The idea to give £10,000 to people when they reach age 25 to spend how they wish recently made headlines.
The proposal came from the policy paper issued by the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, which puts forward the case for the creation of a Citizens’ Wealth Fund from which such payments would be made.
It is seeking to address the growing problem of generational wealth inequality.
Similarly, another recent paper issued by the Intergenerational Commission (IC) sets out a wide-ranging set of proposals to tackle this issue.
It, too, includes a similar proposal to pay what they call a ‘citizen’s inheritance’ of £10,000 from age 25, funded by a complete overhaul of inheritance tax.
However, it proposes restricting its use to provide support in four key areas: skills, entrepreneurship, housing and pension saving.
Key points
The idea of unrestricted use of the £10,000 payment fills me with dread at the prospect of it being blown on, for example, a new car, a dream holiday or high fashion, which will do nothing to resolve the issue.
Undoubtedly, I do a massive injustice to the many 25-year-olds who would spend it wisely and voluntarily use it for worthy purposes, but many will not.
Restricting payments for use in those four main areas will undoubtedly create complexity and bureaucracy in how it would be policed.
So while huge reform, as outlined in the IC paper, may be needed, a simpler approach by adapting existing mechanisms may have a greater chance of success.
The answer is clear
It is gratifying to see that the IPPR paper does recognise concerns over unfettered use of the payment and accepts imposing some restrictions may increase political acceptability of the proposal.
Furthermore, it could provide reassurance to the public that the £10,000 payment, which they would be contributing to but deriving no benefit from, would not be wasted on frivolous spending.
But here’s the thing – surely we already have existing mechanisms that could be adapted and, indeed, an appropriate product – a pension.
This is why a pension could be the answer:
Alternative way of repaying
But if pensions are to gain from this initiative then should they not give too?
The pensions lifetime allowance (LTA) has been set by the government as a measure of what size pension fund it believes reasonable for individuals to accrue with its tax incentives.
Funds in excess of the LTA suffer a charge of either 25 per cent or 55 per cent, which is paid back to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
There is growing criticism that the LTA has just become a tax on good investment growth and one might perceive there is significant angst at having to share this good fortune with the taxman, and for no identifiable purpose.
So let us have HMRC redirect what it collects by way of the LTA charge, which has certainly been in excess of £100m over the past three years, into supporting the £10,000 payment process. This would redistribute part of the wealth created by the tax-incentivised pension system and good investment performance. For many this could make the LTA charge more palatable and for those with a philanthropic nature, the charge actually becomes a force for good rather than one of evil.
But what about helping resolve the other financial woes of youngsters identified in these informative papers? There are no quick fixes as wealth redistribution is a long-term game, but further thoughts include:
All in all, pensions, with virtually no adaptation required, are already the perfect product to partner initiatives to rebalance intergenerational wealth.
So, let’s not give away £10,000 too quickly and unthinkingly. Instead, let’s invest in young people and their future.
Robert Graves is head of pensions technical at Embark Group