A new report into Australia’s welfare system conducted for the government by PricewaterhouseCoopers contains some intriguing information that highlights just how much the aged pension will grow over the next 60 years, and actually how few people are lifetime recipients of welfare. It’s a pity however, that the worthy elements of the report have been smothered with large numbers designed to shock and obfuscate.

Here’s a job offer you’ll love. You’re 25 years old, and you can have a job till you are 70 and your total lifetime income payment will be $5.7m. That’s right – nearly $6m!

Were you to take that offer, you would have just agreed to earn the equivalent of $50,000 a year – less than the current median income and $10,000 less than the current average annual earnings of $60,330 – until 2061. I’ve granted you a 3.5% annual pay rise, but other than that your earnings are stuck.

The struggle over super: why the government wants to rewrite your expectations Read more

Not quite the generous offer it seemed.

It highlights how silly it is to represent either income or costs in terms of total lifetime amount. It is a “lifetime” figure that you would never use in your actual lifetime.

Yet this is the computation used throughout the latest report on welfare released this week by the government.

In his speech at the National Press Club on Tuesday, the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, noted that the report “shows that we face a total estimated future lifetime welfare cost of the present Australian population of $4.8tn”.

He suggested, “that is a very large figure, and no doubt it will receive considerable attention”.

Well let’s not beat around the bush. It is a dumb figure that should be shown absolutely no respect.

It is there for one reason alone – because it is big and thus it sounds like we are about to drown in a mountain of welfare payments.

It reminds me of The Simpsons when the students discover that Principal Skinner earns $25,000 and Bart calculates that as he is 40 years old, “times 25 grand, Whoa! He’s a millionaire!”

There was a time when we used budget figures over just one year, now the standard talk is “over the forward estimates” of four years. But just in case four-year figures aren’t big enough, it seems we now need to talk of lifetime amounts.

It is similar to the dopey process used in the intergenerational report released by Joe Hockey in 2015 that talked of what debt would be in 2055 if we assume the level of debt that was in place in the 2014-15 budget were to continue.

But why stop at $4.8tn? $4.8trn isn’t big, you know what’s big? $360.5trn. That is the “lifetime revenue” of the federal government out to 2085 (which is to when the report’s projections extend), assuming an average increase of 5.9%.

Does that mean we don’t need to worry about welfare spending? No, but it does show how misleading are such “lifetime” figures.

The use of other odd figures that rather distorted the cost of welfare also appeared in Porter’s speech.

For example, he noted the $160bn social services budget was 80% of the amount of personal income tax raised.

But personal income tax accounts for just under half of all government revenue. Saying that the “welfare bill” is 80% of personal income tax is a bit like someone saying they spend 80% of what they earn from the first half of the week buying food and paying the rent and utility costs.

And while Porter is right to note that in 2008-09 due to stimulus payments the social security budget rose above 100% of the value of personal income tax, using that tax as a parameter is a bit odd because the current 80% level is where it has been for most of the past 15 years, and where it is projected to be out to 2021:

It’s also worth noting that 40% of the $160bn figure is for assistance to the aged:

Yet the aged pension or aged care was never referred to in his speech.

Similarly, when he talked of people remaining in welfare over their lives he pointedly did not include family tax benefits, child care rebates or paid parental leave, and yet these make up 13% of the $160bn, and are a significant portion of the $4.8trn “lifetime” result.

And for all the attempts to shock with big numbers, the most surprising figure from the report is how small are the groups of concern.

For example, the report notes that of the 400,000 students currently receiving study support, around 25% in any year over the next 60 years will receive some form of income welfare. That includes Newstart, the parenting payment, careers payment, disability support pension and even the aged pension.

Given the report also finds that 23% of the current population is on some form of these income supports, it is not a truly shocking result.

But even of this segment, the minister – perhaps unintentionally – highlighted how small are the numbers involved.

He noted how 6,600 students who received a welfare payment to study between 2003 and 2011 then went onto Newstart, and that of this group, “more than 9%” (so around 600) will “access income support in each year for the rest of their lives”.

Australia does not have a welfare problem. We have a poverty problem | John Falzon Read more

Now it is excellent that this study has been able to identify such a specific segment of the population, but it rather smashes the silly reporting of recent days about a plethora of “new breed of bludgers” who don’t want to work.

As I noted last week, the level of youth who are neither in education nor looking for work is at near record lows. It may be great for selling newspapers to say there is some new crisis involving “generational addicts”, but it is just wrong.

It is certainly worthwhile to look for new ways to assist people in disadvantaged segments, such as those youth who are forced through circumstances to care for sick or disabled parents. But this report and how it has been sold in the media highlights that the debate remains stuck in the mire of belief that those on welfare are somehow lucky who should be required to earn it and that it is a growing “problem”.

It does not bode well given the assistance for such people will likely require more investment not less; the approach still very much seems to be about impact on the budget, rather than the impact on the people.