/yr followed by
stagnation, 0.5% (79-84), 1.1% (84-90), 0.5%(90-97) and 2.2% (97-99)
(per year data).

The lowest income group did the best, with the D1 lowest decile
7.2%, 2.0%, 0.6%, 3.2% for these time periods
and 3.9% per year overall.

The top D10 ncome group improved 1.6% overall, 3.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%,
0.5% and 2.3%. The retirees did better than either with 4.8%
this improvement strongest with the retirees in the
D1 group at the bottom.

Next the ratio of the standard of livings of the highest group
and lowest decreased in the total time period from 4.8 to 3.3%

conclusion: there is no indication from this data that the rich
are getting richer, proportionally, and the poor, poorer in France.

Not quite the same data can be extracted from the US census data.

However from Table H-3 of the historical income for families the
1981-2001 average incomes improved in the following fashion
in inflation corrected 2001 dollars,

lowest 20%: $8,995 => $10,136, 13% total or 0.7%/yr

top 20%, $92,894 => $145,970, 57% total or 2.9%/yr

the top 5% $132,239 => $260,464, 97% or 4.9%/yr

The ratio $145,97/$10,136 is around 14-15.

So the conclusion is that in the US, incomes has stagnated
for the lowest rank. In fact the % income improvement for the
20-40% and the 40-60% in the use are about the same as for
the lowest income group, 0.9% each, and 1.3%/yr for the
60-80% group. One has to be in the top 20% to win out in
the American economy. The well off in France do about
as well as in the US but the poorer do better.

Earl

John Walton

Good website:

I would always prefer to eat in a French restaurant, purchase clothes in
France and the French put out some of the best aviation and electronics
equipment in the world, are at the forefront of pharma technology etc.

Economics is one of my babies, however -- there is so much more mobility
within the American economy that it goes unappreciated across the pond --
you have to look at families over time, or "longitudinally" -- as
immigration to the US is always filling in the lowest ranks. Immigration
has its social costs, but virtually assures that the US population will
increase by at lesat 50% by the end of this century. OTOH, the opposite is
true in many European countries.

It is also necessary to compare incomes on an after-tax basis. The lowest
deciles in the US pay virtually no income tax, have very little withheld
from their wages except for social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%).
Sales tax in the US averages 6% to 8% -- how does that stack up with VAT?

Not necessarily all good things, but I bet that the lowest decile family in
the US has more cars, TV's and a higher caloric intake (bad) than the
average lowest decile frenchman or woman. Probably knows how to work a
leafblower and lay bricks too!

"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6CC9AE.28A91%[email protected]...
    > INSEE is the French statistical research institute which measures a number
    > of things, its web site provides information in English and some of the
    > reports are in English.
    > http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp
    > One report I down loaded was on "The living standards of French households
    > between 1970-1999² by Guillemin and Roux.
    > The report uses data which is more detailed than I have been able to
    > extract from the US census economic data. The French report computes
    > family standard of livings by dividing the family income by the number
    > of consumption units, calculated on the basis of 1 for one person, plus
0.5
    > for adults over 14 and 0.3 for children under. Thus a family of two adults
    > and two children would have 2.1 cus, and the family income divided by that
    > to get the standard of living. Here the income used is "disposible" income
    > which takes into account taxes (income, home taxes deducted) and transfers
    > (added). So one can not compare these figures with the US figures which
    > are income per family. But the % improvement data is comparable.
    > Next the French report breaks down the date in to deciles, each 10% of
    > of the income earning populations, while most of the American data
    > divides by 20% hunks, except for the top 5%.
    > So the comparison I make between what has happened in the US and France
    > are not fully comparable but indicative.
    > Some important points in France
    > 1) Effect of transfers: The lowest 10% In France have standard of livings
    > which are composed of 35% transfers. Thus they earn 65% and are given 35%.
    > This means their incomes are increased about 50% because of transfers.
    > This is probably the reason why poverty rates are much lower in France
    > than the USA.
    > Transfers diminish in importance as incomes rise, representing about
    > 20% in the second decile (10-20% group).
    > 2) The impact of taxes increases with income, no surprise, reaching
    > to about 30% in the top 10% group.
    > 3) Since 1970 the overall median standard of living has risen at an
average
    > of 2.6% per year.
    > However, the median rise in the 1970-79 period was 5.3%/yr followed by
    > stagnation, 0.5% (79-84), 1.1% (84-90), 0.5%(90-97) and 2.2% (97-99)
    > (per year data).
    > The lowest income group did the best, with the D1 lowest decile
    > 7.2%, 2.0%, 0.6%, 3.2% for these time periods
    > and 3.9% per year overall.
    > The top D10 ncome group improved 1.6% overall, 3.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%,
    > 0.5% and 2.3%. The retirees did better than either with 4.8%
    > this improvement strongest with the retirees in the
    > D1 group at the bottom.
    > Next the ratio of the standard of livings of the highest group
    > and lowest decreased in the total time period from 4.8 to 3.3%
    > conclusion: there is no indication from this data that the rich
    > are getting richer, proportionally, and the poor, poorer in France.
    > Not quite the same data can be extracted from the US census data.
    > However from Table H-3 of the historical income for families the
    > 1981-2001 average incomes improved in the following fashion
    > in inflation corrected 2001 dollars,
    > lowest 20%: $8,995 => $10,136, 13% total or 0.7%/yr
    > top 20%, $92,894 => $145,970, 57% total or 2.9%/yr
    > the top 5% $132,239 => $260,464, 97% or 4.9%/yr
    > The ratio $145,97/$10,136 is around 14-15.
    > So the conclusion is that in the US, incomes has stagnated
    > for the lowest rank. In fact the % income improvement for the
    > 20-40% and the 40-60% in the use are about the same as for
    > the lowest income group, 0.9% each, and 1.3%/yr for the
    > 60-80% group. One has to be in the top 20% to win out in
    > the American economy. The well off in France do about
    > as well as in the US but the poorer do better.
    > Earl

