Mr. Aidan McLoughlin:

The €2.9 billion is presented as a subsidy that is primarily benefiting the well-paid. The only people who would get that benefit at the end are by definition lower paid. In terms of the cost to the State, if they were not receiving that benefit and had even lower benefits, the State would be stepping in with some form of subsidy to that income in terms of social welfare. It is being presented as though the State is writing a €2.9 billion cheque that it never sees back. If it does not see it back, it is only because people have insufficient income. Otherwise, it is a tax deferral system and the numbers do not calculate that. It also double-counts numbers in the sense that it argues that when one gets a promise of a benefit of €100, the State was entitled to tax that when the promise was made at 52% and again at 52% when it issued. To me, that is double counting. One promise of €100 was made. That was one benefit, not two.

That is the way the numbers work. I challenge it because the illusion exists that there is some money that could be spent elsewhere. It is not there, €2.9 billion would not flow back into the State's coffers if we abolished pensions in the morning. There would not be an extra €2.9 billion sitting in a bank account somewhere as a result.