Page 103 - Invited Paper Session (IPS) - Volume 1

IPS102 Arjan B.
to get a complete picture of household welfare. The used household dataset
allows us to do so on the macro and micro level. It includes all income
transactions that add up to macro disposable income, on the individual and
household level. This allows for a wealth distribution over gross disposable
income deciles. 315 thousand households (4% of the population) are both in the
bottom decile of the income distribution, and in the bottom decile of the wealth
distribution. Furthermore, we find that none of the income deciles has negative
net worth (Table 4). The share in net worth of the top 10% and top 1% of the
income distribution is much lower than it was when the simple wealth
distribution was considered. The ratios show this as well. The 10/40 ratio was 4.7
(Table 2), this becomes 0.7 in the joint analysis, meaning that the bottom 40%
has more assets than the top 10%. The 20/20 ratio drop from 56.8 to 2.8.

4. Discussion and Conclusion
We have shown a large number of wealth inequality measures. Building on
the work of Bruil (2018) who created a micro dataset for the Dutch SNA
household sector, we add net worth to the analysis. We showed that the concept
of net worth greatly affects the levels of inequality.

Table 4: Joint income and wealth inequality
2015 2016
Net worth Net worth Extended Extended net Extended net Net worth Net worth Extended net Extended net Extended net
according to excluding net worth worth worth according to excluding worth worth worth
SNA pension (IRTS) (IRTS +1%) (IRTS -1%) SNA pension (IRTS) (IRTS +1%) (IRTS -1%)
entitlements entitlements
Gross Disposable Income shares
D1 - lowest income share in total 4.2% 4.0% 5.5% 5.4% 5.6% 4.5% 4.1% 5.7% 5.6% 5.9%
D2 4.0% 3.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.3% 4.0% 3.1% 6.2% 6.1% 6.3%
D3 5.8% 5.3% 7.5% 7.4% 7.6% 5.8% 5.0% 7.4% 7.3% 7.5%
D4 7.2% 5.9% 8.3% 8.2% 8.3% 7.4% 6.1% 8.4% 8.4% 8.5%
D5 8.3% 7.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.9% 8.7% 7.6% 9.2% 9.2% 9.2%
D6 9.0% 7.7% 9.2% 9.1% 9.2% 9.2% 7.9% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3%
D7 9.9% 8.5% 9.7% 9.6% 9.7% 10.0% 8.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.8%
D8 11.2% 10.0% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 11.5% 10.5% 10.8% 10.8% 10.8%
D9 13.8% 12.9% 12.5% 12.5% 12.4% 14.3% 14.1% 12.8% 12.9% 12.7%

D10 - highest income 26.6% 35.7% 21.7% 22.2% 21.3% 24.8% 32.8% 20.4% 20.8%

Top 1% share in total 7.1% 12.6% 5.4% 5.6% 5.2% 5.7% 9.6% 4.3% 4.5% 4.2%

Ratios
10/40 1.3 1.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.7
20/20 4.9 6.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 4.6 6.6 2.8 2.9 2.7

Wealth inequality is largest when pension entitlements are excluded, which
is often the used concept of wealth studies. Including all pension entitlements
has a levelling effect, but wealth inequality remains higher than income
inequality. The choices made in the construction of these pension entitlements
influence the macro level, but also the inequality measure. The sensitivity of the
discount rate, by far the most influential parameter, shows that the Gini would
drop by an additional 0.018 if the discount rate used for the public pension
entitlements would be 1%-point lower, and that the Gini would increase by 0.014
if the discount rate would be 1%-point higher. This effect is shown explicitly for
the public pension entitlements, but the same would hold for the work-related
pension entitlements. The requirements for the work-related entitlements in the

92 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9