The share of the highest quintile increased to 47.2% of the total income
The equivalised household disposable income is calculated from the disposable income of each household divided by equivalised household size which takes into account adult-child compositon of the households by means of household equivalence scale. The share of the top quintile by the equivalised household disposable income was 47.2% recording an increase of 0.7 points whilst the share of the bottom quintile was 6.2% with an increase of 0.1 points in comparison with the previous year.
The income quintile share ratio calculated as the ratio of total income received by the richest 20% of the population to that received by the poorest 20% of the population increased from 7.6 to 7.7.
The income inequality increased 0.007 points compared to previous year
Gini coefficient one of the measures of inequality varies between 0, which reflects complete equality and 1, which indicates complete inequality. According to 2016 results, Gini coefficient was estimated at 0.404 with an increase of 0.007 points compared with the previous year.
Quintiles ordered by equivalised household disposable income, 2015, 2016
Mean annual equivalised household disposable income was 19 thousand 139 TL
In Turkey, the mean annual equivalised household disposable income increased by 15.9% compared to the previous year from 16 thousand 515 TL to 196 thousand 139 TL.
Wages and salaries held the highest proportion with 49.7% of total income
The rate of wage and salaries remained unchanged compared with the previous year and got the highest rate with 49.7% of total equivalised household disposable income. This was followed by the entrepreneurial incomes with an increase of 1 point compared to 2015 (19.8%) and social transfers with a decrease of 0.4 points (19.6%).
Pensions and survivor’ benefits composed 91.8% of social transfers whereas non-agricultural income composed 74.7% of entrepreneurial incomes.
14.3% of the population was below the poverty threshold
The at-risk-of-poverty-rate according to poverty threshold set at 50% of median equivalised household disposable income was 14.3% with a decrease of 0.4 points in relation to 2016. As for the at-risk-of-poverty-rate according to poverty threshold set at 60% of median income, it was 21.2% with a decrease of 0.7 points in comparison with the previous year.
Considering poverty rates according to poverty threshold set at 50% of median equivalised household disposable income in terms of household types, at-risk-of-poverty-rate of single person households was 8.9% with an increase of 0.8 points, of households without dependent children was 4% with a decrease of 0.8 points and of households with dependent children was 17.9% with a decrease of 0.2 points compared to previous year.
26.2% of illiterates and 1.7% of higher education graduates were poor
In terms of the at-risk-of-poverty-rate according to poverty threshold set at 50% of median equivalised household disposable income, 26.2% of illiterates and 24.1% of literates with no degree were poor. The figures for less than high school and high school graduates were 12.5% and 6.2% respectively. Higher education graduates were the group with lowest poverty rate with 1.7%.
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty-rate was 14.6%
The 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 set at 60% of median equivalised household income for the current year and for at least two out of the preceding three years. In 2016 the persistent at-risk-of-poverty-rate was 14.6% while it was 15.8% in the previous year.
The most important housing problem was inability of heating the dwelling again
In 2016, while 42.2% had heating problem due to isolation, 38.1% of the population had problems with their dwellings such as leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation, rot in window frames/floors and 24.5% had pollution, grime due to traffic/industry or other environmental problems.
The percentage of people having installments or loans was 68%
68% of the population was unable to afford replacing worn-out furniture, 65.4% had installments or loans (other than mortgage -for the main dwelling- and housing cost) and 17.4% regarded housing costs as a heavy financial burden.
Severe material deprivation rate was 32.9%
Material deprivation reflects the perception of households about inability to pay unexpected financial expenses, one week's annual holiday away from home, mortgage or rent payments, a meal with meat, chicken, fish every second day and heating home adequately warm and the ownership of a washing machine, a color TV, a telephone and a car.
The severe material deprivation rate defined as the rate of people faced with the enforced inability to afford at least four of the above-mentioned items increased from 30.3% in 2015 to 32.9% in 2016.
The next news release related to this subject will be published on September 17, 2018.