Confusing my ratios doesn't change the point. Restated
The Gini co-efficient equates the top 50% to the bottom 50%. Tax cuts for small business would, not unexpectedly, have a greater impact upon the income of the top 50% than the bottom 50% who are more likely to be on benefits, pension, etc.
Nope.
Still wrong.
This is the last time I'm going to try to explain it to you; (refer graphic below):
GINI INDEX = Area A divided by the sum of Area A and Area B
In other words, it is a measure of the degree of kurtosis of the Lorenz Curve with respect to the Line of Perfect Equality.
For Australia, Area A is small compared to more than two-thirds of other countries in the world, which places Australia in the top-third of countries in terms of income distribution.
"Why do you ignore transfers and only focus on tax? "
I don't. The calculation of the Gini Index incorporates it. Cumulative share of net income earned (the y-axis in the above graphic) is exactly that, a net quantum, i.e., after all taxes, subsidies, levies and other transfer payments.
Maybe people are just imagining that their households are more cash-strapped?
That feeling, where it exists, will not be confined to the lower income cohorts; it will be evident right across the income spectrum. A great many people who earn a lot of money find themselves in challenging financial positions. Because they don't live within their means. I personally knew an individual who worked for an investment bank and who would have earned several millions of dollars over the course of his career; he committed suicide in 2012 because his financial concerns overwhelmed him.
Conversely, I know a great number of people who have managed to get ahead financially despite being on only moderate levels of income.
"Why do you begrudge all our citizens a fair share of the nation's spoils? Aren't they also worthy of a life lived with inclusion and dignity?"
Where did I express any such sentiment?
I was merely responding to a thread, whose opening post was based on a false premise, duly demonstrated to be so with the use of factual references, which showed that inequality in Australia is well below international averages and has been remarkably consistent for an extended period of time.
I am very proud to live in a country that boasts that level of economic egalitarianism.
And with plenty of well-paid jobs on offer for those who are keen to work, too.
On the few occasions that I've travelled abroad, and witnessed the social ills or fiscal challenges of other countries, I've come back each time feeling that I live in the best and fairest country in the world.
One area where I think Australian society can be improved is the area of financial literacy: too many people are inordinately bad at managing their personal finances.
Basic financial literacy topics, such as the time value of money, the law of compounding returns, cash flow budgeting, avoidance of excessive and unnecessary consumption, should be taught at school, I believe.
That will go a long way to preventing households - right across the income spectrum - ending up cash-strapped.
.
