nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Average V Median wage Ireland?

Benedict

I keep seeing from Govt. figures that the "average" wage in 2020 was approx Euro 49,500 pa. and the average hourly rate is E24.50.

To my mind this is nonsense - just look up "Jobs.ie" and you will see that even 40k pa means you have to have lots of experience & qualification.

The MEDIAN wage is the one to look at - but I can't find it. Does anyone have stats on what is the median wage in Ireland (2020)?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

Benedict wrote: »

This extract directly below is from the Journal.ie 29 Jan 20 (so figures may be slightly down on today's).

"We asked Fine Gael where the Taoiseach got his figure from. A spokesperson said Varadkar was citing the CSO’s Earnings and Labour Costs figures for 2018 (the most recent available).

The CSO stated in that report: Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2018 were €47,596 (up 2.6% on 2017)."

We know that this is a misuse of "average" because the median figure is lower!

Brainboru1104 - you don't think that this is giving a wrong "impression"?

Start listening and you will hear "average" used a lot where "median" is what it should be. And it is an important distinction.

Or at least it should be!

That's not a misuse of "average". The figure given as the average figure is, indeed, the average figure.

Your complaint, I think, is that Varadkar would have done better to give the median figure, rather than the average. But the fault here lies not with Varadkar, but with the people asking him where he got his average figure from. What they should have asked him, perhaps, is what the median figure was. But you can hardly blame Varadkar for their failure to ask that question; you should be blaming them.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

Any educated person knows the difference between the mean and median. You're not going to have any impact on how the world reports aggregate earnings, no matter how many threads you make.

Any properly educated person should know that to be a valid argument, it should be levelled against the argument itself and not the person presenting it.

You'll learn this when you grow up.

Incidentally, I never used the word "mean" and for the record, your use of the term "a priori" is silly.

To Peregrinus-

Yes, I can see your point. But perhaps it underscores the need for the public to become more aware of the difference between the terms "average" and "median" when used to suggest what the norm is in terms of income.

The message from Leo's statement (and others like it) is clear - if you're earning 48k, them most (in full time jobs) are earning more than you are.

And this is way, way off the mark!

Peregrinus

Benedict wrote: »

To Peregrinus-

Yes, I can see your point. But perhaps it underscores the need for the public to become more aware of the difference between the terms "average" and "median" when used to suggest what the norm is in terms of income.

The message from Leo's statement (and others like it) is clear - if you're earning 46k, them most are earning more than you are.

And this is way, way off the mark!

"Average" is a loose term - it can refger to the mean, the median or the mode. I don't think you can say that someone who refers to the mean as "the average" is wrong.

Is he misleading? If he suggests or implies that what is in fact the mean figure is the median figure then yes, he is. But you don't quote exactly what Varadkar said about the average figure that he offered, (or, if you did, I missed it — sorry) so I can't say if he suggested that.

I think the proper approach here is not to quibble about whether the speaker explicitly identified his average figure as the mean, the median or the mode, but to look at what claims he made about that average figure and see if those claims are misleading or untrue, given which average figure he actually used.

If our problem is that the general public does not understand, or is vague about, the distinction between the mean, the median and the mode, then maybe the politiciant we should look to to remedy this is not Leo Varadkar, but Norma Foley.

Cyrus

Benedict wrote: »

The message from Leo's statement (and others like it) is clear - if you're earning 48k, them most (in full time jobs) are earning more than you are.

And this is way, way off the mark!

how is that the message?

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

Any properly educated person should know that to be a valid argument, it should be levelled against the argument itself and not the person presenting it.

You'll learn this when you grow up.

Incidentally, I never used the word "mean" and for the record, your use of the term "a priori" is silly.

To Peregrinus-

Yes, I can see your point. But perhaps it underscores the need for the public to become more aware of the difference between the terms "average" and "median" when used to suggest what the norm is in terms of income.

The message from Leo's statement (and others like it) is clear - if you're earning 48k, them most (in full time jobs) are earning more than you are.

And this is way, way off the mark!

