Income of the richest part of the population is 8 times of the poorest part
Considering the quintiles, the share of the highest income group - fifth quintile group – is 46.6%, whereas the share of the first quintile which has the lowest income is 5.9%.
Therefore, the share of the fifth quintile of the total income is 8 times more than the first quintile. S80/S20 indicator is calculated as 7.2 for both urban and rural settlements. Quintiles Ordered By Equivalised Household Disposable Income, 2011-2012
Note: Reference period of income information is the previous calendar year.
Figures in table may not add up to totals due to rounding.
(*)When the individuals are sorted in ascending order based on equivalised household disposable income and divided into 5 parts, the bottom income group is defined as “the first quintiles” and the top income group is defined as “the last quintiles”.
Income distribution was recovered 0.002 point according to last year
Gini coefficient, which is one of the income inequality criteria, is estimated as 0.402 with a decrease 0.002 point based on the previous year. The coefficient is estimated as 0.391 for urban settlements and 0.377 for rural settlements.
Lorenz curve, which is a graphical demonstration of the inequality in distribution of the income among population, reveals that there is no significant change in income distribution by showing that curves overlap.The Lorenz Curves of Equivalised Household Disposable Incomes, 2011-2012
Average annual disposable income of households is 26 577 TL
In Turkey, the average annual disposable income per household is 26 577 TL whereas average annual equivalised household disposable income is 11 859 TL. By the regions; Istanbul has the highest average annual equivalised household disposable income with 16 126 TL. This is followed by West Anatolia with 14 160 TL. South East Anatolia has the lowest average income with 5 870 TL. Wages and salaries have the highest proportion of total household income
Wage and salaries has the highest rate with 46.5% of total income. This is followed by the entrepreneurial incomes with 20.4% and social transfers with 20%.
Pensions and survivor’ benefits have 92% of social transfers. The proportion of pensions and survivor’ benefits are 18.4% while the rate of the other social transfers is 1.6% of total income. 66.7% of entrepreneurial incomes are formed by non-agricultural income.The at-risk-of-poverty-rate is 16.3%
Various relative poverty thresholds are calculated by using 40%, 50%, 60% or 70% of equivalised household disposable median income.
16.3% of total population is at-risk-of-poverty according to poverty threshold calculated by 50% of equivalised household disposable median income. While this rate is 13.8% for urban areas, it is 16.3% for rural areas by using poverty thresholds calculated separately for urban and rural areas.The persistent at-risk-of-poverty-rate is 16%
“Persistent at-risk-of-poverty-rate” shows the percentage of the population living in households where the equivalised disposable income was below the “at-risk-of-poverty threshold” for the current year and at least 2 out of the preceding 3 years. 60% of equivalised household disposable median income is taken into account in calculating persistent at-risk-of-poverty-rate. According to this definition; persistent at--risk-of-poverty-rate is 16% in both 2011 and 2012. Most of the living conditions indicators got better
Of the non-institutional population;
• 60.6% were owner occupied of their dwellings.
• 40.6% had some problems with their dwellings such as “leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation, rot in window frames/floors”.
• 46.6% had “heating problem with their dwellings due to isolation”.
• 61.3% had installments and loans/arrears (other than mortgage -for the main dwelling- and housing cost).
• 85.9% hadn’t have the capacity to afford paying for “one week (annual) holiday away from home”, 61.8% hadn’t have the capacity to afford paying for “unexpected expenses“ and 78.8% hadn’t have the capacity to afford paying for “replacing worn-out furniture“ due to economic reasons.Material deprivation rate decreased according to last year
Severe material deprivation rate, which is defined as the percentage of population with an enforced lack of at least four out of nine material deprivation items in the economic strain and durables dimension, was calculated as 59.2% for 2012 where it was 60.4% for 2011.