... to be absolutely incandescent about the Cons new "Welfare" catagory

Your title thread made me laugh- so apt (only French speakers will get that ;) )

granjura! - I did not notice until you pointed it out!

Granjura
Yes I was a bit bemused to see the pension to which I contributed for 35 years and now pay tax on described as "welfare".

Gracesgran I absolutely agree with you.

D****d statistics! They can be twisted to mean whatever you choose and are a very good way of pulling the wool over people's eyes.

Exactly Mamie! Same here. Why is this ridiculous government wasting millions on these letters when that money should be allocated to genuine welfare,(whatever they perceive that to be? )

I read it the same way too Granjura and also thought, perfect description

(for the uninitiated 'con' in French is a 'twit' with a vowel change ;) )

Please do not blame the statistics. Having been responsible for drawing up statistics, the statistics are simply measures of, usually finite, items. It is the manipulation of the statistics by those who commission or have access to them that causes the problem.

The definition of categories in the statistics is what needs examining with a fine toothcomb. Otherwise they are taken at instant face value and can mislead.

Another article which supports Full Fact. I agree; do not blame the statistics, blame the man who told the statisticians what to look for, the one who wanted some Tory propaganda.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/11/04/osborne-s-tax-statements-are-publicly-funded-tory-propaganda

Why did nobody tell Osborne that it would be a stupid thing to do?

I do hate my 'state pension' for which I have paid lots of NI over 40 years being classed as 'welfare'
to be pedantic the department is called the 'department of work AND PENSIONS' when it used to be called the DSS - and since HMRC administers Tax credits and Child Benefit (I think) are these excluded from the graph.
it is obfuscation of the highest order

State Pensions are not actually included in "Welfare" although I could just about understand (though not agree) why they might include them. Oh no, it is Public Sector Pensions, paid for by the worker and the employer, which are included .

These are the main areas:
Health 18.9
Education 13.2%
State Pension 12.1%
Debt Interest 7.0%
Defence 5.3%
Criminal Justice 4.4%

If you divide the new "welfare" section down as Full Fact has done it shows these areas:
Housing 3.8%
Other Pensions 3.1%
Family and Children 2.4%
Unemployment *
Other *
Incapacity, Disability and Injury 5.5%
Social Exclusion 4.2%
Personal Social Services 0.5%

The two * are both two small to show the percentage on the pie charts. It would be reasonable to assume they are less than 0.5% but perhaps someone actually knows.

On the original government pie there are also these area which do not have percentages next to them. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume they are all less than 4.4% as that is the lowest they do show:

Transport
Business and Industry
General Administration
Culture
Environment
Housing and utilities
Overseas aid
Contribution to the EU budget

I very rarely shorten political names as it seems rude. Having been enlightened by our French speakers I think I am glad I did

That's a really interesting article durhamjen. I really do not understand why there is not more of an outcry about this.

This is really interesting www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/tory-tax-statement-welfare-budget-unemployment-pensions-cuts

It shows the graph from the Government Website - strangely not the same as the one sent out.

"If people bother to go to the government website, where the welfare budget is broken down, they can see that only 3% of welfare goes to the unemployed, while pensions account for 46%. But this is not what we will see on our statements. It is designed to make people think we spend more on bad things (welfare) than on good (health)."

As Suzanne Moore said in the Guardian today, the purpose of providing this statistical breakdown (which will apparently cost £5m) is to try to raise the hackles of "hardworking taxpayers" in order to prepare the ground for even more cuts.

Whether a person is liable for income tax, and the amount they are liable for, is dependent on what they earn. But everyone pays VAT at 20% even those whose incomes are minimal. Proportionate to their incomes, the poor pay out much more in taxes - what a shame Mr Osborne chooses not to broadcast that fact.