To think free bus passes for the old should be abolished?

[Bumpitybumper]

Statistics show that on average wealth peaks at age 65-74 in the UK, why then do we give these people free bus passes? It makes absolutely no sense at all and is just an unnecessary expense. The idea that 'young' pensioners are a relatively poor group of people is completely incorrect and it only serves to enhance the already massive intergenerational wealth gap between baby boomers and everyone else.

Yes, I do because this is when statistics show that pensioners do become a lot poorer as a group and health begins to fade to the extent that we should be encouraging people to use public transport instead of being an unsafe driver.

In all fairness , maybe you should step away from threads like this as you apear to be very upset.

@Bumpitybumper and I and other posters have provided other economic date demonstrating that deprivation for pensioners is increasing.

I am not sure why you are so focused on a certain age demographic. Disabled people can have a bus pass for free travel, and also have a car that they drive. They might also be wealthy.

@Bumpitybumper Prof Sir John Hills of the London School of Economics found that baby boomers were, on average, net beneficiaries of the welfare state - they will get more in benefits than they have paid in tax. They have enjoyed tax cuts and a boom in welfare spending. Subsequent generations, by contrast, are likely to be net contributors over their lifetimes and get back less than they have paid in, thanks to austerity cuts to state benefits
From the BBC. We need to stick to facts about who is subsidising who here.

And just who do you imagine rebuilt the country after WW2? Which generation did the work that built the infrastructure, hospitals and housing, and earned the money that was used to develop the welfare state? Which generation was still experiencing rationing until 1954 - nine years after the end of the war? Not all "contributions" can be valued in purely cash terms, and generalised statements about whole generations being "net contributors" or "net beneficiaries" are too broad to be of any use.

I am a bag fan of public transport and buses hence I'm on one but I don't think the government should be subsidising bus routes like this if they're not economically viable. This isn't servicing a hospital or important amenities and there are other less scenic alternatives. With so many pensioners on here, the government has undoubtedly paid the lion's share for this bus to run.

I would rather bus routes were prioritised that served more of an economic/societal benefit. Not just because pensioner leisure use artificially skews the stats.

Maybe you were, but you were unusual if so because the birth rate in the seventies was substantially lower than in the sixties. I was working in schools in the eighties. Class sizes were around thirty in general by this time.

Both DH and I in very different parts of the UK had primary school classes of 40 during the 1980s.

The oldest baby boomers would have been adults in the 1960s. The youngest wouldn't have experienced rationing at all and became adults in the 1980s. The majority of the grunt work rebuilding after the war was done by the Silent Generation who were and are nowhere near as wealthy as baby boomers.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles but it is crazy to pretend that we all have some unquantifiable and intangible debt to baby boomers when we really don't.

I know tons of wealthy pensioners that use the bus. The parking is a bitch in our city so they take the bus to go into town.

Yes but so is child poverty too which is already much higher than poverty amongst pensioners. If we accept that we can't spend more on concessionary travel then we have to be careful about how we allocate the money we have available.

It is not only people over 65 who are entitled to a free bus pass. People with significant disabilities, like my autistic son, are also entitled to one. It is a lifeline to him, as it is to many other disabled people and, yes, older people - the much derided boomers - also known as these people. Please remember that these people are your parents and others of their generation.

I have family members of all generations that I love and care about.

I know disabled people get free passes and would never argue that this shouldn't be the case. I also think there is a case for those that are 75+. This is why I have been very specific about questioning if those aged between 65-74 should automatically be entitled to a bus pass. I don't think they should be but plenty disagree with me and that's fine.

It’s easy to generalise, you say child poverty is increasing, the parents don’t work and spend all their money on cigarettes and alcohol. How ridiculous is that as a statement. About as daft as saying pensioners should be means tested for a bus pass .

This is outrageous.

How is suggesting pensioners should be means tested for a bus pass (something I haven't actually suggested but anyway) as inflammatory and downright insulting as what you have written about parents of children living in poverty. That is an absolutely terrible analogy.

It will cost more to means test pensioners to see if they are eligible for a bus than it would save by doing so.
The WFA is not means tested.... is just only now for those on pension credit, which is.

Which is why I said, how ridiculous is that as a statement. If you read it properly.

@Bumpitybumper "The oldest baby boomers would have been adults in the 1960s. The youngest wouldn't have experienced rationing at all and became adults in the 1980s. The majority of the grunt work rebuilding after the war was done by the Silent Generation who were and are nowhere near as wealthy as baby boomers.
That's just the way the cookie crumbles but it is crazy to pretend that we all have some unquantifiable and intangible debt to baby boomers when we really don't."

You really do owe a debt to the generations that worked after WW2 to rebuild and further improve the UK in the years between 1945 and May1979 and it is unfortunate that you seem unable to understand the significance of this.

Why May 1979? Because that is the date on which a government was formed that decided that the future of the UK depended on services and money-shuffling rather than on manufacturing and innovation, a government that thought it knew the price of everything but that didn't understand the value of anything, a PM who believed that there was no such thing as "society" and that from now on, it was every man and woman for themselves - a legacy that still lives on today in threads like this.

I read it properly. You were trying to equate the two arguments when they are completely different.

@Bumpitybumper
Are you Liz the Lettuce?

You didn’t read it properly im afraid, you might think you did but you are wrong .

I was telling you how lazy and ridiculous it is to make sweeping statements about people, any people , not just “those people “. You took from it what you wanted, be happy in your outrage .

I thought this type of attitude had been highlighted by the government as needing to be stamped out.
Not all older people are wealthy.

Appreciate the ridiculously biased history lessons but it's completely irrelevant. The 65-74 year olds of today will only have worked a decade at most before 1979 (some only a few years or not at all). All the rest of their working lives would have been in this new terrible economy you dislike so much. Remind me again why I owe them such a debt of gratitude?
Btw my own parents are within the age bracket that I'm actually talking about and neither worked in manufacturing or innovation. They did the same jobs that lots of people do now under worse conditions and lower real terms pay.

Not all of any group is wealthy. That's the point. If we had unlimited funds then we would give everyone anything that would help them. If means testing was cheaper and more efficient then we could better target limited resources.

We are where we are though. Currently subsidising concessionary travel to the tune of £700 million and with no ability to fund it any further. We can't means test within groups so we have to pick the most 'worthy'. Statistics prove that 65-74 year olds are the most wealthy group in society. Why would you choose this group to give a universal benefit like this to? Why are those in poorer demographic groups not prioritised?