# Should we get rid of free travel of OAPs?



## Brendan Burgess

Purple said:


> Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested.



Ideologically, I would agree with you.

But in practice, the free travel is a real benefit to people and should be as widely available as possible.

In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> Ideologically, I would agree with you.
> 
> But in practice, the free travel is a real benefit to people and should be as widely available as possible.
> 
> In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.
> 
> Brendan


Extent it to everyone by all means but as long as poorer younger people have to pay for it then rich older people should have to as well.


----------



## T McGibney

Brendan Burgess said:


> In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.


Ironically free travel is the reason Brendan why rural roads around Cavan and presumably elsewhere are clogged with 30- & 40-seater buses that are 95% empty 95% of the time.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Tommy

Not sure I follow your train of thought here? 

Is it that because there is free travel
The bus companies must cater for a possible upsurge in travel every day? 

The DART is jammed during rush hour.  But it's very low occupancy outside that.  

It is one of the problems with transport whether people are paying for it or not.

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Tommy
> 
> Not sure I follow your train of thought here?
> 
> Is it that because there is free travel
> The bus companies must cater for a possible upsurge in travel every day?


There is a local link bus network that caters mainly for free-travel customers. It's almost always empty and only survives by subsidy. There is never much of an upsurge in usage. It is grossly inefficient in environmental terms.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Hi Tommy

I don't think that is an argument against free travel.

If free travel were abolished in the morning, the community would still demand a subsidised bus service.

Brendan


----------



## T McGibney

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Tommy
> 
> I don't think that is an argument against free travel.
> 
> If free travel were abolished in the morning, the community would still demand a subsidised bus service.
> 
> Brendan


It's more of an observation than an argument, Brendan.

I don't buy the alarmism that the planet is burning and we all have to don sackcloth and ashes to save it, but many of the people including policymakers who do, also advocate for free or subsidised travel. There's a contradiction there.


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> It's more of an observation than an argument, Brendan.
> 
> I don't buy the alarmism that the planet is burning and we all have to don sackcloth and ashes to save it, but many of the people including policymakers who do, also advocate for free or subsidised travel. There's a contradiction there.


What is the contradiction? That public transport is less environmentally friendly than private cars?


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> What is the contradiction? That public transport is less environmentally friendly than private cars?


No, that if the world is really burning, shouldn't we be having less transport rather than more?


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> No, that if the world is really burning, shouldn't we be having less transport rather than more?


Subsidize public transport. Get 30 people onto a bus. That's up to 30 cars car journeys being replaced by one bus trip. I don't see how that is a contradiction.  

Obviously empty buses driving around Cavan is nonsense and should be stopped / fixed.


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> Subsidize public transport. Get 30 people onto a bus. That's up to 30 cars car journeys being replaced by one bus trip. I don't see how that is a contradiction.


By that logic, public transport should only be subsidised for car owners and drivers and should be discouraged for everyone else? 

Otherwise, by the same logic, they're just being encouraged to burn the planet even more by taking unnecessary journeys.


----------



## ashambles

Any time I'm abroad I use trains, it's the best way to travel. In Ireland they're too expensive and crowded, it's cheaper and more pleasant to drive and pay for parking. That's not great for the environment.

Why are they so expensive? At least in part because of free travel. Over 1m people have access to free travel, probably about 25%+ of the adult population. 

Free travel means Irish Rail have had a free hand to demand price hikes. For Irish Rail they can charge what they like because a large section of their users simply don't care - the government is going to hand over the cash for them.  (Many people don't understand how the system works - they genuinely think Irish Rail is letting them on for nothing).

Free travel is great for OAPs, but in a limited form - maybe off peak (like it used to be) and with a reasonable number of journeys per year before a reduced ticket price kicks in.


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> By that logic, public transport should only be subsidised for car owners and drivers and should be discouraged for everyone else?
> 
> Otherwise, by the same logic, they're just being encouraged to burn the planet even more by taking unnecessary journeys.


A small downside. Insignificant, I'd suggest, in the greater scheme of things and better than the status quo. 

And judging by neighbours who drive their kids less than 1km to the local school / GAA pitches there are plenty of unnecessary journeys being undertaken now despite climate change / cost of living / obesity etc. 

Probably gone off topic.


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> A small downside. Insignificant, I'd suggest, in the greater scheme of things and better than the status quo.


That neither addresses nor rebuts the contradiction I spotted earlier.


PGF2016 said:


> And judging by neighbours who drive their kids less than 1km to the local school / GAA pitches there are plenty of unnecessary journeys being undertaken now despite climate change / cost of living / obesity etc.


Well if you keep the little blighters away from the GAA pitches you won't be doing much to combat obesity. But you will save money, and maybe stop the planet burning.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> That neither addresses nor rebuts the contradiction I spotted earlier.
> 
> Well if you keep the little blighters away from the GAA pitches you won't be doing much to combat obesity. But you will save money, and maybe stop the planet burning.


Maybe just let the planet burn, I didn't know that was happening, I though Climate Change was the issue, but either way in the longer term letting it happen will sort out many of the other problems as there'll be fewer people.


----------



## dereko1969

ashambles said:


> Any time I'm abroad I use trains, it's the best way to travel. In Ireland they're too expensive and crowded, it's cheaper and more pleasant to drive and pay for parking. That's not great for the environment.
> 
> Why are they so expensive? At least in part because of free travel. Over 1m people have access to free travel, probably about 25%+ of the adult population.
> 
> Free travel means Irish Rail have had a free hand to demand price hikes. For Irish Rail they can charge what they like because a large section of their users simply don't care - the government is going to hand over the cash for them.  (Many people don't understand how the system works - they genuinely think Irish Rail is letting them on for nothing).
> 
> Free travel is great for OAPs, but in a limited form - maybe off peak (like it used to be) and with a reasonable number of journeys per year before a reduced ticket price kicks in.


When was the last time you checked train fares in Ireland? Apart from Cork/Kerry most other journeys are very reasonable if you book online. What sort of price would be acceptable to you? Whilst 1m people may have access to free travel there certainly weren't hordes of them using it when I was going up and down from Galway to Dublin for a few months.
I think the fares reductions seem to have passed people by as they haven't been looking to use the train so base their decisions on what used to be the case. €15 for the train to Galway from Dublin is great value.


----------



## dereko1969

It would be great if Tommy could provide even a scintilla of evidence of the roads of Cavan being clogged up with empty buses, the timetables don't suggest a massive amount of bus journeys (empty or otherwise).








						Timetable - TFI Local Link Cavan Monaghan
					

Our Regular Rural Services operate on a daily bases. They travel along a fixed route and run to a timetable with reduced stops on weekends. These local bus services are low cost accessible public transport services for anyone wishing to travel.   	Click on a service route number for more...




					www.locallinkcm.ie


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> That neither addresses nor rebuts the contradiction I spotted earlier.


It should be subsidized for all. If you subsidize for car owners then that incentivizes car ownership which not all can afford or need.


T McGibney said:


> Well if you keep the little blighters away from the GAA pitches you won't be doing much to combat obesity. But you will save money, and maybe stop the planet burning.


Never said anything about keeping them away from GAA pitches. 

I said unnecessary car journeys are being made to ferry kids ~600 meters to the pitches. It would be much better for all if such journeys were undertaken on foot (unless there's a need to drive e.g. disability, unsafe / no footpath etc.)


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> It would be great if Tommy could provide even a scintilla of evidence of the roads of Cavan being clogged up with empty buses, the timetables don't suggest a massive amount of bus journeys (empty or otherwise).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timetable - TFI Local Link Cavan Monaghan
> 
> 
> Our Regular Rural Services operate on a daily bases. They travel along a fixed route and run to a timetable with reduced stops on weekends. These local bus services are low cost accessible public transport services for anyone wishing to travel.   	Click on a service route number for more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.locallinkcm.ie


What sort of evidence would satisfy you, Derek?  


PGF2016 said:


> I said unnecessary car journeys are being made to ferry kids ~600 meters to the pitches. It would be much better for all if such journeys were undertaken on foot (unless there's a need to drive e.g. disability, unsafe / no footpath etc.)


Sadly, a family I know lost their teen daughter who was hit by a car while walking to/from our local GAA pitch some years ago, a few hundred yards from the pitch.


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> It should be subsidized for all. If you subsidize for car owners then that incentivizes car ownership which not all can afford or need.


Then you're subsidising what the environmentalists call unnecessary journeys.


----------



## PGF2016

Brendan Burgess said:


> Ideologically, I would agree with you.
> 
> But in practice, the free travel is a real benefit to people and should be as widely available as possible.
> 
> In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.
> 
> Brendan


I see my parents using the free travel, going to places they otherwise might not go and spending money they might not otherwise spend. I would guess (without evidence) that it could be a net positive for the economy.


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> Then you're subsidising what the environmentalists call unnecessary journeys.





PGF2016 said:


> A small downside. Insignificant, I'd suggest, in the greater scheme of things and better than the status quo.


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> A small downside. Insignificant, I'd suggest, in the greater scheme of things and better than the status quo.


The lad down the country happily milking his 40 cows every morning and evening will say exactly the same about what he does.


----------



## odyssey06

No, but maybe the restriction on hours of use should be restored for rush hour.


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> The lad down the country happily milking his 40 cows every morning and evening will say exactly the same about what he does.


And he'd be wrong because if more people are taking public transport and eliminating car journeys there is a net reduction in the fuel usage, cars, noise pollution etc. 

Where is the net reduction in emissions from the lad down the country?


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> And he'd be wrong because if more people are taking public transport and eliminating car journeys there is a net reduction in the fuel usage, cars, noise pollution etc.


You just admitted in one of your last posts that "_I see my parents using the free travel, going to places they otherwise might not go and spending money they might not otherwise spend._"

No sign of any_ net reduction in the fuel usage, cars, noise pollution_ there.


PGF2016 said:


> Where is the net reduction in emissions from the lad down the country?


In the same place as your parents'.


----------



## PGF2016

T McGibney said:


> You just admitted in one of your last posts that "_I see my parents using the free travel, going to places they otherwise might not go and spending money they might not otherwise spend._"
> 
> No sign of any_ net reduction in the fuel usage, cars, noise pollution_ there.


If everyone in Limerick took public transport and all car journeys were eliminated there would be far less emissions / congestion etc..

There may be some 'unnecessary' journeys but there would be a net reduction in emissions overall.


----------



## T McGibney

PGF2016 said:


> If everyone in Limerick took public transport and all car journeys were eliminated there would be far less emissions / congestion etc..
> 
> There may be some 'unnecessary' journeys but there would be a net reduction in emissions overall.



If everyone in Limerick took more 'unnecessary' journeys, going to places they otherwise might not go, that would entail an increase in emissions.


----------



## noproblem

Take the free travel away from OAP's as I see it is very insulting to that group. Most didn't have the opportunity to go further in education, worked very hard in their day, paid their dues, ensured the educated population of today got their 3rd level chance and an awful lot more. I haven't got the figures showing what free travel costs v what it takes in by giving the older age group a chance to travel and spend. I'd imagine it's costing very little, but what a sad state of affairs that some want to take it away from their parents/grandparents. Some are even wanting to decrease their pension, and as much else as they can strip from a very vulnerable group. Thankfully in the coming years the group will become many, will mostly vote, are well wired into what's going on and some are in a position to decide who gets what in families going forward. Oh, forgot to add, most love a fight and would relish the scenario should some political party, or their offshoots bring in cuts to what they've paid towards for for many decades. We may be grey, but that does not allow anyone make hay.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

noproblem said:


> Some are even wanting to decrease their pension, and as much else as they can strip from a very vulnerable group.



Hi noproblem

That is the problem with your argument. They are the least vulnerable group, financially, at least.






						Retired people are at a much lower risk of poverty than younger people
					

Interesting data from the ESRI   https://www.esri.ie/publications/poverty-income-inequality-and-living-standards-in-ireland



					www.askaboutmoney.com


----------



## deanne

Brendan Burgess said:


> Ideologically, I would agree with you.
> 
> But in practice, the free travel is a real benefit to people and should be as widely available as possible.
> 
> In fact, for environmental reasons, I might extend it to everyone.
> 
> Brendan


It should be means tested for OAP''s.


----------



## Deiseblue

It's one thing to ask should we get rid of free travel for OAP's but the question that demands an answer is whether given the power of the grey vote whether any Government would be rash enough to commit political suicide - I think we all know the answer to that one !
Unrestricted free travel on public transport is here to stay.


----------



## noproblem

The ESRI report only touches on what it proports to establish as fact, then spews it out as factual data for economists to follow.
 The fact is older people are saving others a fortune in todays world. What would older parents (by choice) do today with their family and work situation if it wasn't for grandparents minding their children, their marriages too in a lot of cases. Grannies and granddads in very very many cases are helping to pay mortgages for their children. Other families and single grown up children are moving back in with their pensioner parents. There's much more of this unseen and seldom mentioned economic and phycological hardship being funded by extremely hard pressed elders, but take care would this be ever mentioned? Lots of house-hunters today are given the deposit for buying their house by pensioners, in lots of cases the old people leave themselves broke in doing so and will never see their money again. I could go on and on, but nobody listens, just go on about them having the money in assets, etc, and why wouldn't they give it to the next generation. I really do personally feel that some try and put down the older generation, I feel it's a duty for the likes of me to stand up for them as I've recently moved into the pensioner generation also. Yes, I'm comfortable, enjoy going away on holiday, enjoy some free travel, have helped my children, am helping with my grandchildren, as is my other half. Some weeks would see 1 of us in the west and the other in the east helping out with childminding, cooking, cleaning, money, shopping, schooling, etc. We are but one couple among thousands upon thousands doing this and we don't get paid for what sometimes is a full time job. Is there data for this from the ESRI or similar penpushers? You can bet your life there isn't. 
Just trying to put a bit of perspective on the situation and hope you might see things as they really are, not what collected so called data is saying.


----------



## ryaner

deanne said:


> It should be means tested for OAP''s.


The problem with means tests like this, and it applies to other similar social benefits, is that it widens the gap between working and saving and not. Large parts of the system is already setup to encourage no saving. The gap at the lower end of working is such that many people are better off not working too which is pretty insane.


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> It's one thing to ask should we get rid of free travel for OAP's but the question that demands an answer is whether given the power of the grey vote whether any Government would be rash enough to commit political suicide - I think we all know the answer to that one !
> Unrestricted free travel on public transport is here to stay.


Yep, the privileged looking after themselves.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> The ESRI report only touches on what it proports to establish as fact, then spews it out as factual data for economists to follow.


It's actual factual data.


noproblem said:


> The fact is older people are saving others a fortune in todays world. What would older parents (by choice) do today with their family and work situation if it wasn't for grandparents minding their children, their marriages too in a lot of cases. Grannies and granddads in very very many cases are helping to pay mortgages for their children. Other families and single grown up children are moving back in with their pensioner parents. There's much more of this unseen and seldom mentioned economic and phycological hardship being funded by extremely hard pressed elders, but take care would this be ever mentioned? Lots of house-hunters today are given the deposit for buying their house by pensioners, in lots of cases the old people leave themselves broke in doing so and will never see their money again. I could go on and on, but nobody listens, just go on about them having the money in assets, etc, and why wouldn't they give it to the next generation.


They can do all that because they are rich. There was been a massive and unprecedented concentration of wealth amongst old people during the last property boom. That wealth was lost during the crash but replaced through Quantitative Easing and incurring massive public debt to bail out depositors after the crash. No generation has ever been given more by the generations that followed it. I'm a beneficiary of that wealth transfer but I can see it for what it is.


noproblem said:


> I really do personally feel that some try and put down the older generation, I feel it's a duty for the likes of me to stand up for them as I've recently moved into the pensioner generation also. Yes, I'm comfortable, enjoy going away on holiday, enjoy some free travel, have helped my children, am helping with my grandchildren, as is my other half. Some weeks would see 1 of us in the west and the other in the east helping out with childminding, cooking, cleaning, money, shopping, schooling, etc.


Yea, that's what families do and have always done for each other.


noproblem said:


> We are but one couple among thousands upon thousands doing this and we don't get paid for what sometimes is a full time job.


You get a State pension don't you? You probably didn't pay for that.


noproblem said:


> Is there data for this from the ESRI or similar penpushers? You can bet your life there isn't.


I think there is.


noproblem said:


> Just trying to put a bit of perspective on the situation and hope you might see things as they really are, not what collected so called data is saying.


So rich people who help out their children and grandchildren should get rewarded by the State with things they don't need. Is that what you are saying? I'd rather see poor pensions get more.


----------



## Peanuts20

Yes, there may be local links going around the country half empty bit for those people who do use them, they are a vital part of rural life. Public transport is a social service as much as a transport service. 

We're probably seeing a growing number of elderly people who are renting and have no real assets as such. UK figures indicate that the number of pensioners doing so has doubled in the last 10 years and it is fair to say, the same probably applies here. Studies also show that where pensioners are renting, in one third of cases, they were spending more then 35% of their income on rent.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Free travel was introduced in the late 1960s for travel *at off-peak times*. The logic was that (particularly for urban bus services) there is a morning and and evening commuter peak while the service runs all day with spare capacity in the middle of the day. Allowing people to travel for free *at off-peak times *didn't take away seats from paying passengers, old people invariably have more time on their hands too, so it was a win-win policy.



> The rules specified that access to these services for pass holders was restricted Monday to Friday from 7am to 9am and from 4.30pm to 6.30pm.



Fianna Fáil and the PDs abolished this in 2006 (cheered on by Fine Gael) with very little forethought. There are now over a million adults with the right to free travel *at all times *and who can take up space otherwise occupied by a paying passenger. This has real costs in the way that the scheme as originally designed in the 1960s simply did not.

The simplest way around this is to re-introduce the peak-time restrictions on travel in line with the original logic of the scheme.



noproblem said:


> Take the free travel away from OAP's as I see it is very insulting to that group. Most didn't have the opportunity to go further in education, worked very hard in their day, paid their dues, ensured the educated population of today got their 3rd level chance and an awful lot more.


This is a stereotype that is simply no longer true. Many people who grew up in the 70s actually had reasonable access to third-level or found a job at a time the labour market was booming. My parents and their eight siblings are all in their 60s and gradually getting the free travel pass. All of them have household net wealth (house & pension) approaching seven figures and absolutely none of them have any need for free travel. It is a complete free gift and very difficult to justify.


----------



## Purple

Peanuts20 said:


> Yes, there may be local links going around the country half empty bit for those people who do use them, they are a vital part of rural life. Public transport is a social service as much as a transport service.
> 
> We're probably seeing a growing number of elderly people who are renting and have no real assets as such. UK figures indicate that the number of pensioners doing so has doubled in the last 10 years and it is fair to say, the same probably applies here. Studies also show that where pensioners are renting, in one third of cases, they were spending more then 35% of their income on rent.


Yes, the reality that income and wealth are two different things is crystallised at retirement.


----------



## dereko1969

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Free travel was introduced in the late 1960s for travel *at off-peak times*. The logic was that (particularly for urban bus services) there is a morning and and evening commuter peak while the service runs all day with spare capacity in the middle of the day. Allowing people to travel for free *at off-peak times *didn't take away seats from paying passengers, old people invariably have more time on their hands too, so it was a win-win policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Fianna Fáil and the PDs abolished this in 2006 (cheered on by Fine Gael) with very little forethought. There are now over a million adults with the right to free travel *at all times *and who can take up space otherwise occupied by a paying passenger. This has real costs in the way that the scheme as originally designed in the 1960s simply did not.
> 
> The simplest way around this is to re-introduce the peak-time restrictions on travel in line with the original logic of the scheme.
> 
> 
> This is a stereotype that is simply no longer true. Many people who grew up in the 70s actually had reasonable access to third-level or found a job at a time the labour market was booming. My parents and their eight siblings are all in their 60s and gradually getting the free travel pass. All of them have household net wealth (house & pension) approaching seven figures and absolutely none of them have any need for free travel. It is a complete free gift and very difficult to justify.


Free Travel Pass holders do not generally take seats away from paying customers, Public Transport is not generally full apart from peak times - how many FTP holders do actually travel at peak times on commuter services? In any event the fuller a service the less fuel per person is used so it does have an environmental benefit. 
FTP holders have to pay to book seats on intercity train services (€5 a pop) so they risk not getting a seat. In the grand scheme of things this is a pittance and really is a distraction.


