Of course, these figures make no allowance for the independently wealthy, or those who have chosen a different financial model to safeguard their futures . . . for example, thanks to the unprecedented boom in the housing market, many people have opted to invest in property as opposed to in a pension fund. But while it is certainly true that many people have become wealthy because of the overcorrection of the property market, the reality is that by solely relying on property people are breaking the cardinal rule of investment . . . don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Property investors over the past 15 years have been able to point smugly to the spectacular returns which they have achieved over the years as proof of their wisdom, but the reality is that property is not only illiquid, but occasionally volatile.

"It's been easier to talk about property this year, " said Brendan Kennedy, CEO of the Pensions Board, which regulates occupational pension schemes and Personal Retirement Savings Accounts in Ireland as part of its statutory role to monitor and supervise operation of the Pensions Act.

"But, even at a time when the market is steadily rising, your property can be used as your pension only if you sell. We have been looking at the situation for the past number of years, and a feature of the market is that people are coming to retirement asset rich but cash poor. In theory, using your property to finance your future makes sense, because you can move to a smaller, cheaper property and use the equity to fund your retirement. But the reality is that the numbers doing this are very low."

Still, the majority of future retirees will be looking towards some form of pension to allow them to live comfortably through retirement.

But there are still large numbers of people who have made no such provisions. The Pensions Board has set a target of 70% of people over 30 to have pension coverage, with the current figure standing in the low 60% bracket. But Kennedy concedes that even raising the figure by less than 10% will require a lot of work.

"The Pensions Board can only encourage people and raise awareness of the benefits of pensions, " he said."We have looked at the models which might work to encourage a greater uptake of pensions. The SSIA "one in four" model is something which certainly found favour with the public, and there is currently a lot of support for finding a similar way of supporting pensions."

The trouble with such a simple message is that pensions are, by their nature, complex. Probably their most attractive aspect is the tax relief available, but unlike SSIAs, pension-based tax relief is not as uniform as one euro for every four saved. But if you could sum the benefits of pensions up in such terms, it would actually be much more attractive than the SSIA proposition. People on the lower band of tax will stand to do marginally better than one in four, while people in the upper bracket can avail of a situation where they are practically getting a euro for every euro saved (once PRSI contributions are taken into account, every euro saved will cost them about 49 cent).

In addition to the slightly nebulous nature of the tax relief system, there are the myriad levels of legislation and regulations which cover pensions (tax rules, the Pensions Act, the complexity and compliance requirements of financial products). But while simplification could lead to greater understanding amongst the public, the reality is that complexity is not a significant barrier to taking up a pension plan.

"If complexity is an issue, then at least people will have gone far enough with the process to realise that pensions are complex, " said Kennedy. "But what we have seen is that the two biggest reasons for people not doing pensions are firstly that they never get around to doing it, and secondly that they can't afford it."

There are other issues, such as a broad misunderstanding, even a mistrust of financial products, as well as an inability for many people to look at the long-term situation. Even if markets are down at the moment, the reality is that a typical pension is a 20 to 40 year investment . . . and if investors don't expect a few blips along the way, then they might be better served by keeping cash under the mattress.

Still, the core issue with pensions is not where people should put their money, but the fact that they should start saving. And they should start now.

"Starting a pension is tough, " said Kennedy. "Anyone living in the real world will know about the costs of factors such as childcare and mortgages. But even if it means starting with a small pension, people should start early. Starting your pension early can make an enormous difference in the amounts that people need to save, but there is another factor as to why people should start their pensions as soon as possible.

When people put things off, they can end up putting them off indefinitely, and instead of deferring a pension, they are actually just not saving for their futures."

Anyone unsure of the value of starting a pension early need go no further than the Pensions Board website (www. pensionsboard. ie).

There, they can click on the pensions calculator to see how much they need to start paying now . . . and how much they will need to pay if they start in the future.

Take, for example, a few round figures. A 30 year old who is earning 50,000 per annum might want to target a pension of 60% of their annual salary. To achieve this, at 30 they will need to be contributing a net figure of 393 per month. If, however, that same person waits until they are 40, they will need a net monthly contribution of 590.

Wait another five years, and their net monthly contribution will need to be 906 per month. All to achieve the same pension at retirement age.

Or you could leave it all behind and live on the state pension. Who knows . . . by the time you retire, it could have risen significantly in value.

But are you willing to take the risk?