To think stopping the pension triple lock and bus passes would reduce inequality

[feellikeahugefailure]

Yes it would be great to give everyone free bus travel and put up their money each year. But the country is already in a financial black hole.

Most other benefits have been frozen for years but pensioners protected. Also the bus pass is given universally and not means tested, where as the bus pass for the unemployed was axed years ago.

There are many people like my wealthy ex in-laws who used the bus pass to avoid paying parking and getting the BMW scratched. The state pension they always called peanuts - as it was compared to their final salary pension. These changes would not affect their lifestyle one bit.

Ideally I'd like unemployed people and poor pensioners to get some help with bus travel (as it can be super expensive) and increases each year in money to allow people at the bottom to live their life with dignity, regardless of age.

jobhap.com/bus-passes-and-state-pensions-triple-lock-threat-on-brexit/

My father is a self made millionaire a fair few times over. He has tried numerous times to request that he does not receive his state pension or things like his winter fuel payment but they keep on coming! He now just gives them to charity.

TwoFingers

David Willetts has discovered is that 80 per cent of the nation's £6.7 trillion wealth is owned by Baby Boomers. Of the nation's £1.6 trillion held in shares and savings those between the ages of 50 and 64 own £1 trillion. Of Britain's £1.8 trillion pension pot, a third is owned by them and a further quarter by those over the age of 45. Of the UK's £2.5 trillion-worth of houses they own 40 per cent, and one in five own a second home.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/will-the-baby-boomers-bankrupt-britain-1936027.html

The generation born during the post-war baby-boom (which lasted from 1946 until the early 1960s; the babies are now in their late-forties to mid-sixties) have had it easy, so the argument goes. They enjoyed a long economic expansion, free higher education or paid apprenticeships, secure working contracts and gold-plated final-salary pension schemes. Not to mention a stunning long-run housing boom, the effects of which will take decades to shake out. As a result, according to figures cited by Neil Boorman, boomers own 80% of the nation’s wealth.

moneyweek.com/economics-blaming-the-baby-boomers-50318/

AuntJane if you sued to work for the ONS then you'll have enough economic knowledge to be aware that lots of things have dropped in price in real terms over the last 40-50 years and lots of other things have increased massively in price. Whilst salaries have stagnated since the early 2000s (and for some age groups from before then), asset prices have risen massively. Many items that were once "luxuries" are now very cheap in relation to salaries; whilst many items that were once reasonably priced or free (houses, education) are now not at all.

Houses have risen in price more than 3.5 times in real terms since the late-90s, when they were last at historical mean values compared to average salaries. However the cost of foreign travel and electronic items has dropped massively in real terms. But the two things aren't equivalent - when starter homes cost twenty times your salary, and deposits needed in many parts of the country are in the region of £50,000+, so far out of reach that many young poorer working people without wealthy families might as well realistically aspire to flying to the moon, are you really saying that you think the problem is they are choosing to buy a smartphone rather than to PAY FOR YOUR PENSION? Well, what a selfish lot. They are already going without the big things in life, e.g. pensions for themselves, houses, and being able to afford a decent standard of living for their families: but they should THINK OF OTHERS and be going without even the little things in life just to make sure that Aunty Jane gets her winter fuel payment.

It's very disingenuous to suggest that the problem is that people can't afford to pay for OTHERS' pensions (eg. as a collective, when their own salaries are stagnating, to pay for pension entitlements for a demographic bulge generation that dwarf the generations below), because they are buying "luxury items". Perhaps the problem is with a generation that is expecting a free lunch: to have gobbled up all the houses, jobs, healthcare and pension entitlements for themselves, whilst being unwilling to make any sacrifices? The young have to pay three times for houses what their parents did, as well as for education, and to maintain the pensions of those above them so they can keep the expensive houses the younger workers can't afford? Whilst not being able to save into pensions themselves?

Looks increasingly like the "triple lock" is wanting to have all the housing wealth, all the pension wealth, and also all social and healthcare needs paid for, without having to give up any of the aforementioned housing or pension wealth to pay for it.

It's a good thing young people have all these high-paid permanent jobs, that are better paid in real terms than previous generations', to pay for it all....oh.

oldsu I was commuting a few years ago when cut off was 8.30 rather than 9.30 (although actually I did work a later day), but point still applies on rerurn journey, weekends etc. anyway.

Your husband's situation is frustrating and he - along with all the younger low-paid workers who have no offer of a free pass - is someone who may benefit from the scheme changing to means-testing/discount fares so that those in need (rather rich, car-owning pensioners) can benefit.

The problem with the generalisations about the babyboomers (free university, free healthcare, very rich and all their fault) is that they tend to forget the other side - the misery of the early 80s unemployment, after which some never worked again, high proportion of population leaving school at 15 until 1971, in the 60s hardly anyone actually got that free university people go on about. The increase in house prices is not something bbs have deliberately caused.

