MSE News: EU ruling could cut male retirement income

luckyfool

Premier wrote: »

Is this correct? Are you really suggesting that the average life span of someone born later is now reducing?

Current 55 year old average life span
male: 55 + 25.7 = 80.7 years
female: 55 + 28.8 years = 83.8 years

Current 75 year old average life span
male: 75 + 10.7 = 85.7 years
female: 75 + 12.5 years = 87.5 years

That's not what the ONS were saying in a report last year :huh:

You are misunderstanding the statistics.

If someone is still alive at 75 now, then obviously they will have a life expectancy that takes into the account that they are alive at 75! Someone who is currently 55 obviously has a non-trivial chance of dying at some point before they reach 75 so all else being equal their life expectancy (age they are expected to live to) would be a lower figure than for people who are 75. This does not mean that people born 55 yrs ago have a worse life expectancy than people born 75 yrs ago, it just means that people alive currently who are 75 will have all the people who died before age 75 stripped out, while people who are 75 only have people who died before age 55 stripped out, hence skewing the figures.

smartn

Premier wrote: »

Is this correct? Are you really suggesting that the average life span of someone born later is now reducing?

Current 55 year old average life span
male: 55 + 25.7 = 80.7 years
female: 55 + 28.8 years = 83.8 years

Current 75 year old average life span
male: 75 + 10.7 = 85.7 years
female: 75 + 12.5 years = 87.5 years

That's not what the ONS were saying in a report last year :huh:

The current 55 year old statistic would have to include deaths prior to 75 years of age therefore it would be distorted.

mumbles_one

Time to change the system altogether to one where the car is insured but allows any driver. That way there would never be any uninsured drivers. Its the car that should be insured not the driver. Putting the cost of insurance on the price of petrol would also work. That way the more you drive the more you pay.
Also you would be covered for petrol bombing . Both bomber and victim.
Funny how house insurance isn't gender dependant ??? only thing worth having in my house is in the fridge. And I don't mean the wife.

mumbles_one

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

er... correct?

Certainly in my day - admittedly quite a few years ago, it was a 'fact' that women have more accidents than men 'per mile'. The reason for cheaper female rates (and as far as I can recall, I was the first to introduce female discounts on Motor Insurance in UK) is simply that on average, they do significantly fewer miles, giving them an overall reduction in claims cost per annum.

I cannot confirm this is still the case.

In my day there were less women on the road at any particular time. And the most important time was after 10pm. This meant that in any 2 vehicle accident the odds on any claim were as follows

both cars driven by men 50%
one man one woman 30%
both cars driven by women 20%

So just because there are more male drivers result in higher premiums for men.

Just ask the airlines why there are so few women pilots and see what they say. They never say that in the last 50 years there has never been a commercial air disaster piloted by a woman. You would think the airline insurance would give free cover to all planes piloted by women........... but they don't........

sandsy

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

er... correct?

Certainly in my day - admittedly quite a few years ago, it was a 'fact' that women have more accidents than men 'per mile'. The reason for cheaper female rates (and as far as I can recall, I was the first to introduce female discounts on Motor Insurance in UK) is simply that on average, they do significantly fewer miles, giving them an overall reduction in claims cost per annum.

I cannot confirm this is still the case.

My understanding is that women have smaller value accidents. They have little bumps and scrapes. Men are more likely to wrap a car round a tree....boy racers and all that! The big costs come when people are injured and this happens more with male drivers.

zagfles

mumbles_one wrote: »

In my day there were less women on the road at any particular time. And the most important time was after 10pm. This meant that in any 2 vehicle accident the odds on any claim were as follows

both cars driven by men 50%
one man one woman 30%
both cars driven by women 20%

So just because there are more male drivers result in higher premiums for men.

That's not the main reason. Over the age of 35 car insurance is pretty similar for men and women. It's younger men who pay significantly higher insurance than women AND older men. And it's not because there are more of them, or they drive more miles...

Loughton_Monkey

So I have a solution!

All women over the age of retirement age should be 'forced' to drive around like 'boy racers'. This might perhaps even out life expectancy in retirement. Then pension annuities (and maybe Motor Insurance) costs will even out all on their own!

[Buy granny a 15 year old Porsche with bald tyres for her 65th birthday].

siber

If the EU will make it illegal to differentiate between men and women for life annuities based upon average lifespans, does that mean they will also have to make it illegal to differentiate between the sexes in other financial areas based upon 'averages'?

My main point here is car insurance, where men are routinely charged extra for being male, because men (apparently) have a greater chance of being in an accident.

Surely the principle's the same: Making a financial judgement based upon an average rooted in gender. Surely then this principle should be extended to all areas? Thus, (generic) men would lose out on their annuity payouts, but gain through their lives on more equal car insurance premiums.

mumbles_one

I suppose its fair to expect the insurance breakdown services to have a quicker response time for women calling when they break down. Justified because of some gender based statistic??? that'll have to go. Women can't expect better service for the same money . Funny thing ,there is statistically far more violent crime carried out against males so they should devote more resources to responding to male callers.
Now I am confused. I suppose there should be no reason for ever asking the question : Male or Female??? unless the question involves RuPaul.

Loughton_Monkey

Here's the most interesting thing:

Imagine Male Annuity currently £8,000
Female annuity, same age currently £7,500

So presumably, they would be forced to quote Person Annuity: £7,750

Now if I were the male, and I wanted to make it 'joint life' 100% spouses pension, then I know that the quote (currently) would be <£7,500 (but not much less). Presumably, under the new 'law', they would find it difficult to justify a Joint annuity rate at anything less than £7,750? If they did, they would be 'rating on sex' again!