Numbers are supposed to present reality in an objective manner but statistics remain open to interpretation and depend on the variables used to calculate them.

This is the case with the exercise conducted by The Sunday Times of Malta when it calculated the impact of the Budget on four fictitious families.

Government’s official reply is being produced today but some points require an explanation.

This newspaper has never purported the exercise to be a scientific one. It is simply an exercise that tries to put into context the impact of certain Budget measures in a way that readers could understand.

Over the past three years the same ‘families’ have been used, tracking progression from one Budget to the next by taking into account the new measures announced every year.

The exercise has its limitations but this was the first time the government reacted with a written reply. Not surprisingly, the emphasis now that the two working couples do not represent the average, was never an issue in the past when the same exercise showed how they had benefitted generously from Budget decisions.

COLA

The contention that the COLA increase was not factored in is correct. But COLA has never been included because it is a measure extraneous to the Budget. As Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said on Reporter last week: “The COLA is not a wage increase, it is a form of compensation – it leaves you where you are.”

However, the COLA increase has to be factored in when calculating tax. Tax changes are purely a Budget decision.

Representation

The exercise did not adopt a scientific model to arrive at the choice of families. This may represent a deficiency but it will always remain a subjective matter. A scientific exercise can extrapolate national averages and determine typical families but even this will have to be based on assumptions.

However, admittedly, the non-inclusion of a pensioner family is a failing that could be considered in the future.

Rose the single parent

The government has described this as “the most serious misrepresentation”. The exercise made it adequately clear that the single parent could potentially be better off because tapering gave her the opportunity to earn as much as she pleased without losing the benefit at one go. It is a fact though that Rose will see her benefit drop although her total income is very likely to be much higher than if she were to remain dependent on social benefits alone.

Fuel

The exercise included a footnote, like it did last year and the year before that fuel will become cheaper next January. Fuel has never been included in the exercise because the pump price can vary throughout the whole year. On the contrary, the electricity reduction for which a commitment for long term stability was given, had been factored in when a similar exercise was conducted for Budget 2014.