MY EARS pricked up during the Budget speech when the Chancellor claimed to be doing his best to help average earners. At least, that’s what it sounded like. And yet it seemed unlikely: Mr Brown is not known for his concern for the middle classes, at least not outside election time.

What the Chancellor said was that raising the child tax credit by 14 per cent over three years, instead of increasing personal allowances, is “the best way to do most to help low and middle-income families”. Could that, to borrow a phrase from the Lotto, be you?

I set out to discover exactly what, and who, Mr Brown meant. Look at the example he gave to illustrate his largesse: “A two-child family on medium earnings of £24,000 a year” would be £140 per annum better off. Medium earnings can mean average earnings, or median earnings, and there is a significant difference.

What Mr Brown was supposed to say, as printed in the text of his speech (and later corrected in Hansard), was “a two-child family on median earnings”. Median earnings are far lower than average earnings: £22,400 this year (Mr Brown’s £24,000 was a projected figure for next year) compared with average earnings of just under £27,000 (according to the Office for National Statistics) or £29,600 (according to the Treasury — nobody said this was going to be easy).

Why the difference? Medium, or average, earnings are the sum of all incomes divided by the number of people earning them. Median earnings are the level at which half of earners are above and half are below. Because there are many more low earners than high earners, the median is much lower than the medium.

But there was a much cleverer trick going on than the confusion over medium. Look closer at the example the Chancellor gave: “a two-child family on median earnings of £24,000 a year” would be £140 better off under his proposals. It sounds as though he is talking about an averagely well-off family until you consider that £24,000 is the projected median not for couples but for individuals.

The median earnings of a two-adult, two-child household are £38,500 a year. So the Chancellor’s two-child household earning the “median” £24,000 a year is not, as it sounds, a middle-income family, but a low income family. Neat trick, huh?

When you consider as well that only 11 per cent of British households even have two children in them, you begin to see just how rarefied is the example cited by Mr Brown.

The Chancellor’s beneficence (“the best way to do most to help low and middle-income families”, remember) is actually aimed at a very small proportion of households on well below average income. Confused? You were meant to be.

In case you missed it, the Chancellor doled out another £200 million to the Olympics, this time for training potential medal-winners. That is on top of the £3.4 billion already pledged for the Games to be paid by London and national taxpayers, and lottery players.

With £300 million from the Lotto, the new £200 million will mean £½ billion of public money to train top athletes to win prizes in the Games.

I recognise that I have singularly failed to get the spirit of the Games, considering them an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money in pursuit of pointless muscular vainglory. But in a week when there were 3,000 job cuts in the NHS and more cancelled operations as the health service struggles to cut a debt predicted to end up at about £500 million, I couldn’t help but notice.

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• All that glitters is not sold in Wright’s world
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend