Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

End of Sheilas Wheels?

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I wasn't talking about driving in particular.

    Black people are more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Do you find that acceptable?

    I was talking about how the police services profile generally. Obviously it used to happen with the Irish more too.

    Do I think it is morally right - as with insurance, no I don't. Do I think that it is the most effective option - as with insurance, yes I do.
  • **helen****helen** Mod malarkist Posts: 9,235 Listening Ear
    Skive wrote: »

    :yes: I have to agree - my Mum's house insurance has gone up this year because "there's no longer a man in the house." A different angle on the situation to the driving one... :)
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    Basically, you are arguing for insurance companies to make more money., regardless of what you think you are arguing for.

    No I'm not. If insurance companies use this ruling to make more money from all drivers that's plainly wrong, but that has everything to do with the insuance companies being thieving bastards and nothing to do with the argument that people shouldn't be descriminated on the basis of gender. There is no reason why adjustments can't be made over time so that overall drivers pay no more than they did before this judgement.

    Even if I do have to pay more then fair enough, I really don't see it as much of an argument. I don't give up my principles for cheaper quote.

    Helen wrote:
    I have to agree - my Mum's house insurance has gone up this year because "there's no longer a man in the house." A different angle on the situation to the driving one...

    Presumably that's something that will be affected by this ruling too. I hope so because that's crazy.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There is no reason why adjustments can't be made over time so that overall drivers pay no more than they did before this judgement.

    That's not particularly likely if insurance companies cannot use risk factors such as age and gender when setting premiums.

    If a young man is twice as likely to crash than an older woman, but an insurer can't charge him more, then the insurer will have to start the premiums at the same level. That inevitably means that experience and gender risk will count for litttle, meaning that older people who won't claim will end up seriously subsidising boy racers.

    And don't mention no claims bonuses because older new drivers are significantly less likely to crash than young new drivers. Under your ideas you can't charge the older person more, so they're subsidising the young kid who'll wrap his Saxo round a lamp post.

    The thing you don't seem to be able to get your head around is that men are not overcharged and men do not subsidise cheap premiums for women. In car insurance men are more likely to cost the insurer money so they pay more to compensate for that risk. In pension annuities women are more likely to cost the insurer money by living longer, so they receive less to compensate for that risk. It's no different to insurers looking at my postcode, seeing the number of claims in the area and charging me a higher premium, or charging people different amounts according to the occupation they work in.

    Equality does not mean treating everybody the same, because that ends up discriminating against people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I don't give up my principles for cheaper quote.

    You mean, "I won't give up my principles so that someone else can have a cheaper quote".

    The increased prices will be for women.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    That's not particularly likely if insurance companies cannot use risk factors such as age and gender when setting premiums.

    But it's possible. The total cost of claims isn't going to change.

    If a young man is twice as likely to crash than an older woman, but an insurer can't charge him more, then the insurer will have to start the premiums at the same level. That inevitably means that experience and gender risk will count for litttle, meaning that older people who won't claim will end up seriously subsidising boy racers.

    Young drivers seriously subsidise older drivers at the moment. Allowing insurance companies to offer cheaper premiums for older srivers so they can seel them homke insurance too. Young people are getting ripped off for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with risk.
    Fuck it, I hope they rule against age descrimination based on gender as well.


    The thing you don't seem to be able to get your head around is that men are not overcharged and men do not subsidise cheap premiums for women.

    Don't be cock. I fully understand that men are a higher risk for insuance companies.

    What you don's seem to be able to get your head round is that in for over ten years I have been over charged and I have subsidised cheap premiums for women because I have never once claimed.


    Gender based descrimination through statistical data is either acceptable across the board or it's not. It's not a hard concept to unsderstand.
    Your argument is that insuance companies have nothing else to go on which is quite frankly bollocks.

    You mean, "I won't give up my principles so that someone else can have a cheaper quote".

    The increased prices will be for women.

    Sorry, I thought your argument for the whole thread was that premiums would go up for everybody, including me? Now you're saying it'll only be women who pay more?

    If I did have to pay a bit more than so be it - I don't sell my principles.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Sorry, I thought your argument for the whole thread was that premiums would go up for everybody, including me? Now you're saying it'll only be women who pay more?

    If I did have to pay a bit more than so be it - I don't sell my principles.

    Nah, the argument was that this is the only real way for insurance companies to assess risk - one based on evidence - because it's impossible to do it on an individual basis.

    This change of law means that women will pay more for car insurance. It won't make any difference to men in that regard.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,228 Skive's The Limit
    Nah, the argument was that this is the only real way for insurance companies to assess risk - one based on evidence - because it's impossible to do it on an individual basis.

    There are many factors insurance compaines can use and do already use that are more risk specific to the individual.
    This change of law means that women will pay more for car insurance. It won't make any difference to men in that regard.

    Well than that's wrong - defiantley would liek to see insuance companies using this rulign to increase their profit, but that has more to do with the insurance companies being theiveing fuckers than it does with the principle of what I'm arguing for. sTill if it goes up it goes up.

    Do you get upset when you realise that you pay the same national insurance as a parachuting 30 stone smoker?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't just car insurance, it's the whole industry. They now can't price according to gender risk so everyone pays more and that's what my problem is. Insurers should be allowed to price according to risk, otherwise the safest people are treated unfairly.

    If you don't claim then your premium "subsidizes" everyone else regardless of what you are charged. But I don't see why everyone should pay more for no apparent reason. Interestingly people like Martin Lewis agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There are many factors insurance compaines can use and do already use that are more risk specific to the individual.

    I can argue against them all, just as you would against the male/female one though... ;)


    Do you get upset when you realise that you pay the same national insurance as a parachuting 30 stone smoker?

    Nope, but then "insurance" is just a different way of saying taxation and is used to hide the fact that it *is* taxation. It isn't any kind of insurance really.

    I could use the young drinker as a similar analogy though, knowing what you are trying to get at.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can argue against them all, just as you would against the male/female one though... ;)

    Exactly. Insurers price according to the job that you do, as you see if you ever play about with the settings on a price comparison website. My job doesn't fit neatly into their pre-populated lists so I try different options until I get the cheapest one. There can be big differences, but of course the job I do doesn't affect my ability to drive. It's just that statistically lawyers are more likely to crash than charity workers, so they get charged more.

    It's a very inexact science because insurers don't and can't know what I am like as an individual. They don't know if I'm an excellent driver or a lucky one, so they have to guess according to what they know about me and what they know about people of a similar demographic to me. And, like it or not, young men are more likely to crash than old women, so they pay more because of that risk.
Sign In or Register to comment.