"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person with
a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by the
amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better balance
than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and earning £200k
having the run of London for free.

But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken early
retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year old who is
still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Peter Smyth

"Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by
the amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better
balance than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and
earning £200k having the run of London for free.

But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year old
who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Exactly. Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.

In message

, at 09:13:01 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.

Not so much my value judgements, as my interpretation of the value
judgements of those who designed the scheme.

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus, are not only failing
to benefit from the bus pass, but are likely to be paying higher taxes
(especially Council Tax) and more for their housing, as result of being
more central.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live far away, in a bus-less
area, also fail to benefit from the pass.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/06/2013 16:46, Roland Perry wrote:

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus,

....will use the bus pass to go one stop. While moaning about the hard
working person paying through the nose to travel 5 miles who is using
"their" seat.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2013-06-23, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 23/06/2013 16:46, Roland Perry wrote:

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus,

...will use the bus pass to go one stop. While moaning about the hard
working person paying through the nose to travel 5 miles who is using
"their" seat.

Idiot! What about those who use the bus to go one stop because they
have no hope of walking that distance? And it IS their seat, there are
designated priority seats for those who would have difficulty standing
for the duration of their journey. Or do you just approve of the fact
that the world is full of mean selfish *******s (like you perhaps?),
hard-working or not, who pretend to be unaware of the world around them
and will only give up a seat if harassed into it, or not even then.

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On 23/06/2013 19:44, Eric wrote:
On 2013-06-23, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 23/06/2013 16:46, Roland Perry wrote:

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus,

...will use the bus pass to go one stop. While moaning about the hard
working person paying through the nose to travel 5 miles who is using
"their" seat.

Idiot! What about those who use the bus to go one stop because they
have no hope of walking that distance?

Such people will also have to stand because the pass holder is using the
seat. They are A Pensioner You Know, and not some scrounging disabled
person - anyway, that passenger can't really be disabled, else she'd
have a wheelchair. And why would a disabled person be travelling to
work/university/shops, and not just staying at home? And just look at
those **** school **** children. Shouldn't let them on the normal buses,
they **** spoil it for every **** other person with their sitting
quietly reading Metro/books. And did you see the bus driver? They should
send Them all back where They came from. Did anyone see where I put my
copy of the Daily Express?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 23/06/2013 19:08, Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 23/06/2013 16:46, Roland Perry wrote:

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

I know retired people who use their bus passes in order to be able to
simply get out of the house, eg, shopping in the town a few miles away
rather than in the nearby village shops.

I know other retired people who have bus passes and never use them, and
yet others who have never applied for one.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus,

...will use the bus pass to go one stop. While moaning about the hard
working person paying through the nose to travel 5 miles who is using
"their" seat.

My understanding is that except in London, the buss pass for those over
60 may not be used during the height of the morning rush hour.

In message , at 18:40:58 on Mon, 24
Jun 2013, JNugent remarked:
But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

I know retired people who use their bus passes in order to be able to
simply get out of the house, eg, shopping in the town a few miles away
rather than in the nearby village shops.

That's the sort of lifestyle choice I was talking about.

I know other retired people who have bus passes and never use them, and
yet others who have never applied for one.

If I had one (currently the qualifying date is receding at about 3x as
fast as I'm aging) I would hardly ever use it. Because there's precisely
no buses that would usefully reduce the walk to my local shops, even
those half a mile away, and if I was going to the nearest big town
(Cambridge) I'd probably pay the £3 train fare for a 15 minute ride 3x
per hour; rather than endure the 60 minute bus ride, supplied only once
an hour.

By chance, the bus stop I'd use is right by the station, about 5 minutes
walk away from my home.

Those who made the lifestyle choice to live close enough to the
facilities, such that they don't need to use a bus,

...will use the bus pass to go one stop. While moaning about the hard
working person paying through the nose to travel 5 miles who is using
"their" seat.

My understanding is that except in London, the buss pass for those over
60 may not be used during the height of the morning rush hour.

Even once upon a time in London. Hence the "Twirly" name.

However, not every job has to start at 9am.
--
Roland Perry

On 2013-06-23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message

, at 09:13:01 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.

Not so much my value judgements, as my interpretation of the value
judgements of those who designed the scheme.

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Yes, your value judgements! Like that if a retiree does not live next
door to their doctor's surgery, adequate shops and any other support
they may need then they have made a "lifestyle" choice. What absolute
rubbish!

Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry

On 23/06/2013 19:32, Eric wrote:
On 2013-06-23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message

, at 09:13:01 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.

Not so much my value judgements, as my interpretation of the value
judgements of those who designed the scheme.

But it seems to me that the free buss pass scheme subsidises a very
specific subset of retirees - those who have made the lifestyle choice
to live sufficiently far from the facilities they need to access that
they require a bus, together with there actually being a bus service
they can take advantage of.

Yes, your value judgements! Like that if a retiree does not live next
door to their doctor's surgery, adequate shops and any other support
they may need then they have made a "lifestyle" choice. What absolute
rubbish!

The place someone lives in modern Britain is pretty much a lifestyle
choice. We don't have lords restricting their serfs' movements.

Why does someone who lives near a useful bus route deserve subsidised
bus travel, while someone who doesn't live near a useful bus route
doesn't get subsidised petrol?

(answers may include references to the frequency of buses in urban and
rural areas, the likely voting intentions of urban and rural residents,
and which government introduced the national scheme)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK