Back to Top

 Skip navigation

Social Inclusion

€1,017.98
Weekly household disposable income in 2019

The SILC (Survey on Income and Living Conditions) household survey is the official source of data on household and individual income and also provides a number of key national poverty indicators, such as the ‘at risk of poverty’ rate, the consistent poverty rate and rates of enforced deprivation.

Table 8.1 Average weekly household and individual disposable income, 2008-2019
Statistic200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019
Household disposable income939.88880.78826.96801.43793.39808.05825.26858.99887.51929.01986.171,017.98
Equivalised disposable income per individual 467.23447.03424.26410.88408.34415.03422.41440.47453.85478.79512.96535.48
Source: CSO

Visit table SIA21 on PxStat

Link to publication: Survey on Income and Living Conditions

€535.48
Weekly equivalised disposable income per individual
Open in Excel:
17.8%
The percentage of people considered to be experiencing ‘enforced deprivation’

The percentage of people considered to be experiencing ‘enforced deprivation’, is defined as not being able to afford two or more basics, such as going without heating in the past year, or being unable to afford items such as two pairs of strong shoes, a warm waterproof coat or a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day.

Link to publication: Survey on Income and Living Conditions

42.7%
Deprivation rate for those at risk of poverty
8.2 Poverty and deprivation rates, 2008-2019

X-axis labelAt Risk of PovertyDeprivationConsistent PovertyDeprivation rate for those at risk of poverty
200419.414.16.633.8
200518.314.8738
200617146.638.6
200716.511.85.131.1
200814.413.74.229.1
200914.117.15.538.8
201014.722.66.342.9
20111624.56.943.2
201216.9278.248.8
201316.230.5955.3
201416.728.98.349.7
201516.325.48.551.9
201616.2218.250.4
201715.718.86.742.8
20181415.15.640.3
201912.817.85.542.7
12.8%
The ‘at risk of poverty’ rate, is the share of persons whose income was less than 60% of the national median income
5.5%
The ‘consistent poverty rate’ includes those persons who are defined as being both at risk of poverty and who are also experiencing enforced deprivation
Open in Excel:

The most common types of deprivation experienced at an overall level were:

18.1%
Unable to replace worn-out furniture
13.6%
Unable to have family/friends for a drink/meal once a month
11.7%
Unable to afford a morning/afternoon/evening out in the last fortnight
X-axis labelQuintile 5Quintile 4Quintile 3Quintile 2Quintile 1
20193822.417.213.29.3
201838.5322.4717.0213.188.79
201739.8722.6216.6912.568.26
201639.0122.7517.1212.788.34
201539.0722.9816.9812.78.27
20144022.8616.7112.647.79
201339.8522.8516.7212.597.99

Figure 8.2 displays the proportion of total income received by each quintile (or 20% of the population).

The share of total income received in 2019 by the 20% of the population with the lowest income (bottom quintile) was 9.3%. By comparison, the total income received by the 20% of population with the highest income (top quintile) in 2019 was 38.0%, a multiple of 4.1. In other words, the bottom quintile have to work for 4.1 years to generate the same income that the top quintile receive in one year.

Open in Excel:

Each year since 2004, the Survey on Income and Living Conditions collects data from households in Ireland. Some results relating to ownership of various household appliances and dwelling features were published in 2020, illustrating how homes in Ireland have changed in the last 16 years.

77.9%
possessed a computer in their home, compared to 50.5% in 2004
65.4%
owned a dishwasher increasing from 45.6% in 2004

In 2004, just over one in every two households (50.5%) possessed a computer in their home.  In 2019, the figure stood at 77.9%.  The proportion of households that couldn’t afford to own a computer decreased from 12.5% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2019

The share of households that have double or triple glazing in their dwelling has increased steadily from 70.5% in 2004 to 94.2% in 2019.

In 2019, 25.0% of households reported having a garage, compared with a high of 34.6% in 2004.  Looking at the differences between urban and rural areas, over one in every two (51.4%) households in rural areas had a garage in 2019, compared with just one in eight (12.7%) households in urban areas.

X-axis labelBurglar alarmDouble or triple glazingGarage
200427.570.534.6
200528.972.931.6
200629.174.831.6
200730.176.532.1
200830.179.731.6
200930.48331
201034.185.629
201136.885.925
201240.688.625.4
201341.689.924.7
201440.591.726.6
201542.192.528.1
201642.49327.2
201743.194.428.4
20184494.727.8
201945.994.225

Access to Services

Between 2011 and 2019, respondents were asked about their self-perceived ease in accessing local services.  Rural households have greater difficulty accessing services.

In 2019, one in ten (10.7%) urban households said they had some or great difficulty accessing primary health care services (such as a General Practitioner (GP), a primary health centre, a casualty department or similar, where first-aid treatment could be received), compared with almost four in ten (37.9%) rural households.

Rural households were more likely to report having some or great difficulty accessing a bank (44.2%) or post office (33.1%) in 2019, compared with urban households at 16.8% and 8.8% respectively.

 

X-axis labelUrban AreasRural Areas
Shop6.328.1
Primary health care services10.737.9
Bank16.844.2
Post office8.833.1
Open in Excel:

This module explores if a person's household circumstances as a teenager are associated with poverty indicators in later life.  It is based on answers from people aged 25-59 about their life situation when they were about 14 years old.

The education level of parents is associated with the education of their children.  Respondents were more likely to attain a third level education if either parent had also done so, 77.9% attained a third level education if at least one of their parents had done so compared with 27.2% of those whose parents had a lower secondary education or below.  See Figure 8.5.

 

X-axis labelRespondent Education Level: Third levelRespondent Education Level: Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiaryRespondent Education Level: Lower secondary or below
Parents' Education Level: Lower secondary or below27.242.230.6
Parents' Education Level: Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary55.735.19.1
Parents' Education Level: Third level77.917.94.2

Respondents who as teenagers lived in households with no working parents were more likely to be at risk of poverty as adults in 2019 (20.6%), compared with those that lived in households with two working parents (7.1%).  See Figure 8.6

 

X-axis labelAt Risk of PovertyEnforced DeprivationConsistent Poverty
No parent at work20.633.313.3
One parent at work11.515.64.4
Two parents at work7.114.33.5

Respondents who described the financial situation of their teenage home as bad were more likely to be at risk of poverty or living in enforced deprivation as an adult in 2019.  Where the financial situation in the teenage home was bad, the at risk of poverty rate for adults in 2019 was 18.2% and the enforced deprivation rate was 39.0%.  In contrast, where the financial situation in the teenage home was good the at risk of poverty rate for adults in 2019 was 8.4% while the enforced deprivation rate was 10.1%.  See Figure 8.7 

Visit table SID06 on PxStat

X-axis labelAt Risk of PovertyEnforced DeprivationConsistent Poverty
Financial situation of teenage household: Good8.410.13
Financial situation of teenage household: Moderate10.917.44.7
Financial situation of teenage household: Bad18.23913.5

Go to next chapter Life at Home

Why you can Trust the CSO

Learn about our data and confidentiality safeguards, and the steps we take to produce statistics that can be trusted by all.