Most studies of economic well-being now use equivalent disposable income as their measure of resources, ignoring the benefits of publicly provided goods and services and the impact of all sources of taxation apart from income tax and social security contributions. This study of the UK and Australia includes health, education and housing indirect benefits and a range of indirect taxes, and suggests that in both countries indirect benefits are not as progressive in their incidence as direct benefits, but are nonetheless unambiguously pro-poor. The study also indicates that the usual exclusion of indirect taxes from income analyses results in an unduly optimistic view of the extent of income redistribution achieved by welfare states.