Mxsmanic

Earl Evleth writes:

    > The well off in France do about
    > as well as in the US but the poorer do better.

Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

127 . 0 . 0 . 1

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:00:11 +0000, "Donna Evleth"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Dans l'article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    ><[email protected]> a écrit :
    >> Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
    >> consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
    >> become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.
    >The question is how rich do you have to be? We have a friend who arrived
    >here as a poor Greek immigrant, became a university professor with a good
    >salary, and now has a very comfortable retirement and owns two homes. We
    >have another friend, Syrian, one of nine children, who came to France,
    >got a research position, is also doing well enough to be a homeowner and
    >support his two sons through college. Neither of these people are among the
    >very rich, but they are certainly better off now than what they were born
    >into.
    >Donna Evleth
who cares?
this shit has nothing to do with travel, too bad you and you idiot
husband aren't rich enough to have a life!



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

Donna Evleth

Dans l'article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> a écrit :


    > Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
    > consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
    > become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.

The question is how rich do you have to be? We have a friend who arrived
here as a poor Greek immigrant, became a university professor with a good
salary, and now has a very comfortable retirement and owns two homes. We
have another friend, Syrian, one of nine children, who came to France,
got a research position, is also doing well enough to be a homeowner and
support his two sons through college. Neither of these people are among the
very rich, but they are certainly better off now than what they were born
into.

Donna Evleth

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 14:01, in article [email protected], "John
Walton" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > It is also necessary to compare incomes on an after-tax basis. The lowest
    > deciles in the US pay virtually no income tax, have very little withheld
    > from their wages except for social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%).
    > Sales tax in the US averages 6% to 8% -- how does that stack up with VAT?

The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house taxes
but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food. Another
factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is missing for
a large portion of low income Americans.

Next, we are talking about "improvement" not absolute standards of living
over a period of years and how it is distributed. In that sense the income
gaps are very large in the US and not so much in France. The statistical
fact remains, the lowest 10% and the retired have benefited most in
% terms. Obviously a person earning 5 times more profited more
in terms of money. Figures I did not show was that the top 20%
in the US too 70% of the aggregate income improvement in the US,
the lowest 1.5%, from 1981 to 2001. The top 5% essentially doubled
their income in this period.

    > Not necessarily all good things, but I bet that the lowest decile family in
    > the US has more cars, TV's and a higher caloric intake (bad) than the
    > average lowest decile frenchman or woman.

The US automobile ownership in the $10,000 is know, about 50% and the
average value of the automobile is $4000. As you know the problem
with lower income groups in the US is not that they don't have a microwave
but they have trouble making the rents, housing is taking more and more
of their income. Here too France makes some effort with their public
housing and housing subsidies.

Take public transportation. A retired person, with an income tax lower
than a certain threshold get a free yearly bus and metro pass.
Those employed in the Parisian area have employer contributions to
the purchase of a transportation card or carte orange. Likewise, lunch
meals are partly subsidized in an amount which varies downward as one income
rises.

So there is a real issue of who is actually better off, the lowest
10% or 20% in France or the USA? The information I provided supplied
part of an answer to that question. Any other solid statistical information
would be appreciated.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 14:25, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
    > consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
    > become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.

We kicked this one around about the US already. The problem of
a universal definition of rich was one problem. The only oft
quoted number in the US is that 1% of the people possess acout
40% of the wealth. When Bush accorded tax release for dividend
collectors, some ridiculous number, like 5% of the people were
getting nearly all the dividends. Bush`s lie team tried to
convince people you old retired Aunt was going to get some
tax relief on her meager investment income.

The French tax "grandes fortunes", the threshold of the tax is around
700,000 euros. This is ironical because with a reasonable size
3 pieces in Paris, one is already wortht 400,000-500,000 euros
and in the past number of years a number of people have ascended
to the class of having a "grande fortune".

