EU Lose Lose on Insurance and Pensions

#1
#2
Does this mean (theoretically) that men will face lower car insurance and women bigger pensions?
 
#3
Does this mean (theoretically) that men will face lower car insurance and women bigger pensions?
The way I read it ........ NO !
 
#4
I get a 10% discount because my wifes on my policy.


"“According to the ECJ, Homo Sapiens is now unique in being the only species to boast three genders: Male, female and European."
 
#5
The way I read it ........ NO !
Why? Surely if insurance goes up because women will be effectively subbing male drivers then male drivers shouldn't be paying so much? The reverse should be true for pensions.

Wheres Iolis to tell us how wonderful the EU is and that the little people don't understand the ruling?
 
#6
Is it not about time we leave this farce or be like La Belle France take the good stuff and ignore the rest
 
#7
Why? Surely if insurance goes up because women will be effectively subbing male drivers then male drivers shouldn't be paying so much? The reverse should be true for pensions.
Because this EU ruling is going to be used by the insurance industry as a justification to impose massive premium increases for no extra risk on their part.

The EU - Making Britain a more hellishly expensive place to exist every day.
 
#8
I get a 10% discount because my wifes on my policy.


"“According to the ECJ, Homo Sapiens is now unique in being the only species to boast three genders: Male, female and European."
Different for me having Mrs CC increases my policy as I have had no accidents she has had 4 all oddly enough with other female drivers so work that one out
 
#9
The EU - Making Britain a more hellishly expensive place to exist every day.
Thats why I want to know where Iolis is, I love his excuses.
 
#10
Why? Surely if insurance goes up because women will be effectively subbing male drivers then male drivers shouldn't be paying so much? The reverse should be true for pensions.

Wheres Iolis to tell us how wonderful the EU is and that the little people don't understand the ruling?
I agree but that is obvious and simplistic ... but we are talking of the EU here ... I would love to be proven wrong however I remain to be convinced there will be some form of truly equal " quid pro quo " with this change .
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#11
Is it not about time we leave this farce or be like La Belle France take the good stuff and ignore the rest
Seconded. Another batty ruling by the Euro mob. Insurance premiums are based on actuary tables and stats but when did Strasbourg let the fact get in the way of a good fiddle? Anyone else see the hand of insurance industry lobbyists in this one?
 
#12
Seconded. Another batty ruling by the Euro mob. Insurance premiums are based on actuary tables and stats but when did Strasbourg let the fact get in the way of a good fiddle? Anyone else see the hand of insurance industry lobbyists in this one?
What are you suggesting that the vastly unelected Euro law makers who still have not had accounts audited due to no accounts firms being willing to do so, would accept "advice" etc from lobbyist companies to feather there own nests for the future?
 
#13
I read this to mean that the insurance companies are no longer allowed to discriminate against men (and for women) when setting premium rates. Which even with all other factors being equal they do charge blokes 10-20% more than women.
with women drivers under 26 in the UK facing a 25 per cent rise in car insurance rates, with a 10 per cent drop in rates for men in the same age group.
And conversly with pensions they discrimate against women and for men when setting pension payments. They do this because traditionally (it has/is changing) women live longer than men.

It sounds totally fair on the face of it.
 
#14
...
Another batty ruling by the Euro mob. Insurance premiums are based on actuary tables and stats but when did Strasbourg let the fact get in the way of a good fiddle?.....
Next week, they will be debating the repeal of the Law of Gravity...
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#16
I read this to mean that the insurance companies are no longer allowed to discriminate against men (and for women) when setting premium rates. Which even with all other factors being equal they do charge blokes 10-20% more than women.


And conversly with pensions they discrimate against women and for men when setting pension payments. They do this because traditionally (it has/is changing) women live longer than men.

It sounds totally fair on the face of it.
Maybe it is, but that won't sound everyone sounding off about Europe rather than having a go at the actual people that are ripping them off...... people in UK deserve most of what they get because they just whinge but ultimately do nothing and put up with it.

With the obvious risk of making this a fact based discussion, I am wondering about the stats that would have been needed to justify this insurance ruling. After all, insurance is about risk, so someone must have been able to prove women are no safer than men - otherwise every young guy would have a case for ageism.
 
#17
Maybe it is, but that won't sound everyone sounding off about Europe rather than having a go at the actual people that are ripping them off...... people in UK deserve most of what they get because they just whinge but ultimately do nothing and put up with it.

With the obvious risk of making this a fact based discussion, I am wondering about the stats that would have been needed to justify this insurance ruling. After all, insurance is about risk, so someone must have been able to prove women are no safer than men - otherwise every young guy would have a case for ageism.
Currently its about equality of the sexes, not age.

Hooray for the EU :roll:
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#18
With the obvious risk of making this a fact based discussion, I am wondering about the stats that would have been needed to justify this insurance ruling. After all, insurance is about risk, so someone must have been able to prove women are no safer than men - otherwise every young guy would have a case for ageism.
Isnt that the point? Insurance companies base their rates on facts. Actuary tables, statistics and research. Hard-nosed number crunching and if they say women are a better or worse bet than men for a category of insurance, they base that on demonstrable facts. What we have with the Euro Bufoons is a bunch of legislators changing the rules based on yet another 'ism'.

And if you yearn for action rather than whinging on, take a look at UK Uncut who occupied Barclays at the weekend *Link*
 
#19
Seconded. Another batty ruling by the Euro mob. Insurance premiums are based on actuary tables and stats but when did Strasbourg let the fact get in the way of a good fiddle? Anyone else see the hand of insurance industry lobbyists in this one?
The insurance industry was and remains massively against this ruling (and I am in the insurance industry, as well as on several professional bodies).

Insurance companies would prefer to stay with the old and proven system. Young men drive more aggressively than women of the same age, have more accidents and these accidents are more serious (and thus expensive) than women drivers of the same age. This is a cold hard empirical fact.

Women live longer than men. Thus if two people – one male, one female – have invested exactly the same amount of cash in a fund, then the woman will get less per year than the man once the fund starts paying out. However, taken over the average lifetime of the man, the woman will get roughly the same total amount.

Standby for this ruling to be applied to all walks of life unless it is overturned as the piece of stupidity it so obviously is.
 
#20
Maybe it is, but that won't sound everyone sounding off about Europe rather than having a go at the actual people that are ripping them off...... people in UK deserve most of what they get because they just whinge but ultimately do nothing and put up with it.

With the obvious risk of making this a fact based discussion, I am wondering about the stats that would have been needed to justify this insurance ruling. After all, insurance is about risk, so someone must have been able to prove women are no safer than men - otherwise every young guy would have a case for ageism.
Since when did facts make any difference to the equality bandwagon?

If you believe then automaticaly charging men more than women is exactly the same as charging black people more than white.
 

Similar threads

Top