Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Economy & business fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about economy & business. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

7,103 published reviews in this topic

NewtralEconomy & business

En los dos últimos años hemos subido un 3% las pensiones

Publisher’s rating: Engañoso

The claim was that pensions had risen by 3% over the previous two years. Newtral’s review says the timing makes that attribution misleading: Pedro Sánchez became prime minister after a motion of censure in June 2018, so the PSOE had been in government for only a little over a year when Montero made the statement—not two years. The review also distinguishes the overall pension increase from the narrower 3% figure in the 2019 decree. That decree set a 1.6% revaluation for public pensions in 2019. Its 3% increase applied only to specified groups: minimum Social Security pensions, non-contributory pensions, and non-concurrent pensions under the defunct SOVI scheme—not to all pensions. The review adds that pensions had risen 1.6% in 2018 under the Rajoy government and rose another 1.6% in 2019 under the PSOE decree. Taken together, those increases amounted to 3.2 percentage points across both years, but they did not show that the PSOE had raised all pensions by 3% during two years in office.

NewtralEconomy & business

Cuando llegamos al Gobierno, había más de ocho millones de mujeres en paro

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim was made by Ana Pastor, the PP’s number two candidate for Madrid, during a debate among representatives of five major parties organized by La Sexta. She said that when Mariano Rajoy came to government, Spain had more than eight million women unemployed. Newtral’s review rejects the figure on a decisive scale comparison: it says Spain had never had that many unemployed people in total, even when men and women are counted together. Since the claimed number of unemployed women alone exceeds the stated historical maximum for all unemployed people combined, the review concludes that the claim is false. The supplied excerpt gives that comparison but does not include the underlying data, figures for a particular date, or the linked explanation. It therefore supports the review’s stated reasoning, but does not provide enough detail to reconstruct the statistical series or independently assess how the comparison was calculated.

NewtralEconomy & business

Cuando llegamos al Gobierno, había más de ocho millones de mujeres en paro

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Newtral examined Ana Pastor’s claim that, when Rajoy’s government took office, Spain had more than eight million unemployed women. The review says Pastor made the assertion twice and places it in her remarks about facing the economic crisis. To test it, Newtral compared unemployment figures from Spain’s Labour Force Survey (EPA) with registrations at the State Public Employment Service (SEPE).

Fact CrescendoEconomy & business

Claim: Centre Government to introduce Gold Amnesty Scheme

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examined a social-media post claiming that the Modi-led central government planned to impose a heavy penalty on people holding gold without receipts. It describes the post as a photo card bearing Narendra Modi’s image and says it was shared by the Facebook page Ezhuchi on November 6, 2019. The review’s central finding is that the post repeated an earlier report without accounting for a subsequent denial from the Finance Ministry. The review says Economic Times, Financial Express and other outlets reported on October 30 that the government was considering a gold-amnesty scheme. As described in the review, the proposal would let people regularize unaccounted gold, including inherited gold without receipts, by paying tax, with the revenue intended for the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana. The review also reports that this coverage caused concern among middle- and lower-income people. The decisive evidence cited is an October 31 statement attributed to Finance Ministry sources and published by ANI: “There is no Gold amnesty scheme under consideration of Income Tax Department as being reported in media.” The review says Economic Times and other outlets then reported that no such scheme existed. It concludes that the social-media post was false because it circulated the earlier proposal story while omitting or overlooking the reported denial. The review does not describe a direct statement by a named minister or official; it identifies the denial as coming from ministry sources cited by ANI.

FACTLYEconomy & business

In the petrol price, the State tax is twice that of the Central tax.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY investigated a social-media post that itemized taxes and dealer profit in the petrol price and asserted that State tax was twice Central tax. The review says the post’s figures were wrongly quoted, and specifically rejects the claimed two-to-one comparison. Its discussion concerns variation in State taxes, rather than a single uniform State-tax figure applicable throughout India. (“A post with the figures of various taxes and dealer profit that make up the petrol price at a petrol bunk is being shared widely on Facebook.”; “Also, the State tax isn’t twice that of the Central tax.”) To check the figures, the review says it found Indian Oil Corporation Limited’s “Petrol Price Buildup” information. It cautions that those figures were for Delhi, where the State government levies 27% tax on petrol, and notes that State tax rates differ across India. It also points to the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, a Central government source, for State rates. As examples, it reports that on November 1, 2019, Andhra Pradesh levied 31% VAT plus Rs. 2 per litre, Telangana 35.20% VAT, Chhattisgarh 25% VAT plus Rs. 2 per litre, and Manipur 25% VAT. These examples show why a Delhi price breakdown cannot simply be treated as a nationwide State-tax rate. (“But those details are of Delhi, where the State government levies a tax of 27% on petrol.”; “In India, the tax levied by each state government is different”; “As on November 1, 2019, the tax rates levied by some governments in their respective states are as follows-Andhra Pradesh: 31% VAT + Rs.2/litre VAT, Telangana: 35.20% VAT Chattisgarh: 25% VAT + Rs.2/litre VATManipur: 25% VAT”) The review also disputes components of the post’s price breakdown: it says Central tax was not Rs. 13.50, describing its five-year average as between Rs. 19 and 20, and says dealer profit averaged Rs. 3.57 rather than Rs. 4.25. It concludes that the post’s figures were wrong and that State tax was not twice Central tax. (“The Central tax isn’t Rs 13.50. In the past five years, on an average, it is between Rupees 19 and 20. Dealer profit isn’t Rs 4.25, on an average, it is Rs 3.57.”; “To conclude, in the post, the figures of various taxes and dealer profit that make up the petrol price are wrongly quoted.”)