Sir, – Dan O’Brien (Home News, August 16th) states “two-thirds of the incomes of over-64s came from social transfers” (in the period 2004 to 2011).
I reached 64 in 2001 and the only “social transfer” which I knowingly received was my Old Age Pension. This is funded by contributions from one’s wages throughout one’s working life and can hardly be called a “social transfer”, which term seems to imply that it comes from someone else! Moreover, in that period it increased by 33 per cent, not 41 per cent as implied by Mr O’Brien.
As for it forming two-thirds of the income of over-64s, perhaps their incomes would have been larger and less State-dependent if they had not, with well-intentioned prudence, made investments in AIB, Bank of Ireland, etc, which were destroyed (dare I say it?) by a younger generation than ours. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL PURSER,
Knockanree,
Avoca, Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Daniel Costello (August 21st) alleges your Editorial “A lucky generation” (August 19th) contained “some glaring errors”. The first example he cites is “All pensioners over 65 do not get bus passes: they have to wait until they are 66”. Even if this was an error, it would clearly have made no difference whatsoever to the point being made. However, there was in fact no error, as “over 65” means at least 66!
Mr Costello goes on to comment on the hardship faced by people who are forced to survive on the State pension alone. This completely misses the point of the Editorial, which criticised the payment of benefits "to all over 65, regardless of their means". The introduction of a means test would have no adverse impact on pensioners with low incomes. It might actually help them, as it would free up money for more deserving causes.
Your Editorial was absolutely right – there is no justification for paying benefits based on age alone. I have yet to see anyone put forward a credible argument to the contrary. – Yours, etc,
JACK NORTHWOOD,
Neerim Road,
Murrumbeena,
Victoria, Australia.