Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NATIONAL INCOMES

DISTRIBUTION TRACED SOME SURPRISING FIGURES BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES Maldistribution of income is a subject in which Professor L. M. Lipson, professor of political science and public administration at Victoria University College, has been interesting himself. In a letter to Mr H. Valder, Hamilton, Mr Lipson quotes interesting figures on the subject collated by notable authorities. Mr Lipson states that he is endeavouring to enlist the support of the local authorities in New Zealand so that they may finance scholarships for full-time study of public administration, and he hopes to have some of the scholarships for March next year. The Brookings study which works out the figures of income distribution by families in the United States is quoted by Mr Lipson. The report, under the title of “America’s Capacity to Consume,” was written by Leven, Moulton and Warburton. In 1929 the figures were:— 6,000,000 families (21 per cent.) had incomes less than 1000 dollars. 12,000,000 families (42 per cent.) had incomes less than 1500 dollars. 20,000,000 families (70 per cent.) had incomes less than 2500 dollars. Committee's Calculations In 1938 the National Resources Committee published a report based on figures for the years 1935-6. They calculated that the poorest onethird of Americans averaged only 471 dollars (just under £4 a week at par) per family—a figure which included both cash income and “the money value of the occupancy of owned homes and of rent received as pay, and—for rural families—for home-grown food and other farm products used by the family. The poorest one-third of the nation received about 10 per cent of the national income; about the same as the richest one-half of one per cent. The poorer half received 20 per cent., a little less than the highest 3 per cent. The poorer two-thirds received 34 per cent of the total income, which was a little less than the highest 10 per cent received. On the same subject Messrs G. W. Daniels and H. Campion, of Manchester University, have compiled a report showing the distribution of national capital in Britain. They state: — “The inequality of the distribution of private capital was reduced between 1911-13 and 1924-30 partly owing to the changed age and sex distribution of the population since the war. In 1924-30, 1 per cent of the persons in England and Wales aged 25 and over owned 60 per cent of the capital, and 5 per cent owned 80 per cent of the total capital. Another authority states that 10 per cent of the population own 90 per cent of the total capital. Some changes in these proportions may have taken place since 1932 as a result in the decline in interest rates, but it is unlikely that the distribution of capital has been altered very considerably.”

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19400910.2.118

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21214, 10 September 1940, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
461

NATIONAL INCOMES Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21214, 10 September 1940, Page 8

NATIONAL INCOMES Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21214, 10 September 1940, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert