A chara, – Dan O’Brien’s call for the Government to make older people pay for our national deficit (Opinion, July 15th) is exactly the sort of sensationalist rhetoric that the same Government he attempts to chastise will no doubt laud him for.
Mr O’Brien’s assertion that pensioners have “secured real gains in incomes” recently is a fallacy borne out through statistics not designed to represent the standard or quality of life of older people. The Consumer Price Index, as many would point out, does indeed indicate a marked decrease in the cost of living, which would lead one to believe that anyone with static or increasing incomes is better off. The CPI, however, tells a different story when one realises that older people, for the most part, have had no benefit from lowered mortgage-associated payments. Furthermore, it is a blatant untruth to suggest that pensioners have felt no losses. Four per cent of annual income was taken away in the form of the “Christmas Bonus”, while some retired farmers, women affected by the marriage bar, the older disabled and many others are hovering dangerously close to the poverty threshold.
More important than this, however, is that Mr O’Brien has fallen into the same trap as many other social commentators. This is the assumption that the State pension is just another social transfer and that older people are a cost to the taxpaying, hard-working under-65s in our Republic. This false perception needs challenging.
The contributory State pension is based upon PRSI contributions throughout a working life, and should not be treated like other social assistance measures. While jobseeker’s benefit and allowance have been cut, these are temporary measures – in theory, at least.
The view that older people are a cost or a burden is outdated and incorrect and is a mindset active retirement associations throughout Ireland are striving to change. We, as an organisation, long for the day when Ireland’s older people are seen for the social contributors they are and not for the burden Mr O’Brien and others would have us believe them to be. – Is mise,
Madam, – I note in particular Dan O’Brien’s assertion that in the context of any trade-offs, “what works must be prioritised over what is fair”. He does not say for whom this prioritisation works. The piece is presented as “Analysis”, but contains no serious analysis of the consequences for society as a whole and for the poorer sections in particular of this approach.
The application of policies which give precedence to effecting cuts in public expenditure without regard to their impact on people who are already on the margins is immoral and counter-productive. The resultant increased inequality in society has many detrimental effects: it breeds disaffection, alienation and results in increased crime. It is also undesirable from an economic perspective, with significant resources being allocated to imprisonment, policing and fighting crime (not white-collar, of course!).
I am grateful, however, to Mr O’Brien for his opinion piece: at least when I read his contributions in the future, I will know what values inform his reporting and “analysis”. – Yours, etc,