Women face hike in car insurance premiums

Graham_Devon

And men face smaller pensions.

All comes after a european court ruling.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this. Womens premiums could rise 10-30%, while mens could fall 10%. (My feeling is that mens won't fall, and women will be paying more).

Slightly more worrying is the ageist part, where companies may not be allowed to charge based on age. This could mean a hike in premiums for us all.

Men also face smaller annuity incomes on their pensions to bring them in line with women, who on average, live longer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

Would be interested to see what the feminists who bang on about equality in the media have to say about this....especially the women on the news the other day who said a ban on employing men in the boardroom should take place until 50% of boardroom members are women!

leveller2911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And men face smaller pensions.

All comes after a european court ruling.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on this. Womens premiums could rise 10-30%, while mens could fall 10%. (My feeling is that mens won't fall, and women will be paying more).

Slightly more worrying is the ageist part, where companies may not be allowed to charge based on age. This could mean a hike in premiums for us all.

Men also face smaller annuity incomes on their pensions to bring them in line with women, who on average, live longer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

Would be interested to see what the feminists who bang on about equality in the media have to say about this....especially the women on the news the other day who said a ban on employing men in the boardroom should take place until 50% of boardroom members are women![/QUOTE


Can annuity rates get any lower? Insurance companies are like politicians , total money grabbing , deceitful bar stewards...

We should have equality as long as one sex can carry out the job as well as the other sex there isn't a problem.... Unless your in the Fire service where the entrance criteria was dulled down to allow women to become fire fighters...... *sits back and waits for the onslaught".........Will we see the end to "all women" short lists too?.. Harriet Harman must be spitting venom at this news.

macaque_2

Finally! Someone has listened to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

nearlynew

Did someone mention liars and thieves?

Procrastinator333

This has really annoyed. Completely stupid. I was and to some extent am still fairly pro Europe, but this has put a big dent in that opinion. Stupidity.

My other thought, and will be interesting to read over the next few days commentary on this, is that it is most likely to be those with the smallest pensions that suffer most. I think this will make the drawdown option more attractive. But I think that is more accesible to larger pension pots. So those with the smallest pension pots will suffer most. Going to pay attention to the pension board over the next few days to see what they say.

ess0two

Must admit we are getting more apprentice ladies arriving on the shop floor.
Whilst easy on the eye,they just aint upto some of the more strenuous tasks.
Its getting rather annoying having to finish off their work from the day shift within your own night shift.

System

Is this the EU gender directive?

Doesn't make any sense to me, I work in medical insurance and men and women have different risks to factor into premiums.

Wookster

I find this utterly ridiculous.

This is statistically proven and insurance is risk based.

What next from the stupid court?

Loughton_Monkey

Wookster wrote: »

I find this utterly ridiculous.

This is statistically proven and insurance is risk based.

What next from the stupid court?

• Age discrimination! Not allowed to charge annuity rates by age.
• Unisex showers and changing rooms compulsory.
• Life Insurance to be same rate for grossly obese people.
• Not putting toilet seat down to be a capital offense.

michaels

Well presumably discrimination based on age will go next so everyone will pay more. The sad thing is that the general population and media types in particular are so innumerate hat they can not understand why this is a bad thing.

This will cause more road deaths - why? Currently the fact that younger male drivers pay a premium based on the level of risk prices some off the road, reducing premiums will increase the number who can afford to drive and thus with more higher risk drivers on the road there will be more fatal accidents.

It really is a shitty world we live in.

Mr_Mumble

The media are leading with the wrong story here imho. Insurers can feasibly get around most of the problems on assessing risk for drivers by using occupation (e.g. primary school teacher vs construction worker - it isn't ideal but they can have a decent stab at it this way). Most young women also have alternatives - public transport, car pool or bikes. A totally unwarranted and ludicrous inconvenience but the young can adapt. What it'll do to death rates on our roads with young male drivers effectively being subsidised by young female drivers however...

The pensions issue is bigger imho. You've been locked in for decades expecting an annuity of x and now get x-10% (early suggestions of 6-7% loss of income seem off to me, they don't take into account adverse selection for insurers). For couples with the old-fashioned male worker & female part-time/housewife it's going to cut into their incomes in old age substantially. Yes, the more astute can use drawdown but with the GAD rate going down to 100% from 120% even the savvier pension holder will have trouble. It's yet another example of government screwing over anyone who saved for their pension.