----------



## ashambles

dereko1969 said:


> When was the last time you checked train fares in Ireland? Apart from Cork/Kerry most other journeys are very reasonable if you book online. What sort of price would be acceptable to you? Whilst 1m people may have access to free travel there certainly weren't hordes of them using it when I was going up and down from Galway to Dublin for a few months.
> I think the fares reductions seem to have passed people by as they haven't been looking to use the train so base their decisions on what used to be the case. €15 for the train to Galway from Dublin is great value.


It's only the Dublin-Cork I've ever checked - I hadn't realized that Irish Rail seem to quietly apply a TGV style premium for this service.

A couple years ago I tried to book for a weekend trip and came to around 150 euro for two return tickets - next day tickets would be the same.

Now with the the 20% reduction that seems to be down to 122 euro for two tickets, and for one person a similar cost to driving, so more reasonable but I doubt I'd use it. 

For anyone booking Cork-Dublin look at Cork-Galway instead and see if the one or two trains a day that go via Dublin suit you. That will cost around half the price of Cork-Dublin.


----------



## T McGibney

Peanuts20 said:


> Yes, there may be local links going around the country half empty bit for those people who do use them, they are a vital part of rural life. Public transport is a social service as much as a transport service.


Agreed. My point in noting them above was more to do with the claim that they and other public transport facilities are axiomatically good for the environment.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

dereko1969 said:


> Free Travel Pass holders *do not generally take seats away from paying customers*



but


dereko1969 said:


> Public Transport is not generally full *apart from peak times*


So free travel pass holders do take seats away from paying passengers at peak times - that's my point!

Under my proposal over-66s would still be able to travel at peak times, *they would just have to pay for it like anyone else*. They are the wealthiest group in the country with the lowest rates of poverty on the basis of income and material deprivation. Almost all of them can afford it.

I am really tired of this "old people a disadvantaged group" trope. It was true once but not any more. Anyone born after 1956 was entitled to free secondary education and many of them went to third-level education and worked in skilled employment. They are very different to the generation that came before.

My grandmother (born 1913) left school at 14, never worked after marriage, and never drove a car. For her the free travel pass really made a huge difference to quality of life in retirement as she had a means-tested pension and watched every penny. But her demographic is (thankfully) rarer and rarer and the logic of free travel at all times for all over 66s needs to be re-assessed.


----------



## Deiseblue

As a FTP pass holder I regularly travel travel between Waterford and Dublin and I book both tickets and designated seats without any charge.
I haven't come across the €5 charge for booking seats.


----------



## _OkGo_

Where to start, there is a lot to digest there and so much of it wildly inaccurate. You've replaced factual statistical data with your own blinkered "facts"


noproblem said:


> The fact is older people are saving others a fortune in todays world


Not for others, for their own family. That is a pretty normal part of family life


noproblem said:


> What would older parents (by choice) do today with their family and work situation if it wasn't for grandparents minding their children, *their marriages too in a lot of cases*


Wow, OAP's are now marriage counsellors, good to know


noproblem said:


> Grannies and granddads in very very many cases are helping to pay mortgages for their children.


This reinforces the point that everyone else is making. They can afford to do it , they are not financially vulnerable


noproblem said:


> I feel it's a duty for the likes of me to stand up for them as I've recently moved into the pensioner generation also


If you feel it's your duty then you should be fully informed. OAP's are not one single group of people. Those living closer to poverty throughout their lifetime will invariably be closer to poverty in retirement. You are not one of those so if you want to stand up for anyone it should be those of all ages that are struggling financially.



noproblem said:


> Some weeks would see 1 of us in the west and the other in the east helping out with childminding, cooking, cleaning, money, shopping, schooling, etc. We are but one couple among thousands upon thousands doing this and we don't get paid for what sometimes is a full time job


Wouldn't it be great if we all got paid for doing our own household chores. It's your choice to help your children. If you feel you deserve a wage then speak to your employer i.e. your children.



noproblem said:


> Just trying to put a bit of perspective on the situation and hope you might see things as they really are, not what collected so called data is saying.


If you want perspective, I come from a large family and not one of us use our mother for child care and we wouldn't dream of it. She might do an occasional night of baby sitting but it is always mutually beneficial. We don't keep score but any good gesture is always reciprocated. Some of us are local and others are spread around the country (myself included). Anytime she comes to visit we typically take time off so we can do leisurely activities and she can enjoy time spent with her grandchildren.

Similarly with my father in law, he's closer and visits more often but its always leisurely. His biggest challenge is sitting at the tiny table and chairs that his grandchild insists on while they play together



noproblem said:


> Lots of house-hunters today are given the deposit for buying their house by pensioners, in lots of cases the old people leave themselves broke in doing so and will never see their money again


Probably the only point you have made that is in some way true. There will always be those who sacrifice too much for the betterment of their children. They want the next generation of their family to have more than they ever had which is commendable. But they make that choice knowing the consequences and those that make it are usually happy to do so.


----------



## dereko1969

Deiseblue said:


> As a FTP pass holder I regularly travel travel between Waterford and Dublin and I book both tickets and designated seats without any charge.
> I haven't come across the €5 charge for booking seats.


I was sure that was the case a few years ago, I must have that wrong so. Apologies.


----------



## Magillagorilla

Free travel benefits the hospitality sector. It encourages older people to go on trips and spend their fairly limited income in cafes and restaurants etc. This is also beneficial to health, mental and physical. If travel costs had to be factored into these activities many pensioners would be considerably restricted.


----------



## Magillagorilla

odyssey06 said:


> No, but maybe the restriction on hours of use should be restored for rush hour.


What about necessary journeys like hospital appointments?


----------



## T McGibney

dereko1969 said:


> As a FTP pass holder I regularly travel travel between Waterford and Dublin and I book both tickets and designated seats without any charge.
> I haven't come across the €5 charge for booking seats.


There's a row on my Facebook feed this morning about Bus Eireann bringing in a €2 booking charge (including for free travel passholders) on the Dublin-Cavan-Donegal expressway route.


----------



## T McGibney

Magillagorilla said:


> What about necessary journeys like hospital appointments?


Aren't pretty much all rush hour journeys necessary, as people rarely subject themselves to that for the craic?


----------



## T McGibney

Magillagorilla said:


> Free travel benefits the hospitality sector. It encourages older people to go on trips and spend their fairly limited income in cafes and restaurants etc. This is also beneficial to health, mental and physical. If travel costs had to be factored into these activities many pensioners would be considerably restricted.


If they weren't travelling, wouldn't they be going to cafes and restaurants locally? 

Families with children don't enjoy free travel and yet also have mental and physical health needs and often find themselves considerably restricted.


----------



## odyssey06

Magillagorilla said:


> What about necessary journeys like hospital appointments?


It shouldn't be a great burden to pay for them on those infrequent occasions when they are needed.

With advances in leap card technology it might be possible to have leap cards \ travel cards with a limited credit per month for scenarios.


----------



## dereko1969

T McGibney said:


> There's a row on my Facebook feed this morning about Bus Eireann bringing in a €2 booking charge (including for free travel passholders) on the Dublin-Cavan-Donegal expressway route.


not sure how that ended up being a quote from me - it was from DeiseBlue


----------



## Magillagorilla

T McGibney said:


> If they weren't travelling, wouldn't they be going to cafes and restaurants locally?
> 
> Families with children don't enjoy free travel and yet also have mental and physical health needs and often find themselves considerably restricted.


There is a feel-good factor about free travel which encourages the elderly to be a little adventurous and to splash out during their twilight years. This is very noticeable on occasions on the bus, the train or the Luas. It was a generous and also politically astute decision in the first instance.T-o remove it at this stage or to alter it it any way would be incredibly mean-spirited, undeniably foolish and not worth the cost financially speaking


----------



## T McGibney

Magillagorilla said:


> *There is a feel-good factor about free travel which encourages the elderly to be a little adventurous and to splash out *during their twilight years. This is very noticeable on occasions on the bus, the train or the Luas. It was a generous and also politically astute decision in the first instance.T-o remove it at this stage or to alter it it any way would be incredibly mean-spirited, undeniably foolish and not worth the cost financially speaking


Again this could just as easily be said of families with small children, or indeed any other societal group.  
Everyone likes free stuff.


----------



## ashambles

dereko1969 said:


> I was sure that was the case a few years ago, I must have that wrong so. Apologies.


It was the case, but possibly only on the lines where they first introduced the automatic name/ref# LED panels. 

It was a bad idea, so was glad they dropped it, too much confrontation between passengers without reservations taking reserved seats with no IR employee on board to mediate.


----------



## Purple

Magillagorilla said:


> What about necessary journeys like hospital appointments?


People who need it should get it. People who don't shouldn't. Therefore if a pensioner on a low income needs to go to the hospital during peak times or any time they would be able to use their free travel. Well off pensioners should have to pay for it, on the off chance they don't drive, get a taxi or have a family member bring them.


----------



## Magillagorilla

T McGibney said:


> Again this could just as easily be said of families with small children, or indeed any other societal group.
> Everyone likes free stuff.


Agreed! It would be great if travel were free for all and private vehicle ownership were drastically reduced.


----------



## T McGibney

Magillagorilla said:


> Agreed! It would be great if travel were free for all and private vehicle ownership were drastically reduced.


No it wouldn't. On either count. 

And it wouldn't even be free.


----------



## Purple

Magillagorilla said:


> There is a feel-good factor about free travel which encourages the elderly to be a little adventurous and to splash out during their twilight years.


Twilight years? At 66 when you get your "other people pay for it pass" your life expectancy is around 90.


Magillagorilla said:


> This is very noticeable on occasions on the bus, the train or the Luas.


I'm sure it is.


Magillagorilla said:


> It was a generous and also politically astute decision in the first instance.


Giving free things to rich people, funded by both poor and rich people, isn't what I would call generous. 


Magillagorilla said:


> T-o remove it at this stage or to alter it it any way would be incredibly mean-spirited,


Again, why is taking something from rich people which is funded by both poor and rich people mean spirited?


Magillagorilla said:


> undeniably foolish


True; old people are very entitled and they vote. 


