George Osborne accused of fuelling 'ignorance' over welfare claims
Tax statements conflated many things not usually considered welfare
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Personal tax statements sent out to British households by the Chancellor, George Osborne, have been criticised for “fuelling uncertainty” over how public money is spent.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said the Government had failed to “strike a balance” between making detailed information easy to understand and spelling out exactly how it was spent.
In the figures sent to everyone who pays tax or National Insurance, £168bn – a quarter of all spending – was allocated to ‘welfare’. But though this figure does include means-tested benefits such as Jobseeker’s Allowance, it also covers social care for sick, disabled and elderly people, and children taken into care, which would not normally be classed as welfare spending.
The £20bn paid into public service pensions for retired nurses and soldiers was also included. “This is not spending that would normally be classed as welfare,” the IFS said.
On social care spending, it added: “There is a balance to be struck between the amount of detail presented and clarity of message.
“Lumping a quarter of total spending into one bucket labelled ‘welfare’ may not strike the most helpful balance, especially when it includes such diverse items as spending on social care, public service pensions, disability benefits, child benefit and unemployment benefits.”
Julia Unwin, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned the government’s presentation of the figures risked “fuelling even more ignorance and uncertainty” about welfare spending.
Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, called on the Conservative party to foot the bill for the mail.
“The Conservatives have been caught blue-handed using taxpayers’ money for party political campaigning. They should be made to pay the full costs of this stunt,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Treasury said: “The headings in our tax summaries are based on internationally recognised (UN) definitions.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments