http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610 Insurance and pension costs hit by ECJ gender ruling Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled. The decision means that women can no longer be charged lower car insurance premiums than men, and the cost of buying a pensions annuity will change. A victory for 'boy-racers' or proof positive that the European court has finally lost what few marbles it had left? It seems sex discrimination is a bad thing because, y'know.... men have such an easy time of it in comparison to women. But age discrimination, (young peoples premiums aren't going to be made level with old fogies like me), is apparently a good thing. However, my pension annuity, when I get around to buying one, will give a lower return so it's the same as women of the same age DESPITE me being more liable to 'fall off the twig' earlier. And they wonder why people think 'The Europe Project', in general, is a bloody disaster.
what on earth does that have to do with the 'Europe Project', whatever that is??? as for the judgement, when it comes to car insurance it' s a very good judgement. here it clearly is a case of discrimination. age is different since that is more about experience. life insurance is a different matter though, there it doesn't make much sense, I agree. but the war on European courts in much of the British press, which all just boils down to the fact that they are not British, is starting to get seriously pathetic. and you seem to love it.
You're missing the point. I'm saying that THIS type of crap makes it easy for people to argue that it's 'The European Project' (not a phrase I've ever used), that's the problem. IOW, (as you seem to be confused), it's doing the Daily 'hate-Mail's job for it. But while we're at it maybe you can explain why it's OK for there to be a difference in insurance, (annuity), rates for pensions but not for car insurance. Make your mind up!
you are right. judges should of course take into consideration what sets the Daily Mail crowd off, and make sure their judgements don't upset their twisted sensibilities. that's what law is all about after all. it's very simple, really. life insurance premiums are based on a simple biological fact, i.e. that woman live longer on average. that's not discrimination, that's just a fact. car insurance premiums for young male drivers on the other hand are based on the assumption that this young male is more likely to crash than a woman the same age because there are more young male drivers crashing than females. that's discrimination since it's not based on any personal behaviour, but on the behaviour of other people. to make it personal, I accept that I am likely to die younger than most woman, but I certainly don't accept that I'm more likely to crash my car simply because other males my age can't drive properly. when I was that age..
European Court of Justice loses its marbles Can a mod correct the thread title, before I loose my marbles?
It's not your better half's fault that she'll probably be living longer than you. But it's clearly our fault that we're causing more accidents ... so please stop complaining and being a crybaby for taking profit!
In this case the daily hate-Mail is right. Of all the arguments you could have made that is probably the most idiotic for the simple reason that neither issue is decided on the basis of insurance company's idea of the relative 'worthiness', (for want of a better phrase), of an individual. They're based on an actuarial analysis of the various groups involved. So your idea that one is 'science-based' whilst the other isn't is flat wrong!!!! I've no idea what the hell you're talking about, tbh. You seem to be under the impression that I'm complaining because I'M going to be losing out when my main complaint is that young women, (such as my daughter), are going to be the losers. That's what I think is grossly unfair. The difference in annuity rates is actually quite small and, as you point out, my wife's will go in the opposite direction. So, again, you're missing the point. Maybe if some of you fellas would try thinking before responding the level of debate might go up a bit?
European court of justice loses its marbles Are there other facts that are not permitted to play a part in determining insurance premiums? We know that smoking/non-smoking status is permitted; non-smokers generally live longer. Is there a factoring of alcohol? Supposing Muslims lived longer, because they don't drink? Could their religious status be considered? How about Mormons, who don't drink alcohol or caffeine, or smoke? Could race be a factor? Suppose facts showed that Asians outlived whites?
Well, that raises some interesting questions. One of the factors that increases annuity rates is your lifestyle... whether you smoke or drink, whether you're overweight, etc. etc. http://www.annuitiesadvice.co.uk/la...tion-impacts-your-retirement.html?ref=adwords When you contact a company there is a lot of questions that the company will want answers to. One of these is your location. Your location is important because if where you live is considered a “poorer” area, then you might be entitled to higher annuity rates. The company will take a look at various points and decide what your average life expectancy is going to be depending on these things. If your area is considered poorer, or less wealth off than the national average, then life expectancy in these areas will also correlate as being lower and therefore your annuity rate will be enhanced. It is not just your location that matters, though. There are many other things such as your health or whether or not you are a smoker, as well as your age and what your employment has been. The company uses an annuity rates calculator to find out what they can offer you. For instance, if you have been a smoker, like a third of all people in the UK you could qualify for an enhanced rate because smoking is proven to cut your life expectancy by sometimes up to ten years. It is crucial that you release every detail when comparing annuities, as any one of these could enable a higher annuity rate offer. The point is that ALL of these factors are relevant because they've been shown to alter how long someone can be expected to live and thus how much money the annuity will pay out. Point being that these are established after a statistical, (scientific), analysis, There's no MORAL judgement involved.
really?? you don´t agree with a particular judgement and suddenly brainless Europhobia is right? you completely missed the point I was making. nowhere did I say one is science-based and other isn´t, you just made that up! I don´t really know how to make it any clearer, so try reading what I wrote again, maybe you´ll get it this time.
Re: European court of justice loses its marbles well, these are all personal circumstances, so there shouldn´t be a problem with taking those into account. btw, castration increases the life expectancy of man by quite a few years. so it´s not just the life style choices of man which contribute to the lower life expectancy compared to woman, just having functioning balls is enough to kick the bucket early.
Re: European Court of Justice loses its marbles ... and there was me thinking lawyers would do anything for money
Still, it's BS all the same Insurance companies are pretty much the epitome of man-shat bullshit. We will talk about this in ten years, when you better have sound DNA if you want to get any insurance whatsoever.
I've no idea what you're talking about but if you're trying to make out that people are upset because men are losing out then your SOL because, in this case, the men are the ones GAINING from the decision.