Magillagorilla said:


> and not worth the cost financially speaking


Why? What's the financial cost of not giving it to rich old people?


----------



## Bolter

Meanwhile in London free public transport for disabled AND free taxis for those severely disabled/over 80 or 90.
Ireland is way behind Britain.
Free transport for the elderly is a minimal cost and a sign of us being a decent developed 1st world country (like our neighbours Britain)
​__________​"What is Taxicard?​The London Taxicard scheme provides subsidised door to door journeys in licensed taxis and private hire vehicles for London residents who have serious mobility or visual impairments.

It is funded by the London boroughs and Transport for London and managed by London Councils on their behalf.

Who is eligible for a Taxicard?​You are automatically eligible for a Taxicard if you:


Receive the Higher Rate Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance
Receive 8 points or more for the Moving Around Activity component of the Independence Payment
Are registered severely sight impaired or blind (not partially sighted)
Receive a War Pension Mobility Supplement
Receive the Armed Forces Independence Payment (mobility element) 
Receive Higher Rate Attendance Allowance (*only* in Barnet, Hackney, Islington, Kingston, Newham, Redbridge, Sutton and Westminster)
Have a Blue Badge (*only *in Hammersmith & Fulham)
Age-related (in the following boroughs only)
80 years of age or older in Islington
85 years of age or older in Barnet and Redbridge
90 years of age or older in Kingston


----------



## Magillagorilla

k


Purple said:


> Twilight years? At 66 when you get your "other people pay for it pass" your life expectancy is around 90.
> 
> I'm sure it is.
> 
> Giving free things to rich people, funded by both poor and rich people, isn't what I would call generous.
> 
> Again, why is taking something from rich people which is funded by both poor and rich people mean spirited?
> 
> True; old people are very entitled and they vote.
> 
> Why? What's the financial cost of not giving it to rich old people?


There is much disillusionment out there at present. Bitterness even. The events of the past few years have impacted many. That was not the fault of any particular demographic. What happened was savage and unpredictable. We need to be careful not to turn on each other.


----------



## T McGibney

Bolter said:


> Meanwhile in London ...


One of the richest cities in the world.


----------



## Purple

Magillagorilla said:


> k
> 
> There is much disillusionment out there at present. Bitterness even.


There is indeed. Usually misdirected.


Magillagorilla said:


> The events of the past few years have impacted many.


Yes, but the young are mainly paying for it.


Magillagorilla said:


> That was not the fault of any particular demographic.


No but the fixes have mainly benefitted the old. 


Magillagorilla said:


> What happened was savage and unpredictable.


It certainly wasn't unpredictable, not in the case of Covid and certainly not the 2008 Crash. The former was expected and the latter was inevitable. 


Magillagorilla said:


> We need to be careful not to turn on each other.


Exactly. Those with wealth shouldn't expect to keep getting free stuff from those with less than them just because they are old. 
In fact the one thing that the vast majority of the people who caused the 2008 crash have in common is that they are now pensioners. Thankfully from their perspective nobody's turned on them even though as a cohort they are most responsible for the crash and benefitted most from the subsequent remedial measures. 

A little contrition, a little humility and a little gratitude wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> A little contrition, a little humility and a little gratitude wouldn't go amiss.


+1
Fat lot of thanks we got for shutting large sectors of the economy and human life in general for the guts of two years to protect older people.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> +1
> Fat lot of thanks we got for shutting the economy for the guts of two years to protect older people.


Yep, the hubris of old people thinking that children missing two years of school, tens of thousands losing their jobs, people losing their businesses and our National Debt hitting a quarter of a trillion to protect them (rather than them doing more to protect themselves or just losing some weight) wasn't even worth a thank you.


----------



## Bolter

Well the vast majority of deaths arising from covid *whether from transfer to nursing homes of elderly/directly attributable are reported as taking place in the over 65s.
So there's a lot of dead people who can't thank you because.. they're dead.

Many older people quietly help their adult children: 
Often assisting with grandchildren when there are issues of dysfunction and more seriously, addiction.
Financially and emotionally.

They don't tend to talk about this publicly (for reasons including stigma) but I assure you it's widespread. 

Give older people a break.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Magillagorilla said:


> There is much disillusionment out there at present. Bitterness even. The events of the past few years have impacted many. That was not the fault of any particular demographic. What happened was savage and unpredictable. We need to be careful not to turn on each other.


Agreed!
What an uninspiring and depressing thread this has become.


----------



## T McGibney

Bolter said:


> Well the vast majority of deaths arising from covid *whether from transfer to nursing homes of elderly/directly attributable are reported as taking place in the over 65s.
> So there's a lot of dead people who can't thank you because.. they're dead.


Nobody has asked for gratitude from the dead. A tad from the living would be nice.


----------



## Purple

Bolter said:


> Well the vast majority of deaths arising from covid *whether from transfer to nursing homes of elderly/directly attributable are reported as taking place in the over 65s.
> So there's a lot of dead people who can't thank you because.. they're dead.


Yes, but both Bloomberg and The Lancet said we had the best Covid response in the world. Therefore fewer old people died here because of the sacrifices made by young people. 


Bolter said:


> Many older people quietly help their adult children:
> Often assisting with grandchildren when there are issues of dysfunction and more seriously, addiction.
> Financially and emotionally.


But they aren't doing that for the children and grandchildren of strangers. Young people showed a remarkable social solidarity during Covid, the opposite of what their parents and grandparents showed after the 2008 crash. Young people made those sacrifices for people they'd never met. 


Bolter said:


> They don't tend to talk about this publicly (for reasons including stigma) but I assure you it's widespread.


I never hear older people stop talking about it!


Bolter said:


> Give older people a break.


Sure they've taken everything else so why not!
I'm just not happy that the rich ones get free travel, o free anything else for that matter. Rich people should not get welfare payments. That shouldn't be too contentious and it isn't until you insert "old" after "rich".


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Agreed!
> What an uninspiring and depressing thread this has become.


I know, the ingratitude is depressing.


----------



## Sophrosyne

I'm not that narcissistic.


----------



## Magillagorilla

Purple said:


> Yes, but both Bloomberg and The Lancet said we had the best Covid response in the world. Therefore fewer old people died here because of the sacrifices made by young people.
> 
> But they aren't doing that for the children and grandchildren of strangers. Young people showed a remarkable social solidarity during Covid, the opposite of what their parents and grandparents showed after the 2008 crash. Young people made those sacrifices for people they'd never met.
> 
> I never hear older people stop talking about it!
> 
> Sure they've taken everything else so why not!
> I'm just not happy that the rich ones get free travel, o free anything else for that matter. Rich people should not get welfare payments. That shouldn't be too contentious and it isn't until you insert "old" after "rich".


You get a pension that is based on your contributions. All income is taxed. Non contributory pensions are means-tested. If you have assets apart from your home and a certain amount of savings these pensions are reduced or not paid at all.


----------



## Purple

Magillagorilla said:


> You get a pension that is based on your contributions. All income is taxed. Non contributory pensions are means-tested. If you have assets apart from your home and a certain amount of savings these pensions are reduced or not paid at all.


Yea, but the vast majority of people don't pay enough PRSI to fund their State Pension. Children's allowance and carers allowance isn't taxed and that's income.


----------



## Groucho

Brendan, instead of focusing on the Free Travel Pass, why not focus on the age tax credit of €235 that everyone gets in the year that they turn 65?

It's of no benefit to the less well off, as they don't pay any tax, until their income exceeds €17,000 which is well over the value of the State pension.

I got it (on the double, as I'm married) in the same year that I received my retirement lump sum (tax free), so I had absolutely no need for it and I'm sure that many others are in the same situation.       Sure, it was a nice little bonus to get, but it was also wholly unnecessary.

So why not focus your shotgun on it, rather than on the Free Travel Pass? (another unsolicited goodie that I got when I turned 66, but which is of very little use to me, although, *unlike the age tax credit, it probably is of significant benefit to the less well off.*)


----------



## Sunny

Free Travel for OAP's is way more than than just an economic benefit. I have no issue with free travel as I know it encourages older people to partake in activities that they might not otherwise do. My mother is a widow and has a great social life with her friends and various retirement groups heading off to different places. It keeps her engaged and it keeps her active. Especially as she has stopped enjoying driving anywhere outside her local area.  Do a lot of OAP's need free travel? No they don't. But I think there is a social benefit that is often overlooked.

To be honest, there are much bigger ticket items than OAP's and free travel that we need to tackle first.


----------



## Sue Ellen

Purple said:


> Yep, the hubris of old people thinking that children missing two years of school, tens of thousands losing their jobs, people losing their businesses and our National Debt hitting a quarter of a trillion to protect them (rather than them doing more to protect themselves or just losing some weight) wasn't even worth a thank you.



@Purple @T McGibney

I don't usually rise to the bait on these type of threads but I find your views and comments to be horrible and extremely upsetting.

My beloved and beautiful Mother was one of the old age pensioners who died of Covid in hospital where she was receiving treatment for cancer.  She did not need to lose weight and neither she, nor we, could do more to protect her unfortunately.

Kindly stop and think in future about who you are offending before you post.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Sorry to hear it @Sue Ellen.
Please accept my condolences.


----------



## arbitron

Access to transport is one of the major social determinants of health. Free travel is in fact a public health intervention that benefits both the individual and society in general.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sunny said:


> I have no issue with free travel as I know it encourages older people to partake in activities that they might not otherwise do.


Then why not pay golf club memberships for everyone over 66? It's good for health and sociability too.

The issue is whether the income of over 66s prohibits them from using public transport and enjoying the benefits it brings. I would argue that it increasingly doesn't.


----------



## Sunny

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Then why not pay golf club memberships for everyone over 66? It's good for health and sociability too.
> 
> The issue is whether the income of over 66s prohibits them from using public transport and enjoying the benefits it brings. I would argue that it increasingly doesn't.



Yeah because that's the same alright...free travel to see relatives, doctors, social outings, sporting events, seeing friends, shops, encouraging numerous social interactions in different locations is the same as paying for a golf membership......


