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/

In the 1970's and 1960's the government could afford to fund further education because very few youngsters were encouraged to go to Uni, plus it was a lot harder to get "in" and there were less universities in existence. Also the government were not paying out for pre school education.

Young people have far more opportunities nowadays than in the past, and far more aspirations.

I think people retiring today will not have the survival rates that those who were able to retire early on healthy occupational pensions around 10 years ago will.
At 64 I am struggling with my energy levels, working full time and commuting is really tough, and quite frankly I feel that my quality of life isn't what it should be. I had two knees replaced last year which has improved my life but not my energy levels.
It is very difficult to describe the extent to which your energy levels drop as you get older, and the struggle it can be.

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?

If you're only assessing income, yes. If, however, you are including savings and investments, not so easy. And would you include the value of an owned house in that?

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.

Erm... nobody has to pay fees before they get a grant or complete a degree... it is free at the point of access. Repayment is, as I am frankly sick of saying, a post graduate, earnings related tax - yes, repayment is means tested

The babyboomer stuff is surely something everyone can see is a lazy media/political construct? A way to focus the gullible on a mythical threat!

Yes, tehre are well of 'boomers' there are th well off in any generation. But no amount of mouth frothing is going to make the mean spiritied stereotype being spouted here representative of all people born in those years.

Think about it Maggie and Galtieri used the Falklands as a great smoke screen for shite economies, both countries fell for it, we went to war. Baby Boomers are the more localised, equally insidious and mythical smoke screen of today. Open your eyes, think , don't fall for the rhetoric!

Yes, Hazel.

I was a secondary school teacher and retired at 60. How my colleagues are going to be able to work full-time at 68 I simply don't know. There will be a lot of long-term sick leave and an unfair burden put on younger colleagues for school journeys and extra-curricular activities.

I talk to and help a lot of the local OAP's (age ranges 75-90) they are of the generation they would not claim for a bus pass even if they were entitled. They wouldn't know where to start (i do a lot of the ringing / arranging of things, as a lot of things have moved to internet only and they just don't have it/understand it).
They rely on their bus pass to get out and about every day, they meet early at the bus stop for a chat. It gives them a reason to get up and out, Most days, they probably don't need to go in but they use it as a reason to go out and talk to people. If they haven't seen x for a few days they go round to make sure she is ok, or if she needs anything.
The cost to the nearest town is £4.50 each way!!! They couldn't afford that every day.
Like i say, they wouldn't apply for it as they are of a generation that just wouldn't ask for help or take help, you just get on with what you have. The ones i talk to wouldn't know where to start in applying for anything, what they are entitled to and how to get it. The forms are long, lengthy and they are shit scared of getting it wrong / getting into trouble for wrongly getting something.

Remember theres an older generation who genuinely rely on that little pass to exist, to feel independent, to keep up with the social interactions, to keep in touch with their friends. Its more than just a bus pass.

Young people have far more opportunities nowadays than in the past, and far more aspirations

That isn't my experience. Yes more people go to university, but that's due to credential inflation as much as anything else, they aren't on to better/higher paid jobs, in fact they are on average earnings less than their parents did at a comparable age and their housing costs are higher. A job that 30/40 years ago and had on the job training will require a degree in a related field with the costs borne by the future employee.

Much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with David Cameron. If there's an economic fallout from Brexit then pensioners should not be artificially protected from it, especially as they are most likely to vote out, it is unfair that they can just heap the economic pain on their children and grandchildren.

Interesting post and an emotive subject ... I often think about this when visiting my PILs. FIL retired at 50, some 30 odd years ago (from banking), gets a huge private pension and laughs about giving his winter fuel allowance to charity .... that deserving charity being the golf club! Annoys me no end. Why isn't there a real charity where pensioners like this can, if they wish, give the unneeded benefits and that money will be given to others who are really in need?

"Why isn't there a real charity where pensioners like this can, if they wish, give the unneeded benefits and that money will be given to others who are really in need?"

I had an elderly and wealthy great aunt who had a stroke induced by hypothermia. Sometimes elderly people scimp on fuel even when they have the money to pay for the fuel. My aunt used to squirrel away money worrying about a possible rainy day when she would need her savings.

I feel that a winter fuel allowance should be spent on heating the home of the elderly relative. I would like the allowance to be vouchers that can only be spent on gas, electric or whatever utlity/ substance is used to heat a person's home. If the vouchers are not cashed in by a particular date then the money should go back to the exchequer.

