What's rich?
Should we get rid of free travel of OAPs?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
People with wealth, low debt and high disposable income.
Only for those with grey hair and that way it won't leave out bald people.Free pubic transport?
That sounds a bit hairy!
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 302
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 Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 302
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,941
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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.
I agree but...
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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.
Last edited:
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.
What makes you think that?
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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