Comments on: Household Income http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Wed, 23 May 2012 09:47:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andrew Duffin http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/comment-page-1/#comment-635 Andrew Duffin Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:56:55 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/#comment-635 The article is very oddly written. Headline as you have quoted, then the figures are: In 1997 "people" had gross household income of £34,796, of which - allegedly - they were left with 34.5% after paying whatever is being discussed - nett therefore is 34796*.345, ie £12,004.62 In 2007, the gross household income was supposedly £53,835, of which - again allegedly, we get to keep 32.6%. So the nett now is 53835*.326, ie £17,550.21 So how does this justify the headline about lowest disposable income, or the statement in the second para of the article, "people have far less of that money to spend each month..." Isn't £17,550 MORE than £12,004? Did I miss something? This has to be one of the most misleading front-page headlines I've ever seen in the Telegraph; even the first couple of sentences of the content completely contradict it. The article is very oddly written. Headline as you have quoted, then the figures are:

In 1997 “people” had gross household income of £34,796, of which – allegedly – they were left with 34.5% after paying whatever is being discussed – nett therefore is 34796*.345, ie £12,004.62

In 2007, the gross household income was supposedly £53,835, of which – again allegedly, we get to keep 32.6%. So the nett now is 53835*.326, ie £17,550.21

So how does this justify the headline about lowest disposable income, or the statement in the second para of the article, “people have far less of that money to spend each month…”

Isn’t £17,550 MORE than £12,004?

Did I miss something?

This has to be one of the most misleading front-page headlines I’ve ever seen in the Telegraph; even the first couple of sentences of the content completely contradict it.

]]> By: Matthew http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/comment-page-1/#comment-631 Matthew Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:03:21 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/#comment-631 It 's a bit silly as they take that and tabulate loads of minor expenditures, and ignore some biggies like 'Business investment'. This grew strongly in 2006 and would have an a noticeable impact on household expenditure. It ‘s a bit silly as they take that and tabulate loads of minor expenditures, and ignore some biggies like ‘Business investment’. This grew strongly in 2006 and would have an a noticeable impact on household expenditure.

]]> By: Mark Wadsworth http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/comment-page-1/#comment-630 Mark Wadsworth Mon, 08 Oct 2007 15:02:02 +0000 http://timworstall.com/2007/10/08/household-income/#comment-630 Crikey, I did this rough calculation (GDP ÷ number of households) in the earlier comments to disprove their original statement, I didn't realise that any statistician would apply this sort of logic in real life. Crikey, I did this rough calculation (GDP ÷ number of households) in the earlier comments to disprove their original statement, I didn’t realise that any statistician would apply this sort of logic in real life.

]]>