Income brackets: what is prception of low/middle high

stephen163

mitchaa wrote: »

You are using your own terminologies here to suit yourself, .

Says the person who wants to shoehorn an 'average' category into a low, medium, high income bracket definition!

Of course, low, medium and high refer to where you stand with respect to the NUMBER of people in each category, like a histogram. The most sensible way to resolve it with a resolution of 3 is to split it 3 ways, 1/3 of people are low earners, 1/3 are medium, 1/3 are high. Else (and this is often done) split it in an arbitrary manner, e.g., 1/5, 3/5, 1/5. I cannot conceive a way of doing it that does not preserve symmetry around the median value, hence someone earning below the Median can still be defined as earning a medium income.

To use the mean value as the basis for the symmetry point makes no sense. You would have something like 80% of people on low income and a disproportionately small number on medium or high incomes, depending of course on where you happen to put your brackets. It's a pretty meaningless statistic.

Surely 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 is the most meaningfull way, with median being used as symmetry point.

beecher

mitchaa wrote: »

£47k is not a high income, its at middle income level, otherwise how do describe earnings of £100-200k?

That makes no sense whatsoever. If someone earning 47k is in the top 10% of earnings then of course it is high!

mitchaa

stephen163 wrote: »

Says the person who wants to shoehorn an 'average' category into a low, medium, high income bracket definition!

Of course, low, medium and high refer to where you stand in comparison to the NUMBER of people in each category, like a histogram. The most sensible way to resolve it with a resolution of 3 is to split it 3 ways, 1/3 of people are low earners, 1/3 are medium, 1/3 are high. Else (and this is often done) split it in an arbitrary manner, e.g., 1/5, 3/5, 1/5. I cannot conceive a way of doing it that does not preserve symmetry around the median value, hence someone earning below the Median can still be defined as earning a medium income.

To use the mean value as the basis for the symmetry point makes no sense. You would have something like 80% of people on low income and a disproportionately small number on medium or high incomes, depending of course on where you happen to put your brackets. It's a pretty meaningless statistic.

Surely 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 is the most meaningfull way, with median being used as symmetry point.

Explain the article in post 243 please.

Define middle Britain.

Yes median means middle if you want to be pedantic here, but the median falls below the average as would be expected. I dont know how you can then leap from middle as in £22k to high at £100k with nothing in between Makes no sense at all:rolleyes:

Low
Average
Middle
High

Simple as, and its not just me that would use these groups to explain salaries in this way.

But hey lets not argue about wording, friday afternoon and all that

beecher

mitchaa wrote: »

E
Low
Average
Middle
High

Simple as, and its not just me that would use these groups to explain salaries in this way.

But hey lets not argue about wording, friday afternoon and all that

Maybe we're saying the same thing but would word it differently?

Low
Average
High
Very high

mitchaa

beecher wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. If someone earning 47k is in the top 10% of earnings then of course it is high!

Im not biting, im finished with it this time:p

Top 10% is 1 in 3,000,000.

Are you a high earner in the 51st percentile and a low in the 49th?

Have a nice weekend everyone

Over and out.

Mr_Matey

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've been in a chinese restaurant on 4 occasions in my life. Never been in an italian or japanese restaurant.

Time for some new pastures, PasturesNew?

stephen163

Mitchaa, I disagreed with your assertion that earning below the mean, or even median, will neccesarily mean you are not in the medium income bracket.

You are a medium income earner in the 51st percentile

You are a medium income earner in the 49th percentile

zarazara

what about abolishing coucil tax altogether and increasing income tax to makeup the shortfall? That way those not working eg peioners ,wont have to pay.

LilacPixie

zarazara wrote: »

what about abolishing coucil tax altogether and increasing income tax to makeup the shortfall? That way those not working eg peioners ,wont have to pay.

Those not working are still subject to income tax tho. Those with private pensions, savings income ETC.

DirectDebacle

LilacPixie wrote: »

Those not working are still subject to income tax tho. Those with private pensions, savings income ETC.

Agreed. So much fairer. Is Council Tax the only personal tax not linked to income or are there others?