----------



## Purple

Sue Ellen said:


> @Purple @T McGibney
> 
> I don't usually rise to the bait on these type of threads but I find your views and comments to be horrible and extremely upsetting.
> 
> My beloved and beautiful Mother was one of the old age pensioners who died of Covid in hospital where she was receiving treatment for cancer.  She did not need to lose weight and neither she, nor we, could do more to protect her unfortunately.
> 
> Kindly stop and think in future about who you are offending before you post.


Sorry for your loss Sue Ellen. I also lost a close relative due to Covid.

I also had two children do their leaving cert during Covid. My son who has Asperger's Syndrome was one of them. The lockdown had a profound effect on him, one from which he may never recover. The statistical risk of my son dying from Covid is just about zero.

The impact on the mental health of children and young people won't be known for years. There are plenty of young people who have made huge sacrifices for others. They deserve some gratitude.

That doesn't take away from the loss and pain of older people who were at a real risk. The two things can exist at the same time.
If someone made a sacrifice to protect me from a risk that they didn't face I would thank them.

I'm at a low risk from dying from Covid but I do feel grateful to young people for the way they behaved during Covid. That in no way invalidates the feeling of loss I have for my relative who passed away.

On the broader point of entitlement I feel appalled at how disenfranchised young people are and how much damage my generation and my parents generation has done to their future in order to protect ourselves from the consequences of our own stupidity and greed. That bothers me deeply. If they were rioting and burning stuff I'd understand. I think it is remarkable that they are not. They are certainly better than the generations that came before them.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Yeah because that's the same alright...free travel to see relatives, doctors, social outings, sporting events, seeing friends, shops, encouraging numerous social interactions in different locations is the same as paying for a golf membership......


My parents would be doing all that stuff with or without free travel.


----------



## ashambles

arbitron said:


> Access to transport is one of the major social determinants of health. Free travel is in fact a public health intervention that benefits both the individual and society in general.


One of the last times I travelled on a train there was what was a drug addict who I'd seen get on with a free travel card hassling a couple girls near him - the poor lad must have been on disability.  From what I understand this is a recurring type of problem on Irish trains.

That didn't seem to benefit society too much, or help anyone's health.

Or these free travel guys (or do you really think they spent 40 euro each to travel) from https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getm...ae1-8bb4ab810504/IE_FOI_420-Response-Pack.pdf
_Hi, I'm on the Cork-Heuston service - just left cork 2.25. Two junkies just got on - one wearing no top - IR employees on platform did not seem to think this was a problem, along with the fact that they are obviously and loudly heavily medicated. They are currently doing lines of coke off the table and one is in in the toilets cooking gear by the sound of it. Your train steward just went thru - she did mention to one of the guys that he might want to put some clothes on - no masks as well obvs. Could you let me know what your policy on doing coke, cooking heroin and being naked on an intercity service in the middle of a pandemic is? Thanks_


----------



## Sunny

Purple said:


> My parents would be doing all that stuff with or without free travel.



Good for them. So we devise social and tax policy around what your parents would do? Not sure why people resent free travel. There are plenty of pensioners for whom it does make a big difference. Sure we can come up with snazzy means test that will be abused like all the others. And it will lead to genuine hardship for others because they don't meet some arbitory cut off point. To save how much money????


----------



## Sunny

ashambles said:


> One of the last times I travelled on a train there was what was a drug addict who I'd seen get on with a free travel card hassling a couple girls near him - the poor lad must have been on disability.  From what I understand this is a recurring type of problem on Irish trains.
> 
> That didn't seem to benefit society too much, or help anyone's health.
> 
> Or these free travel guys (or do you really think they spent 40 euro each to travel) from https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getm...ae1-8bb4ab810504/IE_FOI_420-Response-Pack.pdf
> _Hi, I'm on the Cork-Heuston service - just left cork 2.25. Two junkies just got on - one wearing no top - IR employees on platform did not seem to think this was a problem, along with the fact that they are obviously and loudly heavily medicated. They are currently doing lines of coke off the table and one is in in the toilets cooking gear by the sound of it. Your train steward just went thru - she did mention to one of the guys that he might want to put some clothes on - no masks as well obvs. Could you let me know what your policy on doing coke, cooking heroin and being naked on an intercity service in the middle of a pandemic is? Thanks_



So pensioners on travel passes are drug addicts???? That's not what we talking about here. If you want to discuss why these guys have passes, then discuss why they moved clinics and centres out of city centres to the suburbs. And then had to give travel passes. Nothing to do with free travel for oaps.


----------



## ashambles

Sunny said:


> So pensioners on travel passes are drug addicts???? That's not what we talking about here. If you want to discuss why these guys have passes, then discuss why they moved clinics and centres out of city centres to the suburbs. And then had to give travel passes. Nothing to do with free travel for oaps.



My parents have made great use of the free travel - though less so in recent years - they believe it or not are not drug addicts.
There's around 1m free travel cards with around 600,000 for OAPs so it's a broader issue.

There's two main problems with free travel
  * while mainly fully deserving people use it, the system in general is why Irish trains are well-known for anti-social behaviour. (Not from OAPs - obviously).
  * Irish rail are in danger of having so many free travel users that they will hike prices beyond reasonable levels since those passengers simply aren't price sensitive. 80 euro returns on Dublin-Cork is the example I see of this.

Trains are my favourite means of transport - but not Irish trains.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> On the broader point of entitlement I feel appalled at how disenfranchised young people are and how much damage my generation and my parents generation has done to their future in order to protect ourselves from the consequences of our own stupidity and greed.



I think this is really rather sad.

I have the height of respect for my parents and grandparents. They did their best and that's all anyone can do.
We did the best we could for our children and they are doing the best for theirs.

We've always lived in a world of change. We try to make good choices, make the most of things and enjoy life while we can.

Like all generations we move forward without the benefit of hindsight or omniscience.

Young people will do the same.


----------



## Purple

Sunny said:


> Good for them. So we devise social and tax policy around what your parents would do?


Where did you get that idea from?


Sunny said:


> Not sure why people resent free travel.


I don’t. I am not in favour of rich people getting welfare. 


Sunny said:


> There are plenty of pensioners for whom it does make a big difference.


Yep, and they should continue to get it.


Sunny said:


> Sure we can come up with snazzy means test that will be abused like all the others. And it will lead to genuine hardship for others because they don't meet some arbitory cut off point.


The same applies to most taxes. There are plenty of families with good incomes paying high rents or mortgage costs  (to live in the areas they grew up in and that are near family and friends) and have childcare costs that are left with far less than people in social housing or others who are living on modest pensions in the same area who pay very little tax but have higher discretionary income. 


Sunny said:


> To save how much money????


Good question. 
Let’s start with the assumption that the resources of the State shouldn’t be given to people who don’t need them while there are people not getting enough who do need them. Now let’s talk about cost versus savings and what else we should look at.  
That’s where the discussion should be.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> I think this is really rather sad.


I find it very sad.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

No we shouldn’t. In fact, we should make all public transport free for everyone with a view to encouraging people out of their cars.


----------



## Purple

Gordon Gekko said:


> No we shouldn’t. In fact, we should make all public transport free for everyone with a view to encouraging people out of their cars.


I live in Dublin, where public transport infrastructure is probably most developed. My commute is 10.5km across the city..
If I drive into work it takes 25-30 minutes.
If I cycle into work it takes 35 minutes (I'm one of those unusual cyclists who stops at red lights).
If I use public transport it takes 1 hour and 15 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes and it's a very unpleasant experience. 
I can walk it in 1 hour and 45 minutes and that's a nice pleasant experience.

We are a long way off public transport being a viable option for most urban commuters who currently drive and it's just not an option for most rural commuters. I'd rather see improvements in access to public transport in more economically disadvantages areas (what we used to call poor areas) instead of making the DART free so that lawyers from rich south Dublin suburbs can get into the city centre for free.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Gordon Gekko said:


> No we shouldn’t. In fact, we should make all public transport free for everyone with a view to encouraging people out of their cars.


I (and I suspect you too) face zero hardship from using public transport.

What would make a difference to ridership is a better service.

That's what money should be spent on.


----------



## dereko1969

ashambles said:


> My parents have made great use of the free travel - though less so in recent years - they believe it or not are not drug addicts.
> There's around 1m free travel cards with around 600,000 for OAPs so it's a broader issue.
> 
> There's two main problems with free travel
> * while mainly fully deserving people use it, the system in general is why Irish trains are well-known for anti-social behaviour. (Not from OAPs - obviously).
> * Irish rail are in danger of having so many free travel users that they will hike prices beyond reasonable levels since those passengers simply aren't price sensitive. 80 euro returns on Dublin-Cork is the example I see of this.
> 
> Trains are my favourite means of transport - but not Irish trains.


Just in relation to cost - you can book a return to Cork from Dublin for €43 in a couple of weeks time. People always seem to pick the last minute most expensive ticket option when making arguments about the cost of train travel, doesn't seem to work the same way for flights.


----------



## Purple

dereko1969 said:


> Just in relation to cost - you can book a return to Cork from Dublin for €43 in a couple of weeks time. People always seem to pick the last minute most expensive ticket option when making arguments about the cost of train travel, doesn't seem to work the same way for flights.


Yep, a last minute return train from Hamburg to Stuttgart will cost around €200. If you book it weeks in advance it will cost around €30


----------



## ashambles

dereko1969 said:


> Just in relation to cost - you can book a return to Cork from Dublin for €43 in a couple of weeks time. People always seem to pick the last minute most expensive ticket option when making arguments about the cost of train travel, doesn't seem to work the same way for flights.


That might be fine for some people, but we're visiting someone in a hospice and booking weeks or months in advance simply isn't an option - at best it's a few days notice. Also it a 2.5 hour drive, I don't plan trips that short weeks and months in advance in any case, we just go when we can typically deciding a day or two ahead.