No need for a special charity. Elderly pensioners who have the money can give to a range of charities.

I want a free bus pass... I pay way too much per month for a shitty service.

I want one too.

Been paying £250 a month for travel cards and i want a free one when im an old bat

Im referring to my future self as an old bat mind....not anyone else.

I think the problem is this:

The majority of wealth in the UK is tied up in older generations savings and larger properties.

IF the market crashes then protecting businesses will require money to be spent.

How do you encourage this?

Looking at pensions IS the obvious way and probably the best way to do that.

I'm not sure that removing the triple lock on the state pension is the way to do that, because it will effect those on the lowest incomes the most.

However, I do think those with private pensions have genuine reason to worry. The trouble is that with all the other scaremongering that Cameron has done, it just comes across as another empty threat and isn't being taken perhaps as seriously as it should be.

Japan has addressed its particularly bad demographic issue, which more acute than the uk, with wealth being in held by older generations by introducing negative interest rates. They are also in effect in Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland and the ECB has used them (though this is less about demographics and more about Eurozone problems).

This is NOT good news for pensions. It means the value of your pension goes down, and encourages spending as you have to pay the bank to hold your money.

It also encourages more borrowing - which also isn't a very good thing for a country that is already struggling with personal debt.

And whilst it sounds great in principle for mortgages, the reality is that banks need the money to protect themselves against a collapse so are required to hold so much in reserve. If savers are taking their money out, then interest rates on mortgages won't go down in line with negative interest rates. They will stay as they are - or more likely - actually go up. Your mortgage will cost you more than it would have.

Worst still, whilst this might push the price of property down, it also doesn't mean that it will be easier for younger people to get on the housing market. If it costs you to save whilst rents are pushed up by increases to mortgages which are buy to let then you won't be any closer to getting a house.

But the property market is only one part of the economy and it might be the thing that is essentially 'sacrificed' in the hope it will stimulate the economy elsewhere.

Do negative interest rates work? I don't think they have really proved to. I think they create as many problems as they solve.

Are they being considered over here in event of Brexit?

You bet ya!

I think the point for me, is that pensioners really won't be immune. If its not the triple lock, it will be something else if the economy tanks. Pensions account for the biggest percentage of public spending. The NHS is next.

Nearly everyone on both sides of the Leave / Remain fence has admitted there WILL be short term pain. What short term pain means is really the key here. It could be a couple of years. It could be a decade or more. It could be a small drop in the economy. It could be a huge amount.

Of course in the long run it could be that we are all better off for it. That's the gamble, and I really don't think that pensioners CAN be immune in that, especially if the voting demographic for Brexit is correct. Since they are likely to vote most for it, its not unreasonable in the eyes of those who didn't that they bare their 'fair share' of the cost of that. (Of course its not as simple as that, as changes to pensions will also have a negative effect on the young in the long term too, but I don't think a lot of young people will really consider that).

If pensioners are protected, at the expense of the young, that risks all kinds of things. At its worst the split in generations it creates in the country is politically destabilising, even if you are a party that relies on the 'grey vote'. I do think this is every bit as worrying as increasing intolerance of immigrants.

Ultimately I don't think Brexit necessarily shouldn't happen. It has lots of merit. What does concern me, is that I'm not sure how many people have properly grasped what the gamble really is, given how its been dressed up in layers of fantasy and cries of Armageddon which sound like the boy who cried wolf. That in itself is potentially also politically destabilising, if people are disappointed or shocked at what the reality ends up being.

All this will be protracted unless we have leaders who really can make decisions and agree deals quickly for our future, the pain will prolonged too. Political infighting after a Brexit, is not in anyone's interest.

That's why I don't think the referendum was a solution to anything to be honest. It has just exposed and expanded the existing cracks in our society and politics.

If we wanted out of the EU, I think it needed to handled in a way that didn't create this situation (which I do think was possible, and potentially still is depending on how things play out but unfortunately unlikely).

This is how I think Cameron will ultimately be judged. Not as the PM who kept us in / got us out of the EU but as the PM who created so much division rather than working to heal wounds and reduce inequalities. If Blair is viewed as the PM who failed most on foreign policy, Cameron will be judged as the one who failed most on domestic.

There must be many thousands of pensioners who don't have bus passes because there are no buses where they live. I would have thought that made up for people use them but don't 'need' them.

