More facts needed before pitying millennials when compared to baby boomers

How much exactly do the “baby boom er” generation pay in tax compared to what they take out in terms of pensions and a range of other benefits? Perhaps Kenny Macaskill could have given this matter some thought before he jumped on Lord Willetts’ bandwagon on the generational divide (Perspective, 8 March). Balancing the total revenue raised from taxation of the over-60s against total expenditure on their welfare would certainly make an interesting research project. Even then it would be an incomplete assessment – the range of unpaid voluntary work in all sorts of forms is rarely subject to accounting rigour. If it was, I think Lord Willetts and Mr Macaskill would feel a lot less uneasy about the alleged gap between what different generations put in and get out of the economy.

Equally, there is a need to look at the costs of the “boomer benefits” in the round. Spending on concessionary travel seems to be causing Scottish Transport minister Humza Yousaf some concern (your report, same day), and he is clearly considering raising the age qualification. But if fewer over-60s use the buses this will make a lot of routes uneconomic for the providers, who would likely offer fewer journeys at higher fares. Fewer bus journeys might cause a shift to car use with all the implications for the environment; there is a danger of social isolation if older people cannot access transport, with implications for the health and social services. In the recession of the last decade, many households in the under-60s bracket have had pressure on their incomes eased by free prescriptions and free university tuition, to give just two examples. The point here is that Mr Macaskill should not feel too guilty about the perceived advantages of his generation. He needs a lot more facts before going on the defensive on this one.

BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes