1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Who needs actuaries when we have the European Court of Justice?

Discussion in 'Mathematics' started by ian60, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. ian60

    ian60 New commenter

    "Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled."
    This seems absolutely ludicrous to me, basically it seems that female drivers who are (statistically) far safer drivers will have to pay a load more to support the **** male drivers.
    Are we going to see similar outcomes with age not being allowed as a criteria? Does this mean we will no longer need actuaries (a bit extreme I know, but you'll understand my point).
  2. googolplex

    googolplex Occasional commenter

    Hmmmm, where shall we start? ...................female drivers who are (statistically) less likely to drive and, thereby, less likely to be involved in accidents will have to pay the same as the equally competent male drivers...................
  3. ian60

    ian60 New commenter

    Sorry googolplex, I may be having a prolonged thick moment.
    As someone posted on a similar (i.e. identical thread) on opinion, insurance companies are not obliged to offer you a policy.
    They make their money by looking at your profile and comparing it to similar people and come up with a decision, such as '17 - 24 year old boys are far more likely to cost us money that 17 - 24 year old girls'.
    They then charge you accordingly.
    Why is that wrong?
  4. ian60

    ian60 New commenter

    I may have that wrong, it was more of an assumption than a known fact.
  5. i wouldn't have thought they were obliged - but can offer you any stupid premium they want anyway
    i read somewhere (and it was written by a woman) that 50+ women are riskier drivers than 50+ men

    an actuary: a person who considered accountancy would be too exciting as a career choice
  6. most insurance companies ask your mileage and adjust your premium accordingly, irrespective of gender - ditto for flashier cars
    presume (and has anyone worked in insurance and can provide stats) that
    boys still prang more cars when these factors are allowed for
    clare - i'm an accountant by training - and i'm extremely boring
  7. The more significant implication of the ruling is the impact on pension annuities. As life expectancy for women is higher than for men they currently receive a smaller pension for the equivalent lump sum. This will have to change. So men will see such pensions fall by about 8% which for many will run in to tens of thousands of pounds - far far more than a young woman will lose out because of higher insurance costs. Women will see their pensions rise.
    So why has this story been portrayed as disadvantaging women?

  8. Maths_Mike

    Maths_Mike New commenter

    I know this is all so bad. There are real differences between men and women (thankfully) and its not sexist or breaking human right laws to recognise them.

    More Euro tosh from people so obsessed with political correctness they are actually loosing the plot
  9. The fact is that the issue of insurance for drivers will shrink into insignificance as we learn more about our genetic profile and likely medical problems. If the insurers and life assurers can discriminate against those who have a "genetic defect" then some people could find themselves unable to get life cover except at punitive rates if the actuaries build it into their calculations and risk assessments.
    I don't know what the answer is but I feel that this will be only the start.

Share This Page