Last minute most expensive ticket option? It's the standard price that's placed on all trains, i.e. even if I book today for a trip next Saturday i.e. not tomorrow 8 days in the future it's the standard price for every ticket.  Better if don't do for the flexible option, but we'd need that.
What can I say - we've looked at the train many times- we used to use it - we'd like to use it - but we can't justify the expense.  (I was shocked to see how cheap Galway is in comparison)


----------



## dereko1969

I 


ashambles said:


> That might be fine for some people, but we're visiting someone in a hospice and booking weeks or months in advance simply isn't an option - at best it's a few days notice. Also it a 2.5 hour drive, I don't plan trips that short weeks and months in advance in any case, we just go when we can typically deciding a day or two ahead.
> 
> Last minute most expensive ticket option? It's the standard price that's placed on all trains, i.e. even if I book today for a trip next Saturday i.e. not tomorrow 8 days in the future it's the standard price for every ticket.  Better if don't do for the flexible option, but we'd need that.
> What can I say - we've looked at the train many times- we used to use it - we'd like to use it - but we can't justify the expense.  (I was shocked to see how cheap Galway is in comparison)


I would think it's fine for most people, not some. You have a very specific reason for booking last minute.

In the grand scheme of things there are an awful lot more tax breaks/social welfare payments worthy of examination than the Free Travel Scheme for OAPs. The cost of means testing with an appeals process etc would make it all more complicated and costly to operate than the cost of the scheme. There is often a lot to be said for simplicity.


----------



## The Horseman

Reading these posts is sad if this is a reflection of the sentiment out there. For the vast majority of today's pensioners the State pension is the only income they have. Remember high interest rates, manual jobs, little or no health and safety. People were busy just trying to make ends meet. So yes let them enjoy free travel (maybe restrict it to off-peak times) but don't remove it. 

Yes covid was definitely tough on the young but it was much tougher on the old. The old were literally in fear for their lives. The young will come through this, there is no doubt some will have mental problems long term but they are still alive.


----------



## ashambles

dereko1969 said:


> I
> 
> I would think it's fine for most people, not some. You have a very specific reason for booking last minute.
> 
> In the grand scheme of things there are an awful lot more tax breaks/social welfare payments worthy of examination than the Free Travel Scheme for OAPs. The cost of means testing with an appeals process etc would make it all more complicated and costly to operate than the cost of the scheme. There is often a lot to be said for simplicity.


 Last minute usually isn't defined as booking over a week ahead for a routine train journey. 

If "most people" were able to book ahead and get discount prices Irish rail would be rapidly fixing their booking system.  So clearly most people don't do that.

This isn't Ryanair or even Ouigo with a range of prices from very low to very high.  It's a handful at lower prices then everything else at the standard rate. So the average price paid is close to the standard price, where at ouigo it'd be closer to some price half way in the range.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> For the vast majority of today's pensioners the State pension is the only income they have.


See that's the problem, people think that but it's untrue. Only a quarter of pensioners rely solely on social transfers for their income and one in eight have a weekly disposable income of €1000 or more.


----------



## dereko1969

ashambles said:


> Last minute usually isn't defined as booking over a week ahead for a routine train journey.
> 
> *If "most people" were able to book ahead and get discount prices Irish rail would be rapidly fixing their booking system.  So clearly most people don't do that.*
> 
> This isn't Ryanair or even Ouigo with a range of prices from very low to very high.  It's a handful at lower prices then everything else at the standard rate. So the average price paid is close to the standard price, where at ouigo it'd be closer to some price half way in the range.


Weekend prices on Ryanair and Ouigo will usually be higher than midweek. Anyway I've pointed out that lower prices are available, I've availed of them myself, but obviously you haven't been able to - that doesn't mean they're not available generally. I'm not really sure what point you're making about Irish Rail "fixing" their booking system if too many people were buying the acknowledged cheaper rates, the whole point of the discounted rates is to fill up trains that might not otherwise be full, that's why there aren't as many available at weekends when they'd be busier anyway.

Anyway your issue has nothing to do with the actual topic of free travel for OAPs.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> See that's the problem, people think that but it's untrue. Only a quarter of pensioners rely solely on social transfers for their income and one in eight have a weekly disposable income of €1000 or more.



And from the report's conclusions we see that:

_While 1 in 8 _(13%)_ people aged 50 or over have an income of €1,000 or more a week, *around 30% live on between €201 and €300.*_

Another finding from the same link:     _State pensions are the most important source of income among older people in Ireland and make up around two-thirds of gross income for those aged 65 and over._

From which the authors conclude that:_  a ‘one size fits all’ approach to social welfare policy would ignore that different groups would be affected differently by policy changes.  _(Like, for example, getting rid of free travel for *ALL* OAPS!)


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> And from the report's conclusions we see that:
> 
> _While 1 in 8 _(13%)_ people aged 50 or over have an income of €1,000 or more a week, *around 30% live on between €201 and €300.*_


€300 a week after the cost of housing is a good income, especially if there's two people in the household getting that much. 


Groucho said:


> Another finding from the same link:     _State pensions are the most important source of income among older people in Ireland and make up around two-thirds of gross income for those aged 65 and over._
> 
> From which the authors conclude that:_  a ‘one size fits all’ approach to social welfare policy would ignore that different groups would be affected differently by policy changes.  _(Like, for example, getting rid of free travel for *ALL* OAPS!)


I agree completely. I've never suggested that it should be removed from all of them. I've suggested that it should be removed from those who have no financial need for it. I don't think rich people should get direct social transfers.


----------



## Sophrosyne

This is really much ado about nothing. What would be the exchequer saving?

It is not about the number of travel passes, it is about regular usage.

Do “rich” OAPs change the habit of a lifetime and start using public transport on a daily or weekly basis because they have a free pass? I doubt it.

I suspect that staff allocation and administrative costs involved in means testing every pensioner could not be justified.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote

Sophrosyne said:


> I suspect that staff allocation and administrative costs involved in means testing every pensioner could not be justified.


It would be a big cost and hassle, indeed.

Simplest solution is to go back to the original idea in 1967. Free travel for over-66s when there is spare capacity, i.e., *off-peak hours only*.


----------



## Deiseblue

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It would be a big cost and hassle, indeed.
> 
> Simplest solution is to go back to the original idea in 1967. Free travel for over-66s when there is spare capacity, i.e., *off-peak hours only*.


No , not happy with that - unrestricted travel is here to stay thankfully


----------



## arbitron

Sophrosyne said:


> This is really much ado about nothing. What would be the exchequer saving?
> 
> It is not about the number of travel passes, it is about regular usage.
> 
> Do “rich” OAPs change the habit of a lifetime and start using public transport on a daily or weekly basis because they have a free pass? I doubt it.
> 
> I suspect that staff allocation and administrative costs involved in means testing every pensioner could not be justified.



In 2018 there were 140.4 million Dublin Bus journeys of which free travel was 23.89 million (17%). DB revenue was €232.69m (including PSO and paid fares) of which free travel income was €20.4m (9%). Seems there is a shortfall which is probably made up from PSO/fares.

Source: https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Bus_and_Rail_Statistics_2019.pdf

The entire free travel budget for 2018 (bus, rail, etc.) across Ireland was €76m. Scrapping it would not make much dent in the government budget.

I think wealthier people will use private transport anyway. The people I know with the nicest cars are all retired!

From a practical point of view if you have peak time restrictions you will have more people arriving late for appointments with hospitals, social welfare, etc. which has a much bigger cost to economy and society.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> €300 a week after the cost of housing is a good income, especially if there's two people in the household getting that much.



But €200 isn't!

See what I did there?   You picked the maximum figure in the spread so I picked the minimum.  

But of course, as we both know, the _*average*_ weekly income probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## DK123

arbitron said:


> Access to transport is one of the major social determinants of health. Free travel is in fact a public health intervention that benefits both the individual and society in general.


Can anyone tell me why we should do the dirt on the old people.[Senior citizens]and what would it achieve.These people have worked hard all their life [maybe 50 years]and looked forward to retirement and a small bit of enjoyment.It does not make much sense to me  i think.


----------



## PGF2016

DK123 said:


> Can anyone tell me why we should do the dirt on the old people.[Senior citizens]and what would it achieve.These people have worked hard all their life [maybe 50 years]and looked forward to retirement and a small bit of enjoyment.It does not make much sense to me  i think.


From reading the thread the problem is that some of the richest people in Ireland have access to free public transport.


----------



## Silversurfer

It would be a brave government to introduce this. My Grandmother used to send Charlie Haughey a Christmas card every year to thank him for free travel. Our current rulers need all the help they can get because of generation rent looking elsewhere in the next election. The gray vote is very valuable.


----------



## noproblem

Silversurfer said:


> It would be a brave government to introduce this. My Grandmother used to send Charlie Haughey a Christmas card every year to thank him for free travel. Our current rulers need all the help they can get because of generation rent looking elsewhere in the next election. The gray vote is very valuable.


Dead right too. Seems a lot of  jealous type people have it in for the old pensioner and the Public Servant. I've news for you boys and girls; their pay and hopefully entitlements are going up.  Awful I know, but go and pick on someone else now. There's lots more low hanging fruit out there to be picked. Almost 100% employment out there, one fiasco after another mostly solved by the goverment, housing an issue and that's a given but an awful lot of people sleeping on the street are there because of self abuse, though not all of them. I do believe we'll get on top of it when councils start to build houses again, the picky picky attitude in accepting a place is clamped down on and an audit is made of those on social housing is completed and acted on. No more of this one full house to one person is tolerated.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

This is what I see everytime I look at this thread:

*Should we get rid of OAPs?*

And part of this thread looks as if we should.

I think free travel for OAP's shouldn't be touched.


----------



## Purple

DK123 said:


> These people have worked hard all their life


How do you know that?


----------



## PaddyBloggit

Purple said:


> How do you know that?



Benefit of the doubt... respecting our elders and all that...   

All generations have their slackers and always will.


----------



## Purple

PaddyBloggit said:


> All generations have their slackers and always will.


Exactly. A retired slacker is called a pensioner. They were no more or less inclined to hard work than any generation before or after. They certainly worked longer hours but the high water mark for doing bugger-all in the Public Sector was the 1970's. State employees now are more qualified and more monitored than ever. 

For the record I've no problem helping people who need help, particularly older people who are generally more frail, but I do have a problem giving precious State resourced to anyone who doesn't need the help.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> It would be a brave government to introduce this. My Grandmother used to send Charlie Haughey a Christmas card every year to thank him for free travel. Our current rulers need all the help they can get because of generation rent looking elsewhere in the next election. The gray vote is very valuable.


So leave it there for well off pensioners not because it's needed or right but because pensioners are greedy and selfish and lacking in moral fibre? That's a scathing indictment of older people. I disagree as I have a higher regard for them and think they are as likely to do the right thing as younger people.  

