Opinion
By Panayiotis Kaparis - kaparispan@yahoo.gr
In Cyprus, the land of “unbridled capitalism,” we are told that the social insurance system is strictly contributory. You get back what you pay in. Except, of course, for state officials, who collect generous pensions without ever having made equivalent contributions. Worse still are the “multi-pensioners” and the so-called “irreplaceables,” those officials who collect both a salary and a pension at the same time.
The Social Insurance Fund, which looks flush with billions of euros on paper, is in reality empty. All contributions flow directly into the state treasury, which pays out pensions as it goes. At one point, the Troika even wanted to erase, at least on paper, the state’s debt to the fund, since it doesn’t count toward public debt levels anyway. Today, the fund’s reserves stand at around €12 billion, about 35 percent of GDP, a staggering ratio if one considers that another season of “lean cows” may arrive, dragging us back to the nightmare of 2013.
In practice, the Social Insurance Fund works like a private insurance scheme; risk-free, propped up by mandatory contributions from every worker. So why not study whether it makes sense for the state to lower the retirement age, especially in the civil service? Since salaries and pensions are ultimately paid from the same pot, it’s worth calculating how much could be saved in wages between ages 60 and 65, how much would be needed in pensions, and (most importantly) how many jobs would open up for young people.
Instead, we get the leadership’s ostrich act: feigned concern for youth, hand-wringing over low birth rates, rhetorical nods to productivity. But these problems are not solved with reports and platitudes. They demand bold choices. Why not ask: what is unemployment among over-50s in the private sector? What is productivity like among civil servants over 50, or even 60, relative to their salaries and the job security they enjoy?
If the system is truly contributory, you get what you put in, why cling to an arbitrary age limit? Why not let anyone draw a pension whenever they choose, proportional to their own contributions, their own “nest egg”? Why should public employees, in particular, be forced to waste away behind a desk until 65? Many would happily retire earlier, with smaller pensions, in order to actually enjoy life. If they later changed their mind, they could always re-enter the workforce and resume contributions. In fact, this already happens in banks and semi-state organizations, which periodically offer early retirement packages. Many “lucky ones” take the deal, rest for a while, and then find new, perfectly legitimate work.
Work, after all, is not just a statistic. It can be a source of creative joy, when one practices a trade they love. That joy can be found in driving a taxi, waiting tables, hauling freight, practicing law, crunching numbers, working in a bank, even digging graves. The social hierarchy that places doctors and lawyers, bankers and bureaucrats above everyone else is outdated. The sooner we dismantle it, the sooner many unhappy, “imprisoned” people will find peace, the fewer will need psychological or psychiatric crutches, and the faster our society will modernize.
The only certainty in life is death. However much medicine stretches life expectancy with pills and surgeries, those added years rarely bring better quality of life. The wise David, in Psalm 89, writes: "The days of our years are about seventy; and if by reason of strength they be eighty, yet their span is toil and trouble. For with age comes the decline of body and mind, and we suffer." With age, body and mind decline, and suffering grows. All saints and sages have said the same: money and wealth are the cheapest things in the world, especially when locked away in chests or bank vaults. What truly matters is today, the present moment, and those fleeting instants of real joy.