You're just advertising the fact that you haven't a clue. Ignorance of ignorance.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

You're just advertising the fact that you haven't a clue. Ignorance of ignorance.

If you find that you have a helpful contribution to make to the actual subject under consideration then we'd all love to hear it. Otherwise, keep quiet or shift to a thread where verbal abuse might be more appropriate.

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

If you find that you have a helpful contribution to make to the actual subject under consideration then we'd all love to hear it. Otherwise, keep quiet or shift to a thread where verbal abuse might be more appropriate.

I'm not abusing you, no matter how much you wish I was. I'm just pointing out the holes in your logic, which is within the bounds of the forum rules.

I repeat. I believe that you have been provided ample evidence in this thread, but because it doesn't suit your agenda you are dismissing it. I believe that any educated person should know the difference between the mean and the median. I also believe that you lack knowledge in this area, also known as ignorance of statistics as a subject, is clear and related to your inability to listen to what people have said to you repeatedly on this thread.

No personal attacks there, no matter how much you wish it was true. Of course, you'll probably respond to this much in the same way as you have responded to everyone in this thread. Finding your own meaning, where it doesn't exist.

Benedict

The following is taken from the Irish Times in the run-up to the last election: (I am not suggesting that there was any wrongdoing on the part of any person)

"During the leaders’ debate on RTÉ on Monday night, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar spoke at length about his party’s long-held goal of moving the entry point for the higher rate of income tax to €50,000. While arguing this, he stated that “the average person working full-time in Ireland earns €47,000 per year, and I don’t think that average person should pay the highest rate of income tax”."

I suspect that most would agree that if there was a footnote to the effect that 47k did not remotely relate to what most full-time workers (what he called the "average person") earned, there may have been a very different reaction to the proposal to raise the lower tax threshold to 50k.

This is a classic example of how the confusion regarding the terms "average" and "median" can have very real implications.

Cyrus

Benedict wrote: »

This is a classic example of how the confusion regarding the terms "average" and "median" can have very real implications.

regardless it would be a welcome intervention, the entry point to the marginal rate of tax is far too low.

stefanovich

Benedict wrote: »

The following is taken from the Irish Times in the run-up to the last election: (I am not suggesting that there was any wrongdoing on the part of any person)

"During the leaders’ debate on RTÉ on Monday night, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar spoke at length about his party’s long-held goal of moving the entry point for the higher rate of income tax to €50,000. While arguing this, he stated that “the average person working full-time in Ireland earns €47,000 per year, and I don’t think that average person should pay the highest rate of income tax”."

I suspect that most would agree that if there was a footnote to the effect that 47k did not remotely relate to what most full-time workers (what he called the "average person") earned, there may have been a very different reaction to the proposal to raise the lower tax threshold to 50k.

This is a classic example of how the confusion regarding the terms "average" and "median" can have very real implications.

If you want to keep and attract the best to this country then fair taxation of higher earners is something that should be looked at.

stefanovich

Cyrus wrote: »

regardless it would be a welcome intervention, the entry point to the marginal rate of tax is far too low.

In England the standard tax credit is 10,000 - that would also help.

stefanovich

Also, penalising single income households. Why do 2 people on 50,000 take home more than 1 on 100,000 who is married?

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

...... average person should pay the highest rate of income tax”."

I suspect that most would agree that if there was a footnote to the effect that 47k did not remotely relate to what most full-time workers (what he called the "average person") earned, there may have been a very different reaction to the proposal to raise the lower tax threshold to 50k.

This is a classic example of how the confusion regarding the terms "average" and "median" can have very real implications.

What do most full-time workers earn? Considering part time folk ate included in the stats below I would imagine it's not far off the average figure you have a huge issue with.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-average-worker-47000-4984199-Jan2020/

According to the CSO, in terms of income, the median of annual earnings in 2018 was €36,095.

The public sector had total median annual earnings of €47,116 while the private sector median was €31,684. This data includes both full-time and part-time workers (the Taoiseach’s claim related to full-time workers only).

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

regardless it would be a welcome intervention, the entry point to the marginal rate of tax is far too low.

Indeed... Someone on 65k pays enough total tax (I'll be crude and include prsi & usc as tax) to keep two on the dole. And if they are under 40 they might not see much of a state contributory pension despite paying into the fund.

Eric Cartman

Benedict wrote: »

The following is taken from the Irish Times in the run-up to the last election: (I am not suggesting that there was any wrongdoing on the part of any person)

"During the leaders’ debate on RTÉ on Monday night, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar spoke at length about his party’s long-held goal of moving the entry point for the higher rate of income tax to €50,000. While arguing this, he stated that “the average person working full-time in Ireland earns €47,000 per year, and I don’t think that average person should pay the highest rate of income tax”."

I suspect that most would agree that if there was a footnote to the effect that 47k did not remotely relate to what most full-time workers (what he called the "average person") earned, there may have been a very different reaction to the proposal to raise the lower tax threshold to 50k.

This is a classic example of how the confusion regarding the terms "average" and "median" can have very real implications.

I dont think anyones reactions would have been different, 50k is an insanely low point still for the higher rate to kick in, it should be 100k .
Ireland constantly loses out on top international talent and keeping our own because of tax rates.
What multi millionaire would want to dare being tax resident here

[Deleted User]

...... and looney high creche fees despite the folk working their being on a pittance.

Eric Cartman

Augeo wrote: »

...... and looney high creche fees despite the folk working their being on a pittance.

Insurance again, that certain section of society who prays little chantelle or dwayne gets injured so they can sue the crap out of a small business for a quick few quid.

stefanovich

Augeo wrote: »

...... and looney high creche fees despite the folk working their being on a pittance.

The modern way, encouraged by government policy.

Both parents working - giving a significant % of their wages to a childminder for care inferior to that which the parent would provide.

Not sure who wins.

PintOfView

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think anyones reactions would have been different, 50k is an insanely low point still for the higher rate to kick in, it should be 100k .
Ireland constantly loses out on top international talent and keeping our own because of tax rates.
What multi millionaire would want to dare being tax resident here

Can you outline on what basis you think 50k is insanely low, and that the higher rate of tax should only kick in at 100k?

I assume you'll need to account for the funding needs of the health service, public transport, roads and rail network, education, water, childrens allowances, pensions, PEP, vaccines, the justice system, guards, etc., etc.?

Benedict

Augeo wrote: »

What do most full-time workers earn? Considering part time folk ate included in the stats below I would imagine it's not far off the average figure you have a huge issue with.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-average-worker-47000-4984199-Jan2020/

According to the CSO, in terms of income, the median of annual earnings in 2018 was €36,095.

Yes, but if Leo had used the median as opposed to the average, all of a sudden 47k sounds slightly privileged and ordinary workers might have said "Hang on a second, most workers aren't earning anything like 47k so why should they get their tax reduced?"

Quote Aidan Ryan again:

"Beware anyone who uses "averages" to calculate what the "middle" of the income and earnings distribution looks like. "

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

..........

Yes, but if Leo had used the median as opposed to the average, all of a sudden 47k sounds slightly privileged and ordinary workers might have said "Hang on a second, most workers aren't earning anything like 47k so why should they get their tax reduced?"

I'm asking what the median for full time workers is .......... you don't seem to have that data....... €36,095 includes both full-time and part-time workers.

Taking the bolded piece into account, €47k doesn't sound too privileged IMO. And until you come up with the actual median income for full time workers comments to the contrary aren't worth much

Benedict

Augeo wrote: »

I'm asking what the median for full time workers is .......... you don't seem to have that data....... €36,095 includes both full-time and part-time workers.

Taking the bolded piece into account, €47k doesn't sound too privileged IMO. And until you come up with the actual median income for full time workers comments to the contrary aren't worth much

Pre-election figures quoted from Journal.ie below:

The CSO stated in that report: Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2018 were €47,596 (up 2.6% on 2017).

While it can be assumed that the median earnings for full-time workers in 2008 were lower than the above, you are correct, I cannot find any stat from CSO declaring median earnings for full-time workers.

Eric Cartman

PintOfView wrote: »

Can you outline on what basis you think 50k is insanely low, and that the higher rate of tax should only kick in at 100k?

I assume you'll need to account for the funding needs of the health service, public transport, roads and rail network, education, water, childrens allowances, pensions, PEP, vaccines, the justice system, guards, etc., etc.?

50k isn't fantastic money and most professionals living in Cork City or Leinster would either be on that or expect to exceed that in their lifetimes , that tax regime makes finding quality professionals harder. If you set it to 100k you would have a lot more professional positions filled to make up the shortfall and a lot more people spending money in the economy rather than shoring it up in pension funds and other mechanisms to avoid paying tax on it now.

Geuze

Benedict wrote: »

While it can be assumed that the median earnings for full-time workers in 2008 were lower than the above, you are correct, I cannot find any stat from CSO declaring median earnings for full-time workers.

I have searched for this over the years.

It is on my mind to ask the CSO.

This data is in the Eurostat SES for Ireland, so why don't the CSO have it.

The only place I've found median earnings is here:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/structuralearnings/

This is the first report:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/

It provides earnings by decile and by sector.

Loads of data, but I don't see a PT/FT split.

Geuze

PintOfView wrote: »

Can you outline on what basis you think 50k is insanely low, and that the higher rate of tax should only kick in at 100k?

I assume you'll need to account for the funding needs of the health service, public transport, roads and rail network, education, water, childrens allowances, pensions, PEP, vaccines, the justice system, guards, etc., etc.?

It is possible to re-design the PIT system, so that the top MTR does not start so low, while at the same time collecting more revenue.

stefanovich

The government needs to be better at spending tax money. Using the health service as a reason to not lower taxes is ridiculous. The last thing the HSE needs is more money. They need to learn how to not waste it.

Upper management needs the sack - starting with Paul Reid.

crossman47

Benedict wrote: »

Pre-election figures quoted from Journal.ie below:

The CSO stated in that report: Average annual earnings for full-time employees in 2018 were €47,596 (up 2.6% on 2017).

While it can be assumed that the median earnings for full-time workers in 2008 were lower than the above, you are correct, I cannot find any stat from CSO declaring median earnings for full-time workers.

In 2018 for all workers, the median was 36k when the mean was 44k. Based on that, I would think the median for full time workers must be in the region of 38 to 41K. I don't think its possible for CSO to calculate a median as they base their data on aggregate data from employers. They van do it for all employees by using Revenue data.

PintOfView

Eric Cartman wrote: »

50k isn't fantastic money and most professionals living in Cork City or Leinster would either be on that or expect to exceed that in their lifetimes , that tax regime makes finding quality professionals harder. If you set it to 100k you would have a lot more professional positions filled to make up the shortfall and a lot more people spending money in the economy rather than shoring it up in pension funds and other mechanisms to avoid paying tax on it now.

You're saying that if we increased the threshold to 100k we would have a lot more 'professionals' to pay tax, and they would make up the shortfall in tax revenue?
However, if they weren't earning over 100k they wouldn't be paying the higher rate of tax, so how would that make up the shortfall?
And what types of jobs, and how many, would you see are there for the additional professionals?

PintOfView

Geuze wrote: »

It is possible to re-design the PIT system, so that the top MTR does not start so low, while at the same time collecting more revenue.

Do you mean by putting up the threshold, and then increase the top rate of tax?

stefanovich

PintOfView wrote: »

You're saying that if we increased the threshold to 100k we would have a lot more 'professionals' to pay tax, and they would make up the shortfall in tax revenue?
However, if they weren't earning over 100k they wouldn't be paying the higher rate of tax, so how would that make up the shortfall?
And what types of jobs, and how many, would you see are there for the additional professionals?

Milton Friedman on "progressive" taxation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drVgpTfJYMQ