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.

I’m guessing you’re against a wealth/farmer tax then?

I'm guessing you weren't around in the 1970s. That's not how it felt to those of us growing up at that time. The 1980s and early 1990s were a time when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. There was no economic growth in towns and cities where the main employer ceased operations, e.g. nationalised coalmines. We lost lots of traditional industries during that time - heavy industry, steelworks, shipbuilding. Some parts of the country have never recovered.

Well said. I have said before on this or a similar thread that these labels are pretty meaningless and often come from the US, so they're not even directly transferable to the UK. The Baby Boom is considered to have ended in 1964, IIRC, which is a very long time after the war. A child born then was growing up in a different world from a child born in 1946. Quite obviously the 1964 baby will have a lot more in common with one born in 1965, and yet they are placed in different groups for these absurd labelling purposes.

So once you are older and can’t drive or are not safe to drive you feel people must just stay at home until they die.

You would prefer that older adults who shouldn’t be driving, keep on doing so to save a tiny amount of cash in the scheme of things.

You won’t be bothered if they run over your child then?

Baby Boomers did not pay taxes for the 'goodies' we enjoy today. They are net beneficiaries of the system meaning they gained more from the system than they paid in.

Can you explain @Bumpitybumper what you mean by they gained more than they paid in? What have they gained?

Just interested because I started work at 16 and am still working - paid income tax every month of my life, won't get a pension til I'm nearly 68, never drawn unemployment or sick pay. Had child benefit and maternity pay only. I cannot see how I have taken out more than I paid in.

I see what you mean OP on one hand but lots of people look forward to this and would be awful to take it away from them

There is a report by the Resolution Foundation that looked into this. They found:

The latest indicator of baby boomers’ great good fortune comes in a report by the Resolution Foundation, which concludes that the generation born between 1946 and 1966 have been (and will continue to be) huge net beneficiaries of the welfare state. All in all, they get back around 20 per cent more – in education, health care, benefits and pensions – than they put in through taxation

You can find the report itself quite easily through Google if you want a more in depth understanding about the drivers behind this.

@Bumpitybumper there's loads of posts saying why it's not a good idea. Do you read any and think yeh they have a point?

If a person is claiming PIP before retirement age, it can continue ad infinitum. If after retirement they continue to get PIP, they can have a Disabled Person’s bus pass. Those come with no time restrictions, unlike the Older Person’s pass.

After state pension age, Attendance Allowance is payable for many conditions that affect the quality of life. Your mum may well be entitled. Always worth having a look, Age UK have helpful information on claiming.

Almost everyone is a net beneficiary unless you're a particularly high earner.

Cost of state education plus healthcare plus state pension pushes most people into net beneficiary territory over their lifetimes. You may not in your personal circumstances as it's obviously individually determined but overall most people across all age groups end up as net beneficiaries. This is particular the case for women who are more likely to pay limited (direct) tax whilst they're bringing up children, and the medical costs associated with having children.

This is why who gets benefits shouldn't be determined by how much you've paid in! Your worth to society is not determined by how much tax you pay and the group that is most hit by this argument are women who are more likely to contribute to society in non economic ways (and the disabled - all studies show they're just screwed as a group.)

But I agree that there's a group of late baby boomers who are also hit by the pension age rises, and that makes them more likely to be net contributors, and that's sometimes forgotten.

Thanks. I am not going to tell her that she's also missed out on a less restrictive bus pass! I think she is claiming that, or at least was looking into it. Luckily she's not in need of the money, but I don't think everyone knows that there's an age limit for first time applications for PIP and i am sure there are a lot of people in my mum's situation who find it very hard to admit that a long term progressive condition has reached the point where it's a disability (which means it's permanent).

Oh, give them a break. They will have been paying National Insurance their whole lives, and people who travel to hospital by bus are most unlikely to be well off.

I read that @Diningtableornot as sarcasm, surely?

Lots of pensioners have some degree of mobility problem, and can expect it to get worse rather than better. The older people I know tend to use the bus very frequently for quite short journeys - it can be the difference between being housebound and getting out, even if it's just to a local park or the shops or for a change of scenery and a cup of tea in a cafe. Statistically most younger people can walk those distances. Taking away the bus passes would shorten the lives of a lot of older people, and means testing them would cost more money than it saved.

It is sometimes hard to tell on the internet when you don't know the person posting. There seems to be an astonishing level resentment around against old people for using the NHS, travelling in buses and indeed existing at all. However I expect you are right that this was sarcasm. Thanks.

No, I don't. I see lots of posts that have included mistruths around pensioners being poorer than other groups or having contributed more than enough tax to warrant a free bus pass. I also see a lot of posts that would be much more relevant to the over 75s about older drivers being a danger on the roads or being isolated in their houses without the bus pass.

Ultimately mostly I read people instinctively feeling that it's unkind to target a group like pensioners who people perceive to be vulnerable. They don't see that the money saved could be spent elsewhere or even used to pay back some of our crippling debt which would help everyone the most in the medium/long term. They just see it as mean spirited.

@Bumpitybumper but wealthy pensioners probably aren't even using the passes

We use buses for various things and there's no doubt the elderly look as vulnerable as anyone would expect.

Honestly if someone has enough wealth they'd just use a car or taxi

Well I think everyone who responded to your initial post have been quite reasonable about the whole thing.

I certainly do not have to 'feel better about my own posts' as you so eloquently put it - I stand by every single word I said. 😏

My parents became adults in the late 70s. Both from lower class households but went to university funded by the government with a grant for living expenses. Both got graduate jobs easily and bought a detached house at 22. The same house would now be unaffordable for people in those same jobs, let alone at that age. The 70s certainly weren't awful for everyone.

You obviously have no idea of recent history. I was a child in the seventies and the country was in very dire financial straits. There were strikes after strikes, the three day week, power cuts throughout the decade and rampant inflation. Unemployment was skyrocketing and reached a peak in the early eighties, as did inflation. There was 20% interest on mortgages and negative equity and massive numbers of house repossessions in the early nineties.

The problem is, that social contract - "everything the young now have was worked for and paid for by those who are now old" - has been completely destroyed. It's compulsory for 16-18 year olds to be in education or training, but there's no entitlement to transport to school or college. All but the wealthiest young people who go to university have to take on huge amounts of debt at extortionate rates of interest (now charged from day one of their course). The money they are allowed to borrow in no way covers their living costs, so they sacrifice time which should be spent studying to work - even those who are already working long hours without pay as part of eg nursing training. The minimum wage is lower for under-21s, but they get no help towards expenses such as bus fares which take up a large proportion of their income. Students don't even qualify for free prescriptions any more! "As you sow so shall you reap" indeed.

I think maybe they should raise the age a bit, but as PP says it’s useful to encourage some older people who really shouldn’t be using their cars any more to use public transport instead.
I think there should also be a scheme that if you’re younger and using a food bank you can get a free bus pass too- I remember being in my 20s and broke, and cost of travel was so prohibitive.
When my OH turned 60 a few years ago he couldn’t believe how many organisations wanted to give him free/cheap/subsidised stuff. Even he was saying it’s very nice, but shouldn’t this be a benefit you receive when you reach 75?

Well I hope it was @Diningtableornot it makes me very sad to read some of the resentment against older people as if somehow they have engineered the high property prices that mean through no fault of their own they are 'wealthy' just by dint of putting a roof over their families heads. It's like the farmers scuppered by the rising prices for agricultural land.

And that they don't care about young people. I despair about the situation my children are facing and their worries about being able to afford even one child and a home even on two salaries. Every adult doing a full time job in this country should be able to afford somewhere to live and feed themselves and raise a small family. Otherwise what on earth is our government for exactly?

I went to Russia for a work trip before they invaded Ukraine. We were in the White Sea on the Solevetsky Islands - beautiful place and like going back in time. We had a meeting with the director of the museum there and - much to my surprise - he was bemoaning the fall of communism for two reasons - schoolchildren were no longer made to visit the museum and learn about their history and people no longer had a guaranteed income that they could live off whatever job they did. They islanders were very unhappy about that.

I did not consider I would ever regard communism as a force for good but you could understand why, living in such a rural historic place (rather than being surrounded by high rise grey concrete blocks), that sort of universal income was the bedrock of their way of life and community.

It did make me reflect that there are different ways to live a 'good' life. Finland have it right I think. Yes they are small but then so is their taxes. We ought to have economy of scale to do the same things you would think.

DM is 84. She still has her driving licence, but really should not be driving.

She has recently moved house and is on a couple of bus routes, which she is using because of her bus pass thank goodness.

Dbro had a hip replacement recently. He is also using his bus pass to get out whilst he is recovering.

It's not just about cost, it's about encouraging people to stay independent safely.

I think it was one of the original reasons for the Senior Bus Pass - to encourage older people to go out, move about, interact with other people and so hopefully reduce the level of mental and physical health decline, which itself puts pressure on the NHS.