None of that has anything to do with means testing, but just thought i'd mention! I do think there is a huge issue about our 20s generation (what initial are they?). But it is basically a housing issues - bus passes and even the triple lock are irrelevant. but then i don't think cb should be means tested either. Or, for example, healthcare - although the means testers don't address why 'x benefit' should be means tested and gp appointments and x rays are not.

Well said Stormy. My mum worked all her life in low paid manual jobs (no min wage) she paid married woman's stamp so had a very small state pension. The only time she had a decent income was after my dad died and her pension increased. She deserved every penny.

Very interesting point about the bus pass being worth so much more in london than in rural areas. Yet another example of the economic inequality between london and other regions. The london/south east versus rest of country divide would be something worth addressing - not that it is easy to do.

We have great inequality in this country and it will continue as long as the non-rich distract themselves with squabbles of young vs old, able-bodied vs disabled, married vs single parents vs childfree .....
The rich of all ages are laughing.

The way to reduce inequality is via the income tax system.
Add higher tax bands for higher incomes
That way you take money from the rich of all ages, to benefit those on lower income / special needs, of all ages.

Benefits that cost a lot of money - hundreds / thousands per month per recipient - are worth means testing so the better off don't receive what they don't need.
However, bus passes cost far less than this and would cost more than the savings. They also reduce millions of journeys annually by drivers with poorer eyesight & reactions. Win-win.

Bonnet
You have chosen to ignore the entire first paragraph of my original post setting out what I have given up, and continue to give up, to secure my future.

I would also be more than happy to vacate my job at age 60 to make room for someone younger, but the government has determined I now have to work to 66.

Honestly - you don't want people to claim pensions, but you want our jobs!

I wish I could remember this "free education" people keep talking about. When I left school, the family was means tested and, if the parents' combined income was low enough, the student received a grant towards the course costs (but not accommodation). However, if the parents were assessed as able to pay, then it was expected that they would - and there were plenty of students left high and dry.

Young people can get their candy asses out of bed and work.

I did.....

What are pensioners supposed to do? Know any good ways for 75 year olds to get back into work.

Most of them do work, so. But many are on zero hours contracts, low wages, and - news report today - ever increasing proportion spent on housing costs (and no hb if you're under25) . And if you're in high unemployment areas, no jobs either.
That's the thing - the generalisations about bbers are wrong- but it's equally wrong to suggest the 20s generation don't have real problems as well. If you regard owner occupation as a legitimate objective (i know many don't because of "germany" where everyone rents (no they don't)) then the 20s generation really are worse off in many geographical areas than they have been for some time. But cutting bus passes won't solve that. Much Higher taxes on second home owners might - and changes in mortgage lending for btl.

Could someone clarify this for me?

In London, you have to apply for a Freedom Pass. Many people have one they rarely use. Is the cost of the pass related to how much you use it, or does simply being issued a pass cost the same as one that is used?

I have friends who say, 'But I only use it a few times a year,' as if they were saving the country money.

Btw, a pass is more valuable in London because it covers journeys on the tube and overground rail services within the Greater London area. Children also travel free.

My Dad has just died. He was housebound for many years and never had a bus pass so he saved you some money. But how anyone can compare what young people today face compared to what he faced when starting work at 14 quite frankly beggars belief.

I wish I could remember this "free education" people keep talking about. When I left school, the family was means tested and, if the parents' combined income was low enough, the student received a grant towards the course costs (but not accommodation). However, if the parents were assessed as able to pay, then it was expected that they would - and there were plenty of students left high and dry.

I'll make it simple - it was before 2010 when students at university didn't have to pay 9,000 a year fees before they even got to the maintenance money you're obviously talking about. Universities didn't charge tuition fees at all before the early 2000s.

You are talking about maintenance. Now students are charged fees as well.

It was also when people of any age could take access courses and further education courses without paying for them. Not the case now.

Boomers like to say that only a small proportion of them went to university. Fewer, yes, but a very high percentage of them took other tertiary education courses (and got maintenance grants for them) which would not now be free as they would incur tuition fees. This includes adult degrees and courses, further ed and vocational courses such as then teacher training, nursing, and any course run through a former polytechnic. Once you include all those forms of courses, the waters are muddied a lot more, as a very high percentage of boomers did have tertiary-level education, just not what was then termed "university/degree" education (but is now). All of those things were also free, even if they did not get maintenance grants.

It is cheaper if you move the free byus pass upwards as I think is done with free TV licence so say people only get those and the heating thing if they are 85 and over as 85 today is what was 65 years ago. Still remains a universal benefit but all those very active 65 year olds do not get it.

