AGE is just a number, goes the saying. And surely one of the more positive developments in recent years has been the ability of older people to reject the societal rules and expectations that used to put them out to pasture, complete with blue rinse or bunnet, at 60.

It was notable that the two most memorable music gigs I attended last year were by OAPs (David Byrne, 66, and Paul McCartney, 76.) The one I’m most excited about this summer will be played by 72-year-old Patti Smith. Even here in the real world things have changed. My mother, now in her seventies, has a markedly younger look and outlook than her own mother, who, with her sensible woollen skirts, austere glasses and old-fashioned views, seemed ancient at 60, like most others of her generation. My friends in their sixties are as likely to beat me at tennis as watch Bargain Hunt.

Added years of healthy life expectancy means a busier, more enjoyable and for many more lucrative retirement than ever before. And that’s fantastic - I’m delighted for my family and friends in this situation. What’s not so great, of course, is the unfair and unsustainable burden this is putting on the young, especially when the political choices of baby boomers left such a terrible legacy for their Millennial grandchildren.

As outlined by the House of Lords Committee on Intergenerational Fairness in a report last week, something has to give. And that something needs to start with a recognition that older people will have to share some of the wealth and good fortune they benefited from in the post-war boom years, the final salary pension schemes, the affordable housing and astounding levels of property value growth, the generous state benefits and a tax system from which the over-65s gain hugely. Average incomes for retirees have risen by 60 per cent in the last 12 years (it’s 36 per cent for the rest of us, far less for those at the bottom) exacerbating an already widening generational wealth gap.

The future faced by our young people seems bleak in comparison to that on offer to their parents and grandparents. As many reading this will doubtless know, Millennials face massive students debts, low wages and high house prices, and probably won’t own a home till their late thirties, if at all, instead having to fork out on over-inflated private rents since there are no council houses left. Many have no job security and endure a constant erosion of rights and benefits. There will be no gold-plated pension for them; they won’t be retiring at 55 with their mortgages paid off. Indeed, they’ll be lucky to retire at 70.

Add to that the economic calamity of a Brexit voted for predominantly by older people and the mindboggling challenge and expense of climate change – which baby boomers had the opportunity to tackle but chose not to – and it’s time for the older generation to put their hands in their pockets.

As someone from Generation X born in the mid-1970s, I was lucky to benefit from elements of the boomer legacy, receiving a free university education and a full grant, and getting on the property ladder young. I’m thankful for these breaks, especially as a freelancer with no private pension.

But we now need action rather than warm words and hand-wringing from baby boomers, proof they are willing to share the burden. As pointed out by the cross-party committee, a sensible place to start would be the benefits older people take for granted. We could begin, for example, by abolishing the triple lock on the state pension, which automatically rises in line with average earnings or inflation. We could also cut, delay or means-test perks such as free TV licences, bus passes and winter fuel payments. The truth is with their healthy disposable incomes, many pensioners simply do not need these freebies.

Let me put another suggestion out there. I believe those with large amounts of equity in their homes should have to pay more towards their personal and residential care, should they need it, even to be recouped after their death. This type of policy ensures unearned wealth benefits all of society, not just the progeny of the property rich.

Not all pensioners are wealthy, of course, and those who live in poverty should gain rather than lose. Indeed, it should be need and not age that determines how benefits are distributed in any fair and progressive system. A needs-based system would also correspond with the wishes of many older people not to be defined by their age.

We could put the money towards building more affordable homes for younger people, training schemes, grants for poorer students and help for those working in the so-called gig economy (zero-hours contracts under another name).

Surely older people would be happy to share a little of their wealth and good fortune to help the young? Surely they can see that their generation’s decisions have contributed to the hardship young people face? If not, let’s hear the alternative suggestions. What we cannot do is keep widening this scandalous wealth gap.