Polly Toynbee discusses capital grants for the young to counter wealth inequality in her article 'Young people need money because our system is rigged. Here’s a way to give it to them' (9 June). The age at which grants are accessed is critical for both policy and politics.
Historical Context of Grants
Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Agrarian Justice, published in the 1790s, proposed providing £15 to all 21-year-olds. The Social Market Foundation’s report is the latest addition to this literature, and promises policy impacts.
Political Feasibility
Dr Rajiv Prabhakar from The Open University argues that it is probably easier politically to provide grants to babies than young adults. This seems the case for the child trust fund (CTF), which was introduced by New Labour and then scrapped by the coalition government. The CTF became seen more as a savings product than a capital endowment, and so was subsumed under other policy agendas. This perhaps helps explain why over 750,000 accounts remain unclaimed.
A Counterargument Against Redistribution
Jeremy Galtress from Nottingham expresses his disagreement with Polly Toynbee’s piece. He acknowledges that house prices have run away from average earnings over time, but argues that the boomer generation should not, across the board, have to subsidise those who are looking to get a foot on the housing ladder.
Galtress states: 'The amount my house has gained in value just about covers all associated costs over that time. I had no help from my parents during my middle years – all the paper money tied up in my property has been obtained from sacrifice. No fancy holidays, no £50,000 weddings, no ridiculous £90,000 cars. Priorities.'
He emphasises that he has worked hard to have what he has, and does not see why this should be distributed away from his family – his money should be used as he wishes. Borrowing against a future state pension has its merits, as long as there is a state pension in existence down the line.
