Pension plans: Ticking time bomb must be defused

One of the conventions of polite society is that certain subjects are not discussed.

Confrontation is avoided so pretend harmony might prevail. Evasion usurps honesty.

The debate around the Eighth Amendment was a perfect example of this shadow boxing.

Many friends, families, and workmates avoided discussing the issue rather than face the hostility that can follow passionate disagreement.

Another subject seems to enjoy this let-sleeping-dogs-lie protectionism.

It is one of the great faultlines in this society.

It is an issue that highlights tremendous, unsustainable inequities, institutionalised vulnerabilities, and, from the perspective of some citizens, it represents the kind of featherbedding only the powerful can enjoy — and sustain.

That view is inevitably rejected, often with a patronising sigh by the system’s beneficiaries that suggest that those who disagree with them have not reached a full understanding of the process.

Those on that side of the argument can show a sense of entitlement that does not include their peers across society but rather only others in their privileged position.

Proposals to increase the State pension age to 66 in 2014, 67 in 2021, and to 68 in 2028 bring this issue — our deep pension inequity — into sharp focus.

Like it or not, these changes will exacerbate the difference between the quality of life enjoyed by those on a public sector or semi-state pension and the great majority of workers obliged to rely on a private pension augmented by the State pension or, in the worst cases, just the State pension.

That reality is exacerbated by the fact that though many countries are increasing the pension age, Ireland will have, by 2028, the highest pension age in the OECD.

Despite that, some public employees can retire in their early 50s.

Many can enjoy a full pension, irrespective of their age, once they have completed 40 years’ service.

The featherbedding argument is strengthened by the fact that public servants avoid pension rules that defer the State pension.

The majority of workers who retire at 65 must claim jobseekers’ benefit, almost €50 a week lower than the State pension, until they reach qualifying age. However, some public servants are exempt.

They will get a “supplementary pension” before they qualify at 66. Sauce for the gander indeed.

This dodge seems almost irrelevant to the tens of thousands of private-sector workers whose pension plans were

destroyed by the 2008 collapse — unlike the pension expectations of their public-sector peers.

They sailed on as if nothing had happened.

Had there been consequences for those public sector pensions it might not be so very difficult to remake pensions system in a more equitable way.

In a society with an increasing cohort or older people, and where many young workers cannot afford a pension, this is a time bomb.

It need not be an either/or equation, or an attack on public-sector pensions, but a way must be found to make the security and comfort enjoyed by public-sector retirees achieveable for all workers.

As we have said many times before, a senior minister dedicated solely to pension planning is required.

Or has pension-sector lobbying precluded this pressing exercise in social justice?