Should we get rid of free travel of OAPs?

Free pubic transport? o_O

That sounds a bit hairy! :D
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!
 
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?
 
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 Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.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.
 
Therefore I think it's time to reassess those outdated policies.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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
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.
 
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.
.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
a point you seem to be singularly unable to grasp.
What makes you think that?

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.
 
Statistics are useful based on current conditions, but they, like you cannot predict 20 years hence.
 
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.
ireland-home-ownership-rate.png

Source
 
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 .
 
Back
Top