So in that sense you are wrong, it is easy to become "rich in France",
just hold Parisian real estate! Indeed I know some professionals who
have made their "fortunes" only from income and buying real estate.

Earl

Mxsmanic

Donna Evleth writes:

    > The question is how rich do you have to be?

Rich enough to not have to worry about getting rich.

    > We have a friend who arrived here as a poor Greek immigrant,
    > became a university professor with a good salary, and now
    > has a very comfortable retirement and owns two homes.

Wow.

    > We have another friend, Syrian, one of nine children, who came to France,
    > got a research position, is also doing well enough to be a homeowner and
    > support his two sons through college. Neither of these people are among the
    > very rich, but they are certainly better off now than what they were born
    > into.

Some people don't aspire to much.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 16:28, in article [email protected],
"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > this shit has nothing to do with travel, too bad you and you idiot
    > husband aren't rich enough to have a life!


Some want to know the country they visit.

You pop up here every few weeks and drop comment, so did. Now
back to your hole again. You use a fake name and address,
and that pretty much defines you.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 17:21, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Some people don't aspire to much.


I assume you are speaking from experience. What have
you attained in life, by the way!

Earl

Mxsmanic

Earl Evleth writes:

    > I assume you are speaking from experience.

From observation.

    > What have you attained in life, by the way!

Nothing. But only from lack of competence, not lack of aspiration.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

jbk

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:00:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 4/03/04 14:01, in article [email protected], "John
    >Walton" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> It is also necessary to compare incomes on an after-tax basis. The lowest
    >> deciles in the US pay virtually no income tax, have very little withheld
    >> from their wages except for social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%).
    >> Sales tax in the US averages 6% to 8% -- how does that stack up with VAT?
    >The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house taxes
    >but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food. Another
    >factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is missing for
    >a large portion of low income Americans.

Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.


    >Take public transportation. A retired person, with an income tax lower
    >than a certain threshold get a free yearly bus and metro pass.
    >Those employed in the Parisian area have employer contributions to
    >the purchase of a transportation card or carte orange. Likewise, lunch
    >meals are partly subsidized in an amount which varies downward as one income
    >rises.

There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
free.

jbk

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:09:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 4/03/04 14:25, in article [email protected],
    >"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
    >> consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
    >> become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.
    >We kicked this one around about the US already. The problem of
    >a universal definition of rich was one problem. The only oft
    >quoted number in the US is that 1% of the people possess acout
    >40% of the wealth. When Bush accorded tax release for dividend
    >collectors, some ridiculous number, like 5% of the people were
    >getting nearly all the dividends. Bush`s lie team tried to
    >convince people you old retired Aunt was going to get some
    >tax relief on her meager investment income.

Which is perfectly true for anyone holding dividend paying stocks
which companies are increasing their dividends right now as a result
of the new law. See Walmart today.

    >The French tax "grandes fortunes", the threshold of the tax is around
    >700,000 euros. This is ironical because with a reasonable size
    >3 pieces in Paris, one is already wortht 400,000-500,000 euros
    >and in the past number of years a number of people have ascended
    >to the class of having a "grande fortune".

Why is it ironical? It fits the standard definition of every
socialist I have ever known except they would like it to start around
10 Euros if they could get away with it.

    >So in that sense you are wrong, it is easy to become "rich in France",
    >just hold Parisian real estate! Indeed I know some professionals who
    >have made their "fortunes" only from income and buying real estate.

Rich to a socialist is everyone earning over 10 Euros a year. Try
taking your 700,000 Euros and earn income off of it at 5% a year (if
you can get that) and see how richly you leave off of that income in
Paris.

JohnT

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:00:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >On 4/03/04 14:01, in article [email protected], "John
    > >Walton" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> It is also necessary to compare incomes on an after-tax basis. The lowest
    > >> deciles in the US pay virtually no income tax, have very little withheld
    > >> from their wages except for social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%).
    > >> Sales tax in the US averages 6% to 8% -- how does that stack up with VAT?
    > >
    > >The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house taxes
    > >but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food. Another
    > >factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is missing for
    > >a large portion of low income Americans.
    > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.
You are asserting that any low-income American can go the the local hospital and
get continuing treatment and medication for any illness or disability (for
example Type 1 Diabetes or Parkinson's Synrome)? Or do you have some other
definition of "universal health coverage"?

JohnT

Miguel Cruz

John Kulp <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house
    >> taxes but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food.
    >> Another factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is
    >> missing for a large portion of low income Americans.
    > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.

You can't get all sorts of health care in an emergency room. Especially the
sort of preventive stuff that keeps you out of the emergency room later.
Which seems like it must drive up costs in the long run.

    > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
    > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
    > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)

http://www.oecdobserver.org/images//637.photo.jpg

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/