Interesting post, RedToothBrush - but scary

Rhoda, I don't think Brexit is the thing to be most afraid of.

Its how Remaining / Brexit will be handled in the event of a close result with certain splits in the voting that's going to be the messy business given how the campaigns have been run.

I don't think that Remaining is free of risk for that reason (and others)

The majority of wealth in the UK is tied up in older generations savings and larger properties. I am not so sure that is entirely true... you know how statistics are!

Britain’s richest households have pulled further ahead of the rest of the population as house prices have accelerated, with the top 10% now owning almost half of the country’s £11.1tn total private wealth If this is true then all of those households must be old... Which begs the question, whgat exactly is an 'older generation? How can Red's assertion be true?

ONS Data: impact of age
On average, wealth is highest amongst the 45-64 year old age group; remains relatively high amongst the 65+ age group but is lower for households in which children or young adults (25-44) live.

The share of the population in Great Britain living in households with total household wealth greater than £500,0003 is 20% for 0-15 year olds, 17% for 25-44 year olds, 43% for 45-64 year olds and 31% for adults aged 65 or over

The share living in households with total household wealth less than £50,000 is 30% for 0-15 year olds, 25% for 25-44 year olds, 12% for 45-64 year olds and 14% for adults aged 65 or over.

So, if Red is right then 'older generation starts at 43 years old.

Or, as is far more logical, but less of a vote grabber, as you get older, get better paid jobs, pay off mid length loans and all the other things we, on average hope to do as we progress through our lives, we get better off, have more disposable income, savings etc.

Except of course for those who don't... but looking at statitsics won't ever tell you that!

Bill how old are you?

OurBlanche, DH has reliability told me that there is apparently a line of wealth between males around the age 35 and those over. I've no idea where he has got it from. This anecdotally seems to fit with the people I know, though I don't know how much this is reflected elsewhere.

43 as a defining line in the sand, would not really surprise me at all tbh.

I should add, friends we have on the older side of 43, who have had similar career paths and lifestyles to younger friends, are surprised at our position. When they have then looked at the figures admit that their year of birth is the only difference - its not been how hard they have worked, or free education nor career opportunities. Its been the perfect storm of boom, bust and stagnation, policy change and poor planning.

Every single person, Red? My DH has reliably told me that such observations are usually flawed in that they cannot be extrapolated into a wider cohort!

I translated that and added a bit: your lived experience will be markedly different to everyone elses... and to repeat: age is statistically / on average likely to bring more financial stability... improved earning potential, kids leaving home, etc all feed into a bigger savings pot/disposable income.

BUT not everyone who is older will automatically become better off. There are a great many pensioners living in poverty.

Posts like this are so depressing. Reducing any section of society to a figure of hate is nonsensical. To refuse to see that there may be another perspective and that you are being 'fed a pup' is also depressing.

Wake up... have a fresh look at life and stop blamin whoe sections of society for 'life' - soon, very soon, you will be those you hate... and your kids and grandkid wil blame you for their own finanical issues. It happens to every generation, and is as fair / unfair at every turn!

I don't blame another generation for the problem actually. I don't hate anyone for it. Its how its worked out. I don't see it as unfair / fair personally. I'm quite happy with my lot. Its a good lot. Not as good as others but I don't begrudge them for it nor particularly covet it. You've taken my point quite wrongly.

My point is what happens NOW given the current situation, is going to have to target older people, as there isn't as much slack lower down in the age groups to be able to tackle problems across the board as a whole.

Its not about what's fair / unfair. Its about what's going to work to keep us going as a country after other options have already been used up in the last 5 years or so. In the long term attacking pensions now isn't going to benefit me in the slightest!

Anything negative in that area, is going to have a huge immediate impact on my parents. They have just retired. My mum slightly retired - not through choice - after being made redundant at age 62 and not being able to find another job despite looking extensively.

Changes would not be good for them. I don't want to see them struggling. What makes you think I do? They deserve a good retirement that they have worked bloody hard for despite being caught up in the endowment mortgage scandal and being badly bitten by high interest rates in the early 1990s. They definitely had it tough. Tougher than most of their own peers when they first bought a house, but are doing ok now. It is very much swings / roundabouts in terms of that.

What I don't get this pitting one generation against another thing. But if there is money held by one group over another, then if there is a problem that's what's going to be targeted. I don't see how one group think they can stay immune to it.