I do agree that it is in the self interest of rich older people to vote for the Shinners and they are a Party for the rich and the old.


----------



## Purple

PaddyBloggit said:


> This is what I see everytime I look at this thread:
> 
> *Should we get rid of OAPs?*


Why do you think that?


PaddyBloggit said:


> And part of this thread looks as if we should.


What part?


PaddyBloggit said:


> I think free travel for OAP's shouldn't be touched.


So you are in favour of rich people getting things they don't need while poor people don't get the things they do need?
I'm a bit of a socialist so I disagree with you.


----------



## T McGibney

Sue Ellen said:


> @Purple @T McGibney
> 
> I don't usually rise to the bait on these type of threads but I find your views and comments to be horrible and extremely upsetting.
> 
> My beloved and beautiful Mother was one of the old age pensioners who died of Covid in hospital where she was receiving treatment for cancer.  She did not need to lose weight and neither she, nor we, could do more to protect her unfortunately.
> 
> Kindly stop and think in future about who you are offending before you post.


Sorry for your loss. RIP.

By the way, I fully stand by my comments.


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> But €200 isn't!
> 
> See what I did there?   You picked the maximum figure in the spread so I picked the minimum.
> 
> But of course, as we both know, the _*average*_ weekly income probably somewhere in the middle.


Yes, and those people should continue to get free pubic transport.

Rich people shouldn't.


----------



## noproblem

Purple said:


> Yes, and those people should continue to get free pubic transport.
> 
> Rich people shouldn't.


What's rich?


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> What's rich?


People with wealth, low debt and high disposable income.


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Yes, and those people should continue to get free pubic transport.
> 
> Rich people shouldn't.



Free pubic transport?   

That sounds a bit hairy!


----------



## Purple

Groucho said:


> Free pubic transport?
> 
> That sounds a bit hairy!


Only for those with grey hair and that way  it won't leave out bald people.
It also means that only those who need it will apply for it as the proof of need will be a bit off-putting.

We may have stumbled upon a solution!


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> So leave it there for well off pensioners not because it's needed or right but because pensioners are greedy and selfish and lacking in moral fibre? That's a scathing indictment of older people. I disagree as I have a higher regard for them and think they are as likely to do the right thing as younger people.
> 
> I do agree that it is in the self interest of rich older people to vote for the Shinners and they are a Party for the rich and the old.


As a matter of interest what is the magic number for being a well off pensioner? Is it based on disposable income? Assets? Geographic location? Mobility? A rated home? How would you differentiate? Walking distance to nearest hospital? Family member to give you a lift? Good health? Full oil tank?


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> As a matter of interest what is the magic number for being a well off pensioner? Is it based on disposable income? Assets? Geographic location? Mobility? A rated home? How would you differentiate? Walking distance to nearest hospital? Family member to give you a lift? Good health? Full oil tank?


That's a matter for the government but as a cohort pensioners are the richest group in society. They are far less likely to live in poverty than children. They have the highest disposable income and the most wealth. These policies were put into place when that was not the case but over the last 30 years we've seen an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.

I don't think there should be any magic involved though; there's no need to bring religion into it.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.



Eligibility does not mean usage. As mentioned before, is it reasonable to assume that rich pensioners will start to use public transport regularly just because they have qualified for a travel pass?

You have to justify the considerable expense of means testing.

That means that you must prove that there is regular usage of free passes by whatever you consider to be rich pensioners.

If you can't then the discussion is pointless and should be brought to an end.


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> That's a matter for the government but as a cohort pensioners are the richest group in society. They are far less likely to live in poverty than children. They have the highest disposable income and the most wealth. These policies were put into place when that was not the case but over the last 30 years we've seen an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the young to the old. Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.
> 
> I don't think there should be any magic involved though; there's no need to bring religion into it.


Do you have any sources for this statement? Or is it just antidotal?


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> Do you have any sources for this statement? Or is it just antidotal?


Oh they're factual.
Children more likely to live in poverty than pensioners. 
It's obvious that people who have paid off their mortgage will have a higher net wealth than people who have just taken one out. Info here.
I can't find the link to the article that discusses disposable income net of housing and childcare costs. I think it was a UCD study.


----------



## T McGibney

Purple said:


> Oh they're factual.
> Children more likely to live in poverty than pensioners.
> It's obvious that people who have paid off their mortgage will have a higher net wealth than people who have just taken one out. Info here.
> I can't find the link to the article that discusses disposable income net of housing and childcare costs. I think it was a UCD study.


I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this. It's long been a truism in most societies. Even Stalin's Russia targeted the Kulaks because of their wealth relative to the average population.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> Oh they're factual.
> Children more likely to live in poverty than pensioners.
> It's obvious that people who have paid off their mortgage will have a higher net wealth than people who have just taken one out. Info here.
> I can't find the link to the article that discusses disposable income net of housing and childcare costs. I think it was a UCD study.


Again, that is about life stages rather than like for like comparisons.

All other things being equal, one cannot expect a 20-year-old to have the same wealth that took 50 years+ to accumulate.

That doesn’t result in an absurd notion - all old wealthy all young poor.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Again, that is about life stages rather than like for like comparisons.
> 
> All other things being equal, one cannot expect a 20-year-old to have the same wealth that took 50 years+ to accumulate.


I agree but...


Sophrosyne said:


> That doesn’t result in an absurd notion - all old wealthy all young poor.


In the last 20 years we've seen QE and massive State borrowing and that has massively and disproportionately benefitted older people. That's the real difference now as opposed to previous generations.


----------



## Purple

T McGibney said:


> I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this. It's long been a truism in most societies. Even Stalin's Russia targeted the Kulaks because of their wealth relative to the average population.


You're probably right but I don't think most people understand just how much the decisions made over the last 20 years have benefitted older people and those who owned Capital (Houses or Stocks/Pension funds). We've more than doubled the amount of money in the world and there's been a corresponding increase in property and stock market prices but there's been almost no wage inflation. 

The net effect is that we've halved the value of Labour relative to Capital. I don't think that's ever happened before, certainly not since the modern monetary system existed.  
 .


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> In the last 20 years we've seen QE and massive State borrowing and that has massively and disproportionately benefitted older people. That's the real difference now as opposed to previous generations.


Yes, but you are looking, relatively speaking, at a moment in time.

You have to look at the expanse of people’s lives, a point you seem to be singularly unable to grasp.

You dismiss as irrelevant any difficulties older people might have experienced and overcome when they were 20-year-olds and yet continuously bemoan the plight of today’s 20-year-olds as if youth were the final point in their lives.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Yes, but you are looking, relatively speaking, at a moment in time.
> 
> You have to look at the expanse of people’s lives,


I agree but, as I've pointed out, the last number of years has changed things. It also doesn't change the fact that people are getting a social transfer they don't need.


Sophrosyne said:


> a point you seem to be singularly unable to grasp.


What makes you think that?



Sophrosyne said:


> You dismiss as irrelevant any difficulties older might have experienced and overcome when they were 20-year-olds and yet continuously bemoan the plight of today’s 20-year-olds as if youth were the final point in their lives.


No I'm not. 
I'm far closer to retirement age than being in my 20's. I'm a massive beneficiary of the policies that have transferred wealth to me, doubled my pension value in 8 years (without me putting a cent into it) and doubled the value of my house. It's worked out great for me. I worked 60 plus hours a week, 7 days a week when I was younger. I cycled 9 miles into work. I did all the hardship stuff etc but I always had a realistic expectation of home ownership. I certainly didn't have it harder than many young people today who have no chance of owning a home.  That's the thing; it doesn't matter what stage of life they are at, a much greater proportion of those 20 year olds will never own a home.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Purple said:


> That's the thing; it doesn't matter what stage of life they are at, a much greater proportion of those 20 year olds will never own a home.


You don't know that!


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> You don't know that!


Of course I do. Look at the stat's for home ownership. They are coming more into line with the mainland just as our economic development has.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Statistics are useful based on _current _conditions, but they, like you cannot predict 20 years hence.


----------



## Purple

Sophrosyne said:


> Statistics are useful based on _current _conditions, but they, like you cannot predict 20 years hence.


Statistical trends from the last 20 years allow us to make predictions about what's likely to happen but yes, there could be a big war or a asteroid strike or a deadly pandemic (like really really deadly) some such other calamity but the very likely outcome is that rates of home ownership will decrease. We should formulate our policies based on probable outcomes. 



Source


----------



## Deiseblue

Isn't all rather academic currently ? Unrestricted free  public transport travel is an entitlement for those who qualify including people over 66 and any means tested basis to qualify for same is simply not on any Political Party's agenda .


----------



## Purple

Deiseblue said:


> Isn't all rather academic currently ? Unrestricted free  public transport travel is an entitlement for those who qualify including people over 66 and any means tested basis to qualify for same is simply not on any Political Party's agenda .


True, but this is a discussion forum so it's all academic. 
I'd like to see a move away from universal payments towards a tax credit system. Make it a refundable tax credit, in that if the credit is not used it is paid to the recipient. We could pay all social transfers that way. It would eliminate a massive administrative overhead for the State.

We could then stop rich parents getting children's allowance, rich pensioners getting free travel and other allowances etc and move more of the social transfer to people who actually need it. I presume that you, as a socialist, would be in favour of that?


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> Oh they're factual.
> Children more likely to live in poverty than pensioners.
> It's obvious that people who have paid off their mortgage will have a higher net wealth than people who have just taken one out. Info here.
> I can't find the link to the article that discusses disposable income net of housing and childcare costs. I think it was a UCD study.


This ESRI survey states that those who are unemployed are most likely to suffer from poverty. Their children will likewise. Even with state transfers in the form of HAP.


----------



## noproblem

Purple said:


> People with wealth, low debt and high disposable income.


Don't know any, how about you? Most people I hear about that have huge wealth usually have huge debt to match it. Weren't they the new rich during the tiger and the never had it anyway brigade? 
You really do come across as someone with a massive chip on their shoulder against certain sections of society. Now, maybe I'm wrong but your bias towards public servants and pensioners who might have saved a few bob is embarrassing at this stage, every time someone says something positive the chip gives you an itch and out comes the bias. Give it a rest for a bit and lets see what elected members of our Goverment do in the forthcoming budget for every section of society. I've no doubt that not everyone will be happy, but give us a break with the venom. Like everyone else, you've enough to be getting on with.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Don't know any, how about you? Most people I hear about that have huge wealth usually have huge debt to match it. Weren't they the new rich during the tiger and the never had it anyway brigade?


