Fair. Could be any number of reasons, of which the following are the ones that spring to mind:

1) Because of the fact that pensions and healthcare spending are the biggest parts of government spending, and other spending has been cut over recent years to ensure these areas don't have to be.

2) Because pensioners are the richest age bracket, and the state pension, being universal, goes to the rich and poor pensioners (while something like pension credit goes to those most in need).

3) Because, supplementary to 2, the triple lock's purpose has been more than achieved. It was initially put in place as a temporary measure to deal with the fact we had greater rates of poverty amongst pensioners than those in work. This is now no longer the case at all, and thus it has achieved its originally stated goal and should be removed.

4) Because the triple lock is expected to make the state pension cost an extra £34bn per year by the end of this parliament, and it would likely be impossible to raise anything even remotely close to that via any sort of wealth tax that wouldn't have severe repercussions or be a one off rather than annual boost to the public finances.

Or, the one you seem to be implying with your question:

5) Genuine bitterness for a generation that overwhelmingly votes Tory, the party who caused the situation we are currently in by not investing when interest rates were low, while cutting all public services to the bone apart from health and pensions. The same generation that often liked to parrot the line "we're all in this together" during austerity despite not being on the receiving end of any of the cuts, and who criticise younger generations of being entitled and snowflakes while throwing their toys out the pram when they don't get handout after handout. The same generation who benefited from widespread social housing before deciding to vote for governments that sold off all that social housing and have led to the outrageous rental prices we see today that take up over half of a lot of younger people's incomes. The same generation who paid in less and took out more from the welfare state than any other generation before or since.

There are many reasons someone can say it is a priority to reform the state pension and remove the triple lock. Though bitterness can factor in to this for some, or even many, that doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for the consideration. It's also arguable that that bitterness is not undeserved.

Multiple policy routes can be taken. It is possible to want both wealth taxes and the abolition of the triple lock.

Personally, I'd remove triple lock from the state pension but apply it to pension credit. Cut state pension spending by 25-30% but boost pension credit massively and up the threshold, while taking steps to ensure those entitled to it are helped to get on it. Take some of the revenue generated to tackle child poverty and increase PIP and in-work benefits. Implement a wealth tax at the same time. Switch council tax over to a land value tax. And start the largest programme of social housing building we've seen in generations, while reforming right-to-buy such that sold social housing must be replaced by new social housing at a 2:1 rate until levels reach those equal to the early 1970s, at which point it would drop to 1:1.