84% of young people get no financial education. That's not the real problem

Financial advisers need it more.

The Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (CISI) said yesterday that it supported a private member's bill introduced by Thomas Docherty MP to include financial literacy in the national curriculum.

A study in July found that 84 per cent of young people aged 18-25 hadn't received any formal financial education. But it would be interesting to find out how formal financial education affects decision-making: if young people understand basic financial concepts, from inflation and interest rates, to stocks and shares, or how banks operate, will they be less likely to take out payday loans, max out their credit cards or take out unaffordable mortgages? 

You could easily argue that financial training didn't prevent bankers from excessive risk taking. Then again, until this year, financial advisers weren't required to hold more than the equivalent of an A-level in finance.

I remember once speaking to Christopher Jones-Warner, who teaches communication to wealth managers. He said that at his training sessions for financial services personnel he asks attendees to raise their hands if they"have a financial plan" are "working that financial plan" and therefore "expect to retire comfortably." He estimates only around 22 per cent of his audience raise their hands. If professionals aren't planning their finances sensibly, what hope is there for the rest of us?

This makes me wonder, perhaps the problem isn't one of formal financial education, but something more informal and more difficult to teach in a classroom— a question of ethos. It seems to me that it's more important that people are less reckless when it comes to taking on debt, than that they can tell an examiner what a derivative is.

This article first appear on Spear's.

Drive for financial literacy. Photograph: Getty Images

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.