Whether I believe that's the right thing to do, or think its fair / unfair is actually largely irrelevant.

Repayment is, as I am frankly sick of saying, a post graduate, earnings related tax

No, it isn't. This is frankly wrong. They are loans with high rates of interest levied upon them (RPI + 3% and can be varied upwards). The fact that many will never pay them off before they are written off does not make them a tax.

• OurBlanche, DH has reliability told me that there is apparently a line of wealth between males around the age 35 and those over. I've no idea where he has got it from. This anecdotally seems to fit with the people I know, though I don't know how much this is reflected elsewhere.

43 as a defining line in the sand, would not really surprise me at all tbh.*

Yes, this is entirely feasible. I for example am 37 and colleagues 3 or 4 years older than me are in very different financial positions - light years apart really (they own houses worth about 450k that they bought before 2000 for about 130-140k), and have just sneaked in to the higher earnings bracket before the recession; whereas most colleagues my age haven't been able to buy and their earnings have been stagnating badly since the 2008 recession. This isn't surprising when you consider the big property boom took off around 2001-2, and the first main phasing out of the university maintenance grant started in 1994-5 onwards with the establishment of the Student Loans Company. If you graduated from university or college before about 1995-6 you would be in a position to buy a house before about 2000/2001 and have small, if any, student loans. If you graduated from about 1998-2000 onwards then you would not have an opportunity to buy a house before the housing market started to go nuts between 2001-5 when it was increasing by about 20 or 30 percent a year (or more in some areas).

The fact that many will never pay them off before they are written off does not make them a tax. Oooh! I shall pop over to Martin Lewis and let him know!

And in the wider scheme of things 3% isn't a high rate of interest... some of us almost boomers had to pay almost 20% on our mortgages when we were in our 20s.

As ever though, the majority here seem to be under 'boomer age' and to have little interest in seeing beyond their own noses... as every other generation did and will continue to do so.

I'll leave you all to your happy dislike of 'the older generations'.

No, RPI plus at least 3% - that is normally 6% or more.

The boomer mortgage interest rate stuff is largely a myth. You can see all the historic data on interest rates from the BoE and it was only ever 15% for about 9 months at the most. Plus since house prices have nearly quadrupled in real terms since then and most current first time buyer rates of interest are around 5%, the actual interest cost is the same in real terms (compare 15% on 100k to 5% on 350K). However salaries have dropped in real terms since 2000 for age brackets under 35.

The reality here is: you can call it ageist or dislike or whatever you like, but the cold economic facts are that the over-50s are expecting to collect large pension entitlements from a smaller generation of workers underneath them that not only earn less in real terms than they did, but also have to pay much higher housing costs. Added to that a much greater healthcare burden from a large older generation and younger workers also paying back student loans. And a low or negative interest rate environment where wage inflation is minimal or nonexistent.

Where is the money going to come from? I pay basic rate tax plus half my net household income in rent, and about another quarter in childcare fees. I most certainly do not live a life of luxury - haven't been on holiday for ten years, don't run a car but use public transport, make my own coffee. And I am in a decently-paid professional job. Where is the money going to come from out of my salary to pay for the increasing pensions burden? There isn't any left at the moment, much less a surplus to pay in extra tax to keep retirees in bus passes. And I paid off my student loans a long time ago. People ten years younger than me are in a far far worse position, and those 15 years younger are coming out of university with debts approaching £60k before they even start their first jobs. They will not be generating the income wealth required to buy expensive houses or pay tax rises or refund the NHS any time soon. Where is it going to to come from?

Most of don't hate older people at all but younger people have born the brunt. The UK and US have had 10 yeaqrs when many people have had no pay increases at all other than minimum wage, even many graduates. It is unprecedented territory. I am being paid the same for some things as 20 years ago. Now I accept there is very little inflation but there is some and pensioners have had 1% and more increases in state pensions when others in work haven't. it is stgarting to feel unfair. My mother culd be a teacher without a degree. Now she would have to take on the massive debt and do repayments and yes most teachers earn enough to have to repay the £40k of debt or whatever they would need to get a degree.

It costs more to means test the bus pass than just give it to everyone, so means testing makes no sense. You have to apply for the bus pass, those I know with money have not applied.

I have been unemployed in the past and have never heard of free bus passes for the unemployed. I would suggest that may have been a local initiative.