I just look at the facts and the information on distribution of wealth in the country.


noproblem said:


> You really do come across as someone with a massive chip on their shoulder against certain sections of society.


I've no issue with any section of society.


noproblem said:


> Now, maybe I'm wrong but your bias towards public servants and pensioners who might have saved a few bob is embarrassing at this stage, every time someone says something positive the chip gives you an itch and out comes the bias.


Yes, you're wrong. Fair play to public servants and pensioners (and anyone else) who might have saved a few bob. I have no problem with them. I do have a problem with the State giving them money and sweeties they don't need when other people who do need help aren't getting it. I've just as much of a problem with people like me getting Children's allowance or my children getting free third level education. 


noproblem said:


> Give it a rest for a bit and lets see what elected members of our Goverment do in the forthcoming budget for every section of society. I've no doubt that not everyone will be happy, but give us a break with the venom. Like everyone else, you've enough to be getting on with.



Pointing out other people's delusion that they are entitled to things they don't need based solely on their age is not venom, though it might make them feel uncomfortable. 
Anyway, this is a discussion forum on the internet. It's not real life. Relax.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> This ESRI survey states that those who are unemployed are most likely to suffer from poverty. Their children will likewise. Even with state transfers in the form of HAP.


I does indeed. Should those children get more support?


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> I does indeed. Should those children get more support?


As unemployment is the only identifiable factor and there is 100% employment in Ireland perhaps more training courses? More encouragement to work?  Removing free bus passes will not solve this problem. These childrens families are already getting all the available transfers.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> As unemployment is the only identifiable factor and there is 100% employment in Ireland perhaps more training courses? More encouragement to work?  Removing free bus passes will not solve this problem. These childrens families are already getting all the available transfers.


Ah, okay, so keep the free travel for rich pensioners and don't provide extra educational resourced for poor kids. Got it.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Most people I hear about that have huge wealth usually have huge debt to match it.


Just on that; those people probably aren't wealthy if their debts are equal to their assets. They might have a high income but they have no net wealth and their income is used to service their debts. Wealth is your net assets.


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> Ah, okay, so keep the free travel for rich pensioners and don't provide extra educational resourced for poor kids. Got it.


Or remove the subsidies for the work shy. If the unemployed have the same disposable income as the employed. The only variable is ‘work’.


----------



## T McGibney

Silversurfer said:


> Or remove the subsidies for the work shy. If the unemployed have the same disposable income as the employed. *The only variable is ‘work’.*


Appallingly insensitive comment - and wrong to the point of being off-the-wall.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> Or remove the subsidies for the work shy.


Most welfare is paid to people who work, excluding the welfare paid to pensioners of course.


Silversurfer said:


> If the unemployed have the same disposable income as the employed. The only variable is ‘work’.


I don't understand that point.



I've been lucky enough to have always had a job and I've never claimed welfare payments, though my ex-wife does claim children's allowance which is a social transfer.
Many retired people who worked in the private and public sectors claim a State pension that they came nowhere close to funding.
I my case I've already paid way more in social insurance that would be needed to fund the State pension I'll get but many haven't.

When you say "work shy" do you mean people who don't work but can? Does that include stay at home parents? Does it include people who choose to work part time instead of fulltime?
It's not just the "work shy" who are getting hand-outs that they haven't paid for. Given that it cost the State €7000-€8000 each year to educate a child I'd guess that most middle income families are major net recipients from the State, not to mention working families in social housing, so it's not about who is working and who isn't; it's about who needs it and who doesn't.


----------



## noproblem

Purple said:


> Most welfare is paid to people who work, excluding the welfare paid to pensioners of course.


It's their pension not welfare paid out. A bit of manners and respect and less of the condescending attitude please. That chip is weighing heavily again today.


----------



## T McGibney

noproblem said:


> . A bit of manners and respect and less of the condescending attitude please. That chip is weighing heavily again today.


No need to be personal. Let's keep this civil.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> It's their pension not welfare paid out. A bit of manners and respect and less of the condescending attitude please. That chip is weighing heavily again today.


It's a social transfer that in many cases they didn't contribute enough to pay for.  How's that different from any other welfare payment or indeed welfare payment that the recipient did pay enough for? Either way it's a welfare payment.

Many people pay large amounts of tax for years but then find themselves unemployed. They could have contributed far more than they receive in unemployment benefits. Are they less entitled to that welfare than people who paid almost no tax during their working life and are now retired and receiving a State pension? What about people who never worked but now receive a State pension?

You may not like reality encroaching on your preconceptions but it is reality none the less.


----------



## Silversurfer

T McGibney said:


> Appallingly insensitive comment - and wrong to the point of being off-the-wall.


Really? Have a read of the comments section in The Journal today about Alone lobbying for a €20 increase in pensions. Very little sympathy for the long term unemployed. My comment is based on the ESRI report.


----------



## T McGibney

Silversurfer said:


> Really? Have a read of the comments section in The Journal today about Alone lobbying for a €20 increase in pensions. Very little sympathy for the long term unemployed. My comment is based on the ESRI report.


There but for the grace of God go any of us.


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> Most welfare is paid to people who work, excluding the welfare paid to pensioners of course.
> 
> I don't understand that point.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been lucky enough to have always had a job and I've never claimed welfare payments, though my ex-wife does claim children's allowance which is a social transfer.
> Many retired people who worked in the private and public sectors claim a State pension that they came nowhere close to funding.
> I my case I've already paid way more in social insurance that would be needed to fund the State pension I'll get but many haven't.
> 
> When you say "work shy" do you mean people who don't work but can? Does that include stay at home parents? Does it include people who choose to work part time instead of fulltime?
> It's not just the "work shy" who are getting hand-outs that they haven't paid for. Given that it cost the State €7000-€8000 each year to educate a child I'd guess that most middle income families are major net recipients from the State, not to mention working families in social housing, so it's not about who is working and who isn't; it's about who needs it and who doesn't.


My comment is based on the ESRI link you shared.


Purple said:


> Most welfare is paid to people who work, excluding the welfare paid to pensioners of course.
> 
> I don't understand that point.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been lucky enough to have always had a job and I've never claimed welfare payments, though my ex-wife does claim children's allowance which is a social transfer.
> Many retired people who worked in the private and public sectors claim a State pension that they came nowhere close to funding.
> I my case I've already paid way more in social insurance that would be needed to fund the State pension I'll get but many haven't.
> 
> When you say "work shy" do you mean people who don't work but can? Does that include stay at home parents? Does it include people who choose to work part time instead of fulltime?
> It's not just the "work shy" who are getting hand-outs that they haven't paid for. Given that it cost the State €7000-€8000 each year to educate a child I'd guess that most middle income families are major net recipients from the State, not to mention working families in social housing, so it's not about who is working and who isn't; it's about who needs it and who doesn't.


It is explained here on the link you shared:
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpu...vingconditionssilc2020/povertyanddeprivation/


----------



## Silversurfer

T McGibney said:


> There but for the grace of God go any of us.


Yes and God helps those who help themselves.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> My comment is based on the ESRI link you shared.
> 
> It is explained here on the link you shared:
> https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpu...vingconditionssilc2020/povertyanddeprivation/


I don't know what your comment means. I do understand the link.


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> Yes and God helps those who help themselves.


I think we should stick to facts and leave the supernatural out of it, especially if you are a believer since the phrase doesn't appear in the Bible and Christian teaching espouses a belief that reliance on God and oneself are complementary. 
Since I don't believe in magic of any sort and consider religion to be, for the most part, disgusting, I think that cooperation and morality are genetically advantageous traits which enable communal living and an advanced society in which we care for those who are not genetically related to us. That's why I'm okay with half my total income being taken in income taxes. That's the price we pay for civilisation. 

I just don't believe rich people should get social transfers they don't need. You seem to think that they do which, to come full circle on this, goes against your belief that "God helps those who help themselves" unless you mean "helping themselves to money that should go to the needy". That's not very Christian of you (or, come to think of it, maybe it is).


----------



## Purple

Silversurfer said:


> Really? Have a read of the comments section in The Journal today about Alone lobbying for a €20 increase in pensions. Very little sympathy for the long term unemployed. My comment is based on the ESRI report.


An organisation which lobbied for Pensioners lobbying for an increase in the State Pension. Who would have thunk it?! I'm shocked.


----------



## Silversurfer

Purple said:


> I don't know what your comment means. I do understand the link.


----------



## Purple

That shows that people who own their homes are far less likely to live in poverty. Pensioners are most likely to own their homes. Therefore I still don't understand the point you were making.


----------



## Purple

Excellent article by Diarmaid Ferriter in todays Irish Times no country for young people.


----------



## noproblem

Purple said:


> Excellent article by Diarmaid Ferriter in todays Irish Times no country for young people.


 Excellent article you say?  What's so excellent about it. 
 Ferriter to me is ferriting away again, a bit like yourself in my humble opinion.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Excellent article you say?  What's so excellent about it.


The way in which he exposes the gap between the entitled narrative of the rich and reality. 


noproblem said:


> Ferriter to me is ferriting away again, a bit like yourself in my humble opinion.


I'll take that as a complement.


----------



## noproblem

Purple said:


> The way in which he exposes the gap between the entitled narrative of the rich and reality.
> 
> I'll take that as a complement.


Dot your i's and cross your t's!  I'd suggest you correct the above sentence.


----------



## Purple

noproblem said:


> Dot your i's and cross your t's!  I'd suggest you correct the above sentence.


What's wrong with it?


----------



## Eithneangela

Compliment?


----------



## Groucho

Purple said:


> Excellent article by Diarmaid Ferriter in todays Irish Times no country for young people.



An article that leads me to conclude that Grumpy Old Ferriter didn't inherit much from his parents!


----------



## Purple

Eithneangela said:


> Compliment?


Thanks. I’m dyslexic so if spell check misses it I’m scuppered.


----------

