Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Leafsnail]

The general reasoning is that it'd be cheaper to take more tax from the rich than it is to means test everybody applying for benefits.

[Sheb]

I read your article Leafsnail, and I must say I am unconvinced. His case is really weak, with no numbers or anything. Frankly, do you really believe that giving free public transport pass to old people save money on mental health care? It's frankly ridiculous. Also, a lot of those benefits shouldn't be mean-tested. They should be cut, fair and square. Rather than give out free bus passes, use that money to increase the pension. Bam, you've just saved money on bureaucracy.

Also, he fails to realize that stuff are going to be cut no matter what. Britain's current deficit is unsustainable (I'm not against some deficit spending, but the current 7.8% of GDP is ridiculous), and if they want to grow again they need to diminish "entitlements" and spend that money in investments. Mean-testing is a way to cut them without affecting the poors much. As for the squeezed middle, benefit should not have a cutoff point. It's pretty easy to design a continuous function after all.

[10ebbor10]

Free public transport passes are easier for the governement to do actually. The governement owns a significant share of most public transport, which means that they have a decent position in negating cheap passes. (Wherether or not that's good for the public transport is a different matter). Using the money from free public transport to increase pensions would have a far smaller effect. Also, it incites people to use the public transport;

 

[Sheb]

But then again, why only target seniors? It's already tested, but age-tested rather than mean-tested. It doesn't stike me as fairer.

[Leafsnail]

I read your article Leafsnail, and I must say I am unconvinced.

What article?

[Sheb]

Sorry, I meant Owlbread.

[palsch]

They should be cut, fair and square. Rather than give out free bus passes, use that money to increase the pension. Bam, you've just saved money on bureaucracy.

Do you have any idea of the value of a bus pass these days?

The government pays only the cost of the journies taken, at a great discount. However, the pass itself means that pensioners are entirely free to take any bus trip they want or need to without worrying about having cash on hand, renewing their period tickets or just not having the money. Ignoring the first two and imagining we want to give pensioners the cost of unlimited bus travel just in their areas, you are talking vast amounts of money.

Take London, which honestly isn't that much more expensive than elsewhere. It costs £75.30 for a monthly pass (£19.60 weekly, £4.40 daily, only a minor increase since I was using them back in 2006). A pensioner in London would need an extra £903.60 per year to make up for losing a free bus pass, assuming they never left London and so didn't have to pay for anything not covered by an Oyster card.

A comparable ticket for Cambridge would be £22.50 per week, with no monthly options. Add or subtract and extra £10 per week depending on what company covers the routes you usually ride on. To even have a hope of giving a pensioner similar coverage locally to a free bus pass you are talking £1170 per year.

The numbers for 2011/12 give 9.8m free passes costing £898m. That is a rather pathetic £91.63 per pass per year.

[Owlbread]

Any kind of benefit cut in the UK is also going to be extremely unpopular.

[Sheb]

So what you're saying is that they're cheap because the government doesn't pay the full price for them, which drive up the price for other commuters. Which in turn you use as a proof that it's an efficient use of money?

Also, are public transport state-owned in the UK?

[lordcooper]

So what you're saying is that they're cheap because the government doesn't pay the full price for them, which drive up the price for other commuters. Which in turn you use as a proof that it's an efficient use of money?

Other commuters whose tax money would otherwise have to pay for the massively increased price of the OAPs tickets.  As a 22 year old Brit I am happy with this the way it works now and hope I will be allowed a similar scheme for the hover-buses when I am old and insane.

Also, are public transport state-owned in the UK?

Nope

[Owlbread]

The railways were nationalised once, but no longer. We have Mrs. Thatcher to thank for this, take it as you please.

[palsch]

So what you're saying is that they're cheap because the government doesn't pay the full price for them, which drive up the price for other commuters. Which in turn you use as a proof that it's an efficient use of money?

Not exactly.

The government pays for the travel taken, at a reasonable discount. The pensioner gets a card that lets them take the bus any time without any fuss. The closest commercial equivalent for the pensioner would be 10x the cost.

Having pensioners able to take public transport honestly brings down the cost. The actual travel taken by pensioners each year would be worth maybe 2-3x what the government actually pays for it, but it seems unlikely anywhere near as much would be taken without the existence of the bus passes. The income from pensioners is not replacing full fare customers but empty seats, so any income for those seats is a net plus for the bus companies.

[lordcooper]

A good point.  In my local area buses tend to be half full at the very most.

[Sheb]

Well, the effect on price is hard to judge. No one knows how many of these pensioners would take the bus if it were not for the free pass, but if they paid the full price like the others, price would go down for the other clients.

Also, your public transports are ridiculously overpriced. Do they get any subsidies?

[Descan]

You can't say "The effect on price is hard to judge" and then say "the price would go down for the other clients" in the next sentence.