The Sunday Times Rich List could pay off the deficit without noticing

The Sunday Times this week published the latest list of the collective wealth of the 1,000 multimillionaires in Britain which has climbed to £335.5 billion, up £77.265 billion on 2009. Despite the global economic downturn this represents 29.9% growth on last year – the biggest rise in the 22-year history of the Rich List.

Quite apart from the fact that this is yet another indication that those ‘architects’ of the economic crisis have also been its beneficiaries, this level of growth is completely unsustainable by almost any standards. It does, though, suggest a rather tempting solution to the political parties’ collective headache over the public deficit.

By our calculations, just 20% of the combined wealth of the Rich List would be sufficient to fund the entire public deficit for 2010-2011. In political party terms, just half of last year’s growth could plug the hole in Liberal Democrat plans; a 25% share of the richest hundred’s combined wealth of £182bn would fund Labour’s shortfall; and if this year’s 53 billionaires (rising from 43 last year) could stump up £53bn between them, that would plug the Conservatives' plans.

Of course, if it was done through taxation there would be cries of foul and flight – although interestingly the Sunday Times this year plays down such cries as threats rather than realities – but it would be worth the anoraks running some sums.

But in these unprecedented times, what if the Rich List 2010 somehow clubbed together and in an act of monumental generosity simply gave a small part of their wealth away? For the many millions facing as yet unknown austerity in our schools, hospitals and communities, it might make a difference that would go down in the annals of history far more than any investment in a trophy football team or quantity of private jets. And for the richest thousand? They probably wouldn’t even notice.

Ed Cox

The first step to tackling ‘the neet problem’… ditch the term ‘neet’

A new word has entered common usage as a result of this recession. With young people being the worst affected by the downturn (nearly double the percentage of 16-24 year olds are unemployed compared to the rest of the adult population), we’re hearing a lot about those who are not in employment, education or training. Or ‘neets’ as they’ve become known.

This is undoubtedly one of the most important problems thrown up by the recession. There is a mounting body of evidence that being unemployed early in life can ‘scar’ people later on. If you are out of work when young you are more likely to have spells of unemployment later in life. You’re likely to earn less in the future, too. And we know that being in work is massively important for general well-being, sense of identity and social mobility. So the Conservative candidate for Hammersmith, Shaun Bailey, was right to be hitting the streets this weekend to highlight the problem of youth unemployment. Despite a slew of programmes introduced by the Labour government – from guaranteeing jobs to increasing education places – it looks likely that they’ll miss their target of 7.6% of 16-18 year olds being ‘neet’ this year.

The trouble with ‘the neet problem’ is that it isn’t one problem. It’s lots of very different problems that have been unhelpfully bundled together in a single term. How can politicians come up with policies to help ‘neets’ when it includes everything from top graduates unable to find jobs and those leaving school with no qualifications? And what about those who are ‘neet’ in cities dependent on manufacturing compared to those in rural communities? And don’t forget the difference between men and women – women are four times more likely to have an identified barrier to entering the labour market than men.

The things that are stopping these groups entering the labour market, and the policies that would therefore help them find work, are quite different. So perhaps the first step to tackling the ‘neet problem’ would be to ditch the term ‘neet’. Then we can have a proper discussion about the range of policies that are needed to support these very different groups.

Jonathan Clifton