Women likely to face higher insurance costs

@Sue: I am not sure your choice of words is really appropriate. But I am sure that a little more reflection could have helped. In cases where women face disadvantages I am quite sure you appreciate support by the "overpaid idiots". Unfortunately banning discrimination comes at a price - you may have to make up your mind I am afraid ;-)

@ Sue
I have every sympathy with your point. They do of course bring in these judgements when unemployment is high and people are struggling.

@Charles_M
Agreed you have summed it up nicely.

@ Uli
Your post is a tad arrogant and exactly what turns people against the EU. Keep it up!

George Mc

I have been talking with friends who are about to retire in the next few years. This decision is going to affect some of their financial planning quite a bit as the decision is also about insurance and annuity rates. As we all know men get a higher annuity rate because they do not live as long as women. This judgement will mean that men will retire on a lower pension which will have a knock on effect on many of their spouses who may not have a private pension of their own. If the spouse survives her husband she will possibly have to live on 50% of a lower amount.

Here again the EU Court of Justice comes up with a decision which screws up many UK citizens life planning for no real good reason. It is a decision that could have waited for a few years to allow people to deal with it. Once again our elected government will have no say in the matter. Just more fodder for the anti EU school of thought.

George Mc

@ rok
Congratulations on your indignant rant.

"but that's no justification for placing an unjustified burden on responsible drivers regardless of gender, race, age, income, education, ethnicity, religion, political opinion (anyone else think that libertarians and anarchists aren't as respectful of traffic regulation as the average social democrat?)"

Only one of the above is used by Insurance Co to arrive at the cost of risk - Age.

You will be pleased to know that the Insurance industry (all of the EU) uses statistical and actuarial judgements in pricing risk. So if you are male and a smoker it costs you more for insurance than if you are male and a non smoker (take it as read that applies to females also. The upside for a smoker is that if he has a pot of money to buy a pension he will get a higher rate than a non smoker due to the likely hood he will die earlier - get it?.

In the case of young men and women it is known that young men love speed, to show off and think they are immortal. Hence the higher costs. It is also difficult for insurance companies to price as by definition they have no experience of track record.
I do not know if you drive or what you may work at but you can be sure that your track record and what you work at has been factored into the cost. Do your own research.

I would have hoped however that even your indignation could be tempered with a rational cool when looking at people who have worked all their lives to provide a pension and now find that they may take a 3% hit on their annuity rate with no time left to fix or change their investment.

George Mc

@ rok
I can see when your argument is baseless you apply obfuscation.

"The point is that the only thing which should be allowed for consideration is your personal track record. The fact that a disproportionate share of 21 year old men drive in a risky fashion shouldn't impact those of us who don't."

Okay so if the above was in any way a sensible way forward how are you going to sort it out. Will the rest of us have to pay extra to cover the testosterone driven stupidity of young male drivers? Does this mean because they can now afford the reduced rates there will now be more of them on the road killing themselves and others, to mention nothing of the cost to the NHS. It will be an absolute hoot with all the young footballers tooling up with their cheap to insure (relatively) Ferrari's and Maserati's.

How you could twist my facts about smokers as encouraging risky behaviour is absolutely beyond me. We may agree smoking is not sensible but it is still legal and speeding is definitely illegal.

I see my point about pension annuity rates has not engaged any response. Perhaps it was inconvenient for your logic.

George Mc

@rok

I think you will find that if you have a pension scheme (not final salary) that you have to buy an annuity.

I know what it is like to try and get insurance for 21 year old and have had to change insurance companies to get cover for my daughter. The joys indeed.

Anyway rok good luck with your endeavours and with your life.

Regards
George Mc