But the mystery is easily solved. Those without pensions are invariably the lower paid and . . . after paying for mortgages, childcare and all of their other dayto-day bills . . . there is simply nothing left over for pensions.

No amount of coaxing by the Pensions Board or other organs of the nanny state can change the reality that, for many people, the notion of being able to save for retirement is little more than a pipedream.

This is why Brennan will find little support at the cabinet table for his bold idea of mandatory pensions. Compulsory saving would go a long way towards tacking a future pensions timebomb, but would be deeply resented by an electorate that can find more urgent uses for its money.

Of course it's nice to know there's a decent pension waiting for you down the line. But is it worth sacrificing your life for here and now, especially when there's a chance you might not live long enough to collect the pension you've saved so hard for?

The situation is not helped by the way that government has deliberately stacked the tax incentives for pension saving in favour of the better off. People earning more qualify for a 42% tax break, while anyone earning less than 32,000 a year only gets a 20% tax break on pension contributions.

The situation is grossly unfair and, unless government levels the playing field, pensions are destined to remain another privilege of those on higher earnings. For them, the 42% tax break, added to PRSI relief, amounts to an effective 1 top-up from the state for every 1 they put in a pension.

It makes the state's much-hyped 1-for- 4 top-up for SSIA savings look miserly in comparison.

Yet another serious anomaly, highlighted last week by the Irish Association of Pension Funds, involves the nonsensical rules dictating what you can do with your pension savings when the time comes to retire. These are a legacy of the hotchpotch of pensions vehicles that have evolved over the years.

The differences between them are too subtle and too technical for most people to notice . . . but backing the wrong horse can cost you dearly when you retire.

If your employer operates a traditional occupational pension scheme, the chances are you will have to plough all of your pension into a retirement annuity at the end of the working life. This has the advantage of paying a guaranteed income for life, no matter how long you live. But the big downside is that annuities are lousy value, paying an income that pales into insignificance when compared to the size of your pension savings.

Worse still, annuities die when you do, leaving nothing for your estate even if you pass way shortly after retiring.

People with new-style personal retirement savings accounts (PRSAs) are in a much better position. On paper, there is little to distinguish PRSAs from traditional occupational schemes. The big difference is that PRSA holders get to keep control of their pension savings at retirement.

They can dip into the money whenever they wish, leaving the rest inside a tax-free approved retirement fund (ARF) for use in the future.

Of course, there is the risk that the money will run out before they die.

But if the alternative is a high-cost, low-return annuity, it is a risk worth taking.

The anomaly between the two pension types is grossly unfair, according to IAPF chairman Joe Byrne. But unless the government stops dithering and starts delivering solutions, these inequalities will continue to be a turn-off for anyone thinking about starting a pension.