Pundits across the political spectrum recognised the severity of the measures in the coalition government's 22 June emergency budget, described by the chancellor as "tough but fair". But several have questioned whether the statistical information in the Budget book supports that assertion, particularly as it takes no account of forthcoming cuts to public services.

The budget's headline measures included notice of cuts of up to 25 per cent for several government departments' budgets and an increase in the rate of VAT to 20 per cent. But despite the increase in indirect taxation, the Chancellor said he'd chosen to limit rises in direct taxation as they posed too much "risk to the economy".

Noting the sheer volume of information in the Budget book, BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders highlighted two charts. She said that Chart 1.1 "shows how far the Chancellor has had to stray from his desired 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, especially in the first few years of this Parliament". Table A2 gives examples of different families' tax credit entitlements.

Flanders commented that "as many have pointed out, the chart cannot and does not include the impact of spending cuts, which will tend to fall heaviest on poorer households and regions. And there is an even more obvious point ... the bottom decile may not be suffering the biggest relative hit to income, but they are still taking a larger hit than almost any other group."

Likewise, an FT editorial noted that "In terms of taxes and welfare payments, the burden of the Budget proposals does fall proportionately hardest upon higher income groups. But this measure ignores the impact of the cuts on those who rely on the state for services ... Moreover, the decision to raise the income tax threshold and to put up value added tax to 20 per cent – both of which Mr Osborne elected to do – make the package harsher on poor people than was necessary. "

The FT commented that the Chancellor’s "plans make sense only so long as the OBR’s own growth forecasts are correct ... Even the OBR thinks it more likely than not that its own figures will be significantly wrong in 2014."

But the Daily Mail's Alex Brummer saw it differently, commenting "The one unavoidable conclusion of this Budget is that it is the already stretched lower middle classes which will be hardest hit by its measures ... Almost everyone is hurt, but those on middle incomes, earning between £24,500 and £49,700 – typical Conservative and Lib-Dem voters – are punished severely".

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) commented that "whether it is progressive or not will only become fully clear after October's assessment of the spending plans. ... IPPR set a threshold of fairness to judge this budget. There were some welcome announcements, such as the bankers levy, the increases in Capital Gains Tax (though he should have gone further), the incentives for businesses to grow in hard-hit areas and the rises in child tax credit to protect the poorest. But in other measures the Chancellor risks doing too much too soon to reduce borrowing – increasing the chances of the tentative economic recovery being snuffed out."

Channel 4's FactCheck seized upon the IFS analysis of personal taxes and distributional impact of Budget measures by James Browne, which looks ahead further than the Treasury. FactCheck noted that in 2014-15 "things get worse, not better, for the poorest."

• How far does the Budget book support the description of the measures as fair? Log in and tell us what you think.