Thyme I don't know. I assumed that the loss of revenue was simply that each of those OAP on an individual journey hop on the bus free and indeed if the benefit were withdrawn many of them would cycle, walk or use a car and they only use the bus at all because it's free. I did not think the state hands over tons of cash to bus companies for each pass bought but I might be wrong,. It would be interesting to know.

I do not agree that increasing upper rate of tax beyond the current 47% tax/NI upper rate to even higher would help as people then work less, move abroad or engage in lawful ways to reduce their tax bill. It just does not incentivise people. 50% taken already does stop many people working more. If more than half goes to the state what is the point when you could instead have the weekend off? We tried an upper rate of 99% in the 1970s and it didn't work. even my father in those awful 1970s everyone forgets was paying 66% tax on the upper part of his fairly modest doctor salary and 85% (yes 85% ! on the interest on his modest Halifax building society savings)

Thymeout - central government pays a capital sum towards the cost of the bus passes, and (mostly local govt) pays an amount of money depending on the use of the pass.

So the passes cost money even if you don't use them, and they cost even more money if you do.

I did not think the state hands over tons of cash to bus companies for each pass bought but I might be wrong,. It would be interesting to know.

Yep, they do. It is surprisingly difficult to find out how the costs of the passes break down, as some of it is borne by central govt and some by local.

The total cost of capital grants from taxpayers' money - grants, not loans, just money handed out in subsidies - to "private" transport companies every year (both bus and rail) is around £5bn. To put this in context, the entire higher education budget before the new fees came in in 2010 was around £3.9bn.

And pensions dwarf both of those by some way - IIRC the pensions payout is the single biggest state benefits spend at around £120bn, I think. This is many times bigger than any other benefit by a very long way.

Right , I think I am qualified to comment, I am 65 at the end of the year and will be retiring!
All these over 60's that you are commenting about are older, have less energy and probably have many health problems, compared to somebody even 10 years younger. This is something you just don't understand until you experience what life is like when you are older.
Transport is key, if you have failing eyesight, limb problems (all very common) you can either not drive or have to limit your driving.

I have a bus pass that I would dearly like to use, unfortunately, despite living in the South East I have no local bus service and a 20 minute walk to the nearest bus stop!

Heating allowance, you do feel the cold more when you are older, and the health problems come into this as well.

I'm sick of people telling me that as "baby boomers" we have it all and point out that when our Dc's were small there were no such things as free "nursery hours", most women had to give up their jobs to become SAHM's because many companies would not allow them to work once they were mothers!
There were no working tax credits either, if pensioners are now receiving benefits its nothing to what many in the younger generations are receiving now.

I don't have any resentment of anyone correctly and fairly receiving benefits of any generation, so can we stop the pensioner bashing ?

Please

As someone mentioned upthread, the problem with removing benefits is that the people who are really affected is those that have a modest pension. Of course those very wealthy pensioners on final salary pensions sitting in home counties 5-bedroomed houses with a holiday home as well, they're ok, and those who have never worked or owned a property will not lose anything, but those who've had an ordinary job, and haven't had the opportunity to accumulate wealth or not had inheritances fall into their lap, they will be in the unfair zone.

I really don't understand why means testing need be so expensive. For people who are higher rate tax payers the information is already out there. They automatically shouldn't get heating or bus pass. Easy, no?

The public sector pension bill is a scandal but what can you do?

Fil has been retired for 35 years on a very generous pension from a quite junior public sector position. I think people should be entitled to a certain number of years post-retirement, but 35 is just not on. If you know you are getting 15 years worth of pension, then you could plan accordingly, but if the current retirees are going to live for 40-odd years it will cripple the country, or rather the younger taxpayers.

(Bus passes are only a tiny part of that £5bn transport subsidy of course, but I think it's very interesting to think about our society's current priorities - we are very happy to hand out taxpayers' cash in grants to supposedly privatised companies like Railtrack and Stagecoach, but not to pay for young people's higher education any more.)

user

'85 today is what 65 was years ago'? I wish!

Looking around at my friends, the 60's are usually OK for general health, barring failing eyesight and losing teeth, but the overweight ones are already suffering knee problems with surgery in their future. Quite a few are on medication for high bp and rising cholesterol. Two have cancer and one has had a stroke.

Those in their 70's all wish they were 10 years younger. They notice the difference. They can't walk as far, stand for as long, carry as much shopping and avoid stairs. Toddlers are too heavy to lift. More hospital admissions for bits that have worn out, knee/hip replacements and by-pass surgery. Two fatalities - cancer and heart.

80's? More deaths. More mobility problems. By 85, most of the survivors have given up public transport anyway.

Modern medicine prolongs life but can't do much for the effects of ageing.