Distributional effects of non-cash incomes in seven European countries

Abstract: Empirical studies of inequality and poverty are usually based on disposable cash incomes, disregarding incomes in-kind (non-cash incomes). Since individuals also derive utility from the consumption of goods and services provided in-kind monetary income is not always a good indicator

provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ABSTRACT The Distribution of Full Income in Greece * Non-cash incomes from either private or public sources can have substantial effects on the distribution of economic welfare. However, standard approaches to inequality

from Lehman Brothers via the Fixed Income (or Warga) Database. We use only quotes on non-callable, non-puttable debt of industrial firms; quotes are discarded whenever a bond has less than four years to maturity. Monthly observations are used for the period July 1988 through December 1997. Only

different types of business involves different objects and business processes, different non-cash settlement patterns need be taken. Generally speaking, non-cash settlement patterns in universities can be achieved from the following aspects: (I) Income Aspect The income aspect of non-cash settlement

by the conditionality. The cash component has an income effect that allows families to consume more goods and services, including healthcare and schooling. Depending on the families ’ preferences, this rise in income may also lead to a change in the consumption share of goods and services. Because of non-cash

with comparable incomes. Secondly, the impact of mortgage payments can lower a household’s disposable income considerably. Because of the large proportion of home-owners in Belgium, a serious attempt to estimate the economic well-being of households should take the non-cash advantage derived of home

percent. While including transfers and non-cash incomes reduces the share of growth received by the top 1 percent significantly, they still account for 38.3 percent of growth, more than the 31.0 percent share received by the bottom 80 percent1. In this article we will argue the following. First

Taxpayers are able to deduct from taxable income charitable contributions made in ei-ther cash or noncash forms. This study examines how the different tax prices of cash and noncash charitable gifts affect the mix of cash and noncash charity, using data from a bal-anced panel of taxpayers

Assessing the distributional impact of “imputed rent ” and “non-cash employee income” in microdata: