Tag Archives: capital income

Revisiting Issues of Affordability, Income and Inequality

This post updates and collects in one place my previous writings about how policy arguments around inequality which are based solely on income data (e.g. income percentiles) fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent inequality.

The basic argument is that standard income deciles/percentiles are misleading because they create a picture of a continuous income distribution spectrum, rather than differential flows of income to certain parts of the economy. More specifically, they ignore fundamental differences in income arising from housing tenure/ownership, income and capital gains on wealth, and social transfers in kind.

In short, such analysis reflects a 1980s world – before housing costs ate household budgets and superannuation turned wage earners into stock holders.

Housing

Housing tenure matters because it creates differences in effective household income (i.e. actual purchasing power) and living standards. In an earlier post I compared the effective income of a renter and homeowner with identical annual salaries. The homeowner (without a mortgage) ended up nearly $30,000 a year better off than the renter on the same $100,000 p.a. income. This result was driven by:

  • differences in housing costs (imputing rental income to homeowners for the value of housing services received)
  • income from investing the cash that would otherwise have gone to rents, and
  • tax advantages that go with that investment.

This comparison did not take account of capital gains which could heighten the gap, and the renter/homeowner difference is probably worse now with rent prices going up faster than income (so proportionately higher imputed income for homeowners) and a booming housing market seeing higher capital gains.

This is all pretty obvious, and echoes why poverty studies tend to focus on “after-housing” income. However, it does suggest that plotting an income spectrum just based on cash incomes is very misleading when it comes to understanding difference in purchasing power and standards of living. At a minimum, we need to be basing analysis on the intersection of income and housing tenure.

Wealth

While housing is the primary form of wealth for most Australian households, the issues above are magnified when all forms of wealth are taken into account. Capital gains and tax advantages are increased, while wealth also creates additional ability to invest in money-saving technologies (e.g. energy efficient devices) which in turn increases future purchasing power without a change in income. And there are financial, health and psychological benefits of having savings/wealth to fall back on in emergencies.

But what is important here is that we can’t simply assume that income and wealth go hand-in-hand. The last ABS data (before the national statistician created an inequality data black-hole), shows that just under a third (32%) of low-income households also had low wealth, but 23% had moderate wealth (probably owning their own home), while 11% of low-income households had high wealth (See the graph below).

Column graph showing percent of households in lowest, middle and high income brackets that have low, moderate and high wealth.
Source: ABS, Household Income and Wealth

A concrete example of this wealth-income divergence emerges from the government’s data on age pensioners. The data for the September Quarter 2025 shows that 72% of pensioners own their own home, and around two-thirds of those homeowner pensioners have more than $100,000 in financial assets beyond their home. These pensioners have low-moderate incomes (otherwise they would not be eligible for the pension), but substantial enough capital to be protected against poverty and to have a better standard of living than many renters on higher incomes.

In short, low income does not necessarily mean low wealth or low purchasing power, and an income spectrum based solely on income figures misleads as to who is likely to be struggling.

Social Transfers in Kind

The final piece of the puzzle would be the inclusion of social transfers in kind – that is, the receipt of public services such as education, public health care, child care subsidies as well as a range of rebates and concessions. Many of these transfers go disproportionately to those on lower incomes, which then increases their effective consumption and standard of living. In turn, this decreases inequality – which was the finding of a leading Australian scholar in this field, Yuvisthi Naidoo, whose work I have summarised here.

However, the analysis is more complicated. A very useful recent briefing paper from the e61 Institute shows that while social transfers in kind are generally progressive (i.e. disproportionately benefit those on lowest incomes), there are significant differences between different transfers. The graph below from their report shows the distribution of transfers across both income and wealth quintiles. We can see, for instance, that pharmaceutical concessions are one of the more progressive transfers when plotted against income, with about two-thirds going to those in the lowest two income quintiles. However, those pharmaceutical benefits are far less progressive when plotted by wealth – in part because older people have more needs and eligibility, and are also likely to have accumulated more wealth (mostly in the form of home ownership).

Bar graph showing the percent of each of 15 different government transfers going to each income quintile. Social/public housing is the most progressive, while community health services and private health insurance rebate are the least progressive.
Source: e61 Micronote: Welfare for the Well Off?

It is worth tracking the comparison of progressivity in this graph for each transfer, and there is further discussion below on energy concessions, but the main point here is simply that inequality looks different when wealth and social transfers in kind are considered.

Why Does It Matter?

Overall, all this matters because it means that the level of inequality we see in standard income spectrums may be misleading, but also because actual households will be in different places on the income spectrum when extended incomes are taken into account. Naidoo’s research showed that nearly a half of all older people (65+) were in the lowest standard (money) income quintile, but the inclusion of imputed rent and social transfers in kind reduced that to 22.5% (because older Australians are disproportionately more likely to own homes and benefit from health services). By the time imputed wealth annuities were included in the analysis, only 17% of older people were in the lowest income quintile. At the other end of the spectrum, accounting for extended income meant that 26% of older households were in the highest quintile, up from 7.1% when based on standard income alone. (Naidoo, Appendix Tables C8-11) .

These issues have very direct implications for policy fairness. My attention was recently drawn to this in relation to energy affordability, where there is a legitimate concern to alleviate and avoid energy costs for low-income households. Obviously we don’t want households to go without power, or be bankrupted by power bills, but targeting energy assistance to those on low incomes may be poor targeting. Worse, a focus simply on income might mean imposing more network and other costs on those least able to pay.

Consider the pensioner households noted above. The nearly one-half of age pensioners who own their own home and have more than $100,000 in financial assets can easily afford solar power and energy saving technologies (if they have not got them already). They are far less likely to be facing energy hardship than renters on the age pension without access to the same technologies (who, incidentally, would be seen to have a higher income due to receipt of Commonwealth Rent Assistance). This is important because both pensioner households would receive the same energy concessions (at least in states like SA where the concession is a flat rate) because concession eligibility is based on income rather than ability to pay.

Further, those homeowner pensioners are also far less likely to be in energy hardship than renter families in waged poverty, yet the age pensioner will get an energy concession while those in waged poverty may not qualify. This is a different type of income fetishism (based on income type rather than quantum), but again we see income as an unreliable indicator of affordability and need for support.

More broadly, we can see in the e61 graph above that energy concessions are more progressive by income than by wealth. Nearly half of all concessions go to those in the lowest income quintiles, but only around a quarter go to those in lowest wealth quintile.

There are lots more intricate issues around who bears (and should bear) the necessary costs of the energy transition and how network costs are paid for (apportioned between customers). But what is clear is that a distributional analysis of energy costs based on a simple income spectrum would be misleading in terms of both ability to pay (income) and access to energy-saving technology (cost).

The Way Forward

Energy is just one area where there is a need for a far more sophisticated analysis of income inequality. We need an analysis of affordability for a range of essential expenditures that takes account of housing tenure, but also extended incomes and the real ability to pay for essential consumption.

Ultimately what I would like to see is, firstly, for the ABS to get themselves resourced and organised to do another Household Expenditure Survey (the last one was 2025-16!), and then to be able to analyse those expenditures based on an extended income spectrum combining wealth, housing and income. Only then will we really know which expenditures are genuinely regressive (have disproportionately highest impact on those with the least ability to pay) and where and how to target support.

In the meantime, caution and an analysis based on housing tenure is advised.

Compare the Pair: Income Inequality on the Same Income

Can a homeowner really be $30,000 a year better off than a renter with the same income?

We are all familiar with superannuation ads asking us to “compare the pair”: two otherwise similar workers in different superannuation funds getting very different financial outcomes. Today I want to do a similar exercise for the extended incomes of two people on identical wages, with the only substantive different in their lives being that one owns their own home, while the other one rents.

The different financial outcomes that result go beyond just the amount of rent that one of the pair pays. Nor are they based on lifestyle or consumption differences, clever investment strategies, complex tax minimisation planning (beyond a basic voluntary superannuation contribution), or any other scheme beloved of financial planners. As such, and with everything else about their lives the same, the compare the pair exercise enables us to draw some interesting conclusions about the role of housing and taxation in inequality.

Inequality - not what you think

Compare the Pair

Renter-Greg and homeowner-occupier-Greg both work as professionals in suburban Adelaide and earned $100,000 last financial year. They both live alone, but are neighbours in the same set of home units. Renter-Greg pays $350 a week in rent, while home-owner-Greg is an owner-occupier who paid off their mortgage six years ago. Ever since paying off the mortgage, homeowner-Greg has been making voluntary superannuation contributions equivalent to renter-Greg’s weekly rent – leaving both with the same weekly consumption expenditure (neither saves or invests any further or has any other source of income).

You get the picture: a standard simplified model where all other factors are equal so any differences in financial outcomes are only the result of different housing costs and the ability of homeowner-Greg to put money into superannuation. Of course, the ability to buy a home and invest in super may be conditioned by all sorts of social factors, but the model could also simply be viewed as a comparison of potential financial outcomes of the same person with different housing tenure.

As the table below shows, the bottom line is that homeowner-Greg is nearly $30,000 a year better off than renter-Greg, despite them having the same employment income.

TABLE 1: Comparing the Pair, 2023-23

Compare the Pair: Table showing renter and homeowner comparison, with homeowner $3k better off after tax, then earning $18,200 in imputed rental income, and $8,565 in return on extra superannuation contributions.

(a) Tax is calculated using the ATO simple tax calculator, with homeowner tax based on income tax on $81,800 salary and 15% of $18,200 voluntary super contribution.

(b) Income from voluntary super contributions does not include the voluntary contributions themselves, only the income on the accumulated balance of these contributions, calculated using an industry average rate of return (9.2% for the 2022-23 year, and 5.8% for each preceding year).

Explanation

The first step in comparing the pair is simple enough and is just based on salary income and tax. As can be seen above, homeowner-Greg has a higher disposable income because of the tax concessions on voluntary superannuation contributions.

When we include housing costs, the difference is starker. As noted in a previous post, accounting for housing-costs in income comparisons is common in poverty research (which is usually based on after-housing incomes), while the national accounts also recognise the value of housing ownership by including a value for rent that owner-occupiers are deemed to pay themselves in their measure of the size of the economy. The value of this imputed rent is added to homeowner-Greg’s income (because the value of this free housing service is income-in-kind). The result is a further increase in income inequality, with homeowner-Greg’s after-housing income being 28% higher than renter-Greg’s income.

The next step is to account for the extra income homeowner-Greg receives from being able to make a voluntary superannuation contribution. When this investment income is included, homeowner-Greg’s extended income is nearly $30,000 higher in the year than renter-Greg’s. Again, this is based solely on home ownership and the ability to invest the money saved on housing costs in superannuation.

Alternatives

A significant part of the difference in financial outcomes above comes from the superannuation investment. If homeowner-Greg just put the savings into a standard bank account, they would not get the benefit of the tax concession and would have lower returns on accumulated savings. However, with a relatively modest interest (2% ->3%), they would still get some $2,600 more income than renter-Greg in the 2022-23 financial year.

Of course, homeowner-Greg could also just spend the money not going on rent rather than invest it, which would mean less difference in the long-term, but significantly higher weekly consumption and standard of living than renter-Greg on the same income.

There is one final calculation that could be made to include the value of the capital-gain on the house in homeowner-Greg’s annual income. Home unit prices in Greg’s neighbourhood increased by 8.8% in 2022-23, so homeowner Greg would have “earned” $39,600 in capital gains on his $450,000 unit (average unit price). That would bring the difference between renter-Greg and homeowner-Greg’s income to $68,650, or more than two-thirds of their starting income (gross salary). I have argued previously that capital gains are an important driver of inequality which are overlooked in most data, but there is also an argument to exclude capital gains for owner-occupied housing. This is because unlike pure financial investments, where capital gains are a key return, owner-occupied homes are not simply an investment product. They fulfill a basic need (housing), and while a capital gain may be realised upon sale, most people selling are buying another house in the same inflated market – so they are really simply swapping one house for another, not gaining wealth through the capital gain.

The arguments here are complex, and excluding capital gains on the owner-occupied residence probably underestimates the differences between renters and homeowners. However, the compare-the-pair data above shows that even on the conservative estimate, homeowner-Greg’s extended income is 39% higher than renter-Greg, despite doing a similar job for the same pay.

Conclusion and Implications for Analysis

The most obvious conclusion from this data is that it pays, literally, to be a homeowner. However, it is also important to note that the capital income from accumulated voluntary super payments, and therefore the extended income differences between home-owners and renters, will grow over time as investment income increases with capital gains and further contributions.

The compare the pair exercise also has broader political economy implications. It provides further evidence that the standard statistics on income inequality which deal only with money income hide significant inequalities between people/households who appear to have similar incomes.

Further it supports the argument put by Lisa Adkins and others that capital gains and capital income, rather than employment income (which in the Gregs’ case is identical) are the preeminent drivers of inequality.

It is also evident in the comparison above that the tax system is failing its redistribution function. In this case the tax system not only does not tax aspects of tax capital income, the concessional tax arrangements applying to superannuation promote the inequality between these two people on the same money income.

Implications for Advocacy

Finally, this compare-the-pair exercise raises questions for my own work at SACOSS and the approach of many anti-poverty advocates who have traditionally focused on championing rental affordability and renters’ rights. This focus undoubtedly supports those likely to be most disadvantaged in the housing market. However, the data above shows that the fact of them renting puts renters on the wrong side of increasing inequality – which might suggest merit in the traditional conservative focus of getting people into home ownership.

Put another way, an anti-poverty agenda would direct policy (and money) to supporting rental affordability, while an equality agenda might direct policy and resources to enabling more people to own their own home.

Of course this is a false dichotomy. Policies such as increasing Commonwealth Rent Assistance address both poverty and inequality issues, while some people will never be able to afford to buy a house so “the Australian dream” policy options are limited (and expensive).

However, the analysis does highlight the fact that even if we secure tenants’ rights so we become Europeanised and life-long renting is becomes a potentially desired option (rather than a forced option), renters will still be disadvantaged. Perhaps most challenging, this analysis also applies to those in public housing, who will be better off than they would be in the private rental market, but will nonetheless be falling behind homeowners on similar incomes.

Clearly, while current policy directions to increase renters’ rights and the provision of rental housing are absolutely necessary, we also need to change tax and other policies to reduce the difference in financial outcomes between renters and homeowners.