Insurance Gender discrimination decision is made

[Joel]

^ To be fair, it is discrimination, but there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[blaaah]

The fact simply is that the genders are not the same. Saying they are the same does not make it so. Repeatedly saying they are the same STILL does not make it so.

The law never says the genders are the same that would be crazy, but genders must have equal fair treatment. In this case the same financial expense for insurance.

A high-risk driver paying more for insurance is NOT unfair, nor is it discriminatory. Calling it unfair over and over and calling it discriminatory over and over does not make it so.

That has never been disputed. A male paying more in unfair on gender discrimination. Whether he is high risk or low risk is not relevant to the law.

.. but neither should that high-risk driver with 2 DUIs and 7 accidents over the last 5 years get a free ride on his insurance because some high-risk female has to come up to the same rate.

A male with accidents and claims will pay much more than a high-risk female. As it has nothing to do with gender or gender statistics, it is down to individual case history.

And yes, I understand the risk scales are not going away. Someone with multiple problems will pay more than a clean-record driver, and that's perfectly fair.

So why say the above?

There is simply nothing "fair" about charging women the same as men, when their risk factor is far lower.

The fairness, is equality, what the facts of life are make no difference.

 

[Famine]

The law never says the genders are the same that would be crazy, but genders must have equal fair treatment. In this case the same financial expense for insurance.

So where are my VAT-free male hygiene products then?

 

[blaaah]

So where are my VAT-free male hygiene products then?

You need to give me an example here of what is VAT free and what is not.

 

[Famine]

You need to give me an example here of what is VAT free and what is not.

"Female hygiene products" are sold with a VAT exemption - though charged an equivalent duty of 5%. That's discrimination. Apparently.

 

[blaaah]

If there were male hygiene products I would expect them to also have the 5% tax.
Obviously there is a difference between unisex hygiene products which could fairly have full tax, then male and female specific hygiene products which could have 5% tax. Are you saying there are some discrepancies? If you could list them?
Males are also charged the 5% tax if they wish to purchase female hygiene products, so I can't see an issue yet.

 

[Famine]

If there were male hygiene products I would expect them to also have the 5% tax.

There are. Faces don't shave themselves you know. And they do it at 20% VAT.

Obviously there is a difference between unisex hygiene products which could fairly have full tax, then male and female specific hygiene products which could have 5% tax. Are you saying there are some discrepancies? If you could list them?

Hygiene products for incontinence are at 20% VAT. Hygiene products for female-specific biological issues are at 5%.

Males are also charged the 5% tax if they wish to purchase female hygiene products, so I can't see an issue yet.

I'd be charged the same female insurance rate if I wanted to purchase car insurance for my wife, so I can't see an issue yet.

 

[blaaah]

There are. Faces don't shave themselves you know. And they do it at 20% VAT.

That is not male hygiene, beards are not definitely unhygienic. A razor and cream can be unisex items anyway.

Hygiene products for incontinence are at 20% VAT. Hygiene products for female-specific biological issues are at 5%.

Incontinence is unisex. You don't say what the female specific items are at 5%. I'm still saying if there are specific male related needs on quality of life then they should be at 5% too.

I'd be charged the same female insurance rate if I wanted to purchase car insurance for my wife, so I can't see an issue yet.

But you should not be charged a female insurance rate for your wife, that would be illegal and discriminatory. You should just be charged a rate for your wife.

 

[Famine]

That is not male hygiene, beards are not definitely unhygienic. A razor and cream can be unisex items anyway.

Try using a leg razor on your face. For that matter, try using leg cream on your face*.

Incontinence is unisex.

Hence the example of them not being at reduced rate.

You don't say what the female specific items are at 5%. I'm still saying if there are specific male related needs on quality of life then they should be at 5% too.

Fine. "Menstruation and pregnancy body fluid emission containment products". Not sure how that was unclear to you.


By your arguments, there cannot be "specific male related needs on quality of life" that are different to "specific female related needs on quality of life", because that would be discrimination. As we all know, men and women are identical and should be treated as such.

But you should not be charged a female insurance rate for your wife, that would be illegal and discriminatory. You should just be charged a rate for your wife.

I should not be charged a different rate for female products than I am for male products then.


I suspect you're missing the point very deliberately and hiding behind new, immoral legislation to do so.

Men and women are not the same, they are different. Accounting for these differences is not discriminatory. One of these differences is the weighted risk they pose on the roads - as it is with age, employment type, marital status, location, car type, licence type and past driving record. Making legislation to specifically deny these differences is immoral and ironically discriminatory.


* Do not try this. Always read the label, folks.

 

[blaaah]

Men and women are not the same, they are different. Accounting for these differences is not discriminatory. One of these differences is the weighted risk they pose on the roads - as it is with age, employment type, marital status, location, car type, licence type and past driving record. Making legislation to specifically deny these differences is immoral and ironically discriminatory.

Yes men and women are not the same, therefore any differences are balanced by law to make the differences fair, ie. male have more risk, females less risk, the balance is equalised by making the premiums the same.

With Gender specific health/hygiene related issues there is an imbalance of needs, so the balance is changed by law so females get 5% tax instead of 20% on the things that are essential to them.

A man does not essentially need a razor or cream. That is just fashion and cosmetic.
A woman does not pay low tax on a trip to the hairdressers does she?
But if you are saying a woman pays lower rate tax on a lady razor for legs, then I would think that unfair, as it's a non essential gender specific item.
But do we know if they do get low tax on things like that? When I just looked at a budget report when Brown was planning the matter it was about tampons and sanitary towels, vital things for female hygiene. What are the things vital for male hygiene that need the 5% tax?

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes men and women are not the same, therefore any differences are balanced by law to make the differences fair, ie. male have more risk, females less risk, the balance is equalised by making the premiums the same.

I'll repeat - how is it "fair" that lower risk people pay the same as higher risk people? That is patently unfair.

There is an interesting piece in today's Guardian that points out that the even European Court of Justice (who passed this ruling) openly acknowledge that men and women are not comparable in terms of their relative risk of road accidents, but that they were bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which compelled them to rule the way they did. That is quite bizarre. What they are basically saying is that, despite the reality of the matter which they acknowledge, they had to make this ruling because the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU states that men and women are comparable, period.

 

[blaaah]

Again i'm not saying lower risk. I'm saying lower risk females, it's about gender not risk. It is not unfair for society as a whole, it is unfair for those that would have had an advantage for being lower risk females.
Law is there for the benefit to overall society, not to protect those who have an advantage in life.
In a supermarket we are paying higher prices for food even if we are not disabled. If the supermarket had normal toilets, steps and no ramps or big doors etc. Our food prices would be cheaper. Not by much but the principle is still there. Why should able bodied people be paying more?
Are you saying disabled people should pay more tax and annual subscriptions to supermarkets so they can get privileged access?

 

[Famine]

Yes men and women are not the same, therefore any differences are balanced by law to make the differences fair

All laws enacted in respect of gender are immoral, whether they enforce differences or seek to diminish them. As with race.

With Gender specific health/hygiene related issues there is an imbalance of needs, so the balance is changed by law so females get 5% tax instead of 20% on the things that are essential to them.

Why 5% instead of 20%? If they're vital, why not 0%? Why not make them free? They're also not vital for women past the menopause and prior to the menarche. And in fact not actually vital at all, just convenient.

 

[blaaah]

All laws enacted in respect of gender are immoral, whether they enforce differences or seek to diminish them. As with race.

That is a point of view, contrary to common law thinking. But I get the point.

Why 5% instead of 20%? If they're vital, why not 0%? Why not make them free? They're also not vital for women past the menopause and prior to the menarche. And in fact not actually vital at all, just convenient.

Maybe they should be 0% or free, maybe that is all the government can afford, they could be on the NHS.
The 2nd point I can't see of value, people who don't need them have no use for them and would not buy them. They are considered vital for health and hygiene needs. But if that was proven otherwise then the law/tax could be reversed again.
The debate is a bit skewed on this female tampon things as it doesn't contrast with any similar make need.

 

[Famine]

That is a point of view, contrary to common law thinking.

Not really. All contribute to the public purse, thus the public purse may not discriminate against - or for - any individual or group. Laws enacted to create imbalance or falsely redress imbalance are fundamentally immoral by discriminating for/against individuals who may not opt out of contributing.

Maybe they should be 0% or free, maybe that is all the government can afford, they could be on the NHS.

Neither of those things are free. Both are funded by contributions from the public.

The 2nd point I can't see of value, people who don't need them have no use for them and would not buy them. They are considered vital for health and hygiene needs. But if that was proven otherwise then the law/tax could be reversed again.

They are not vital for health or hygiene. They are merely convenient. Many things are convenient to males - I don't see those subject to VAT breaks.


Do you accept that females present less of a weighted risk than males while driving? Do you accept that driving, and thus car insurance, is opt-in?

 

[TheCracker]

Try using a leg razor on your face. For that matter, try using leg cream on your face*.

Real men use waxing strips on their faces

 

[freedomweasel]

I have discussed it quite a few times before in other threads, but the European court has made it's decision now which can not be appealed. Different prices based on gender are now unlawful. The insurance industry must change their practise. Women's car insurance will go up (around 25% higher). Men's pensions will go down.
So this applies to the whole of Europe. I wonder how America will react to this decision? Does it calculate risk on gender?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/8354197/Women-and-pensioners-insurance-costs-set-to-rise.html
I wonder if we now have the right to not notify of gender on quote forms? You would need a unisex name of course.
There are many people and organisations and politicians who are saying this decision is crazy. I can only assume they are sexist. When you are born into this world you didn't get to choose your gender so why should you exist in your culture and go through life and have to pay a lot more for it than other people of a different gender? It simply gives one gender an unfair advantage in life, and another a handicap.

I'm late to the party on this one, but how is it sexist to have different rates of insurance. Sexism is defined as discrimination on the basis of sex. Insurance rates aren't defined on the basis of sex, they're defined on the basis of statistics showing that certain groups of people are more likely to require the insurance company to pay out money. Those high risk groups should be paying more. If the data has changed, the should change the rates.

I'd argue that making the insurance rate the same by law is the sexist move. You're giving an advantage to a group based solely on their gender.

Group A is 40% more likely to be in an accident than group B, they should be paying more for insurance. If it turns out that group A and B are genders, so be it.

 

[blaaah]

Do you accept that females present less of a weighted risk than males while driving? Do you accept that driving, and thus car insurance, is opt-in?

Yes.
But I think driving can be seen as a socially important aspect of life of which access to should be protected by government.
But the fact that it is opt-in should not effect a gender fairness ruling.

If I wanted to stay in a hotel and I was charged extra because I was male and more of a genuine risk of causing trouble, so extra security staff are needed to cover which need paying for. This would be unlawful. It is gender discrimination. It would not be fraud as the assessment would be true, based on gender, but it is unfair to gender discriminate. If that male was known to the hotel before and got in trouble then he can be charged a high rate or not served at all.
The hotel does not want to charge females extra, but it must to cover the overall costs of the extra security staff. It's not the females fault or the males fault, it's the fault of statistics and discrimination.
I think it is outrageous people are not in favour of this new ruling.

Why don't we just start charging black people more council tax as they require more police time and resources?
Let's reduce their access to school too because they statistically fail it and waste their state paid for education.

I'm late to the party on this one, but how is it sexist to have different rates of insurance. Sexism is defined as discrimination on the basis of sex. Insurance rates aren't defined on the basis of sex, they're defined on the basis of statistics showing that certain groups of people are more likely to require the insurance company to pay out money. Those high risk groups should be paying more. If the data has changed, the should change the rates.

I'd argue that making the insurance rate the same by law is the sexist move. You're giving an advantage to a group based solely on their gender.

Group A is 40% more likely to be in an accident than group B, they should be paying more for insurance. If it turns out that group A and B are genders, so be it.

It's not group A or group B, it's males or females. This is discrimination on gender. Like I said regarding black people you can't do that, even if it's based on the truth and hard scientific fact.

 

[Touring Mars]

Again i'm not saying lower risk. I'm saying lower risk females, it's about gender not risk.

For the purposes of any discussion about insurance - and therefore risk - it is simply not possible to delineate gender and risk as if they have nothing to do with each other. They do. Gender is a clear differentiator in the assessment of risk. So you simply cannot say that "it's about gender, not risk" or "risk has nothing to do with it".

This ruling makes the same mistake that you are making - by ignoring the fact that gender is a factor in road accident risk. Even the people who have made this ruling - the European Court of Justice - atleast accept the fact that men and women are not comparable when it comes to their risk of a road accident, but are compelled to adhere to a Charter which enshrines the fundamentally flawed concept that men and women are comparable in every sense.

@ freedomweasel, I agree... @ blaaah, the point is that it doesn't matter what group A and group B is. Their difference in risk is all that matters in insurance.

 

[soniae74]

Being on the brink of impending financial doom when the changes eventually take place, I must admit that I am somewhat frustrated that they will cost me a lot more of my hard-earned. I only wish I was not as dependent on my cars as I am - maybe I'll just have to cut down to one. However, I am not a hypocrite so must admit that I do, in principal, agree with the decision. After all, we are all equal, regardless of age, sex, colour or religious beliefs and should be treated accordingly - even when the results of equality are not particularly beneficial.

(Although, having received a PM last night asking if I'd like to see a picture of a GTP user's 'manhood', I do sometimes secretly wish we could discriminate against those guity of blatant arrogance, obscenity and sexism).

 

[Touring Mars]

After all, we are all equal, regardless of age, sex, colour or religious beliefs and should be treated accordingly - even when the results of equality are not particularly beneficial.

I reckon that we are entitled to be treated fairly and not discriminated against arbitrarily on the basis of any of these characteristics. But, some of these characteristics (such as age) do affect our insurable risk, hence we are not all 'equal' in terms of risk and hence it is not feasible to be treated as if we are. Certainly, those who are in the business of insuring against those very risks surely cannot be expected to treat people with different risk profiles as if they are equal? Statistically, my chances of dying in the next decade are alot lower than someone much older than me, or someone the same age as me but who is a heavy smoker (or a heroin addict), or someone who is much younger than me but who suffers from an incurable inhereted disease. Insurance premiums are merely a reflection of these differences in risk...

 

[blaaah]

So why are black people not having higher insurance?
The answer is because it's morally unfair racial discrimination, just like gender. But it would be logical to makes those differences on risk, which some of you are suggesting we should maintain to do.
It could be possible to price the black people out of England, using various statistics.
Ethnic cleansing. If you support risk based insurance you support Hitler.

 

[freedomweasel]

Look at my Group A and Group B example. If group A is 20% more likely to need a payout, they should pay more than group B correct?

If you say yes, but then change your mind because in this case the groups are men and women, I believe you to be sexist.

What do you think about young drivers having to pay more?
They pay more because they are more likely to be in an accident. They don't pay more because they're 16, they pay more because they crash into trees more often than the "average person". It's the same situation except instead of age it's gender.

 

[land sea air]

You don't honestly believe that, in the cartel called the British motor insurance industry, anyone will benefit from this except the insurance companies, surely?

Data like this should be used to calculate risk. A girl is more likely to have a low speed, low cost collision. A boy is more likely to have a high speed, high cost collision. The boy is more of a risk and the premium should be higher.

No doubt we'll also see risk assessment based on age thrown out next, as age discrimination? And risk assessment based on occupation thrown out, as wealth discrimination? Or let's just bin the whole thing and charge a flat (and no doubt exorbitant) fee for car insurance, because assessing the risk you pose to an insurer is in breach of the Magna Carta and assumption of guilt before proven guilty.


Utterly ridiculous decision which will only hurt the car driver. Again.

THIS TO INFINITY, seriously I think anyone who thinks this is a win for gender equality needs to better understand how insurance companies calculate risk in the first place, I hope this doesn't happen in the states

 

[Famine]

Yes.

Since driving is opt-in - you have a choice - and females pose less weighted risk to insurers, then insuring them at a lower premium is not discrimination.

But I think driving can be seen as a socially important aspect of life of which access to should be protected by government.

So we can do away with driving tests then.

But the fact that it is opt-in should not effect a gender fairness ruling.

Actually that's exactly why it should affect it.

Why don't we just start charging black people more council tax as they require more police time and resources?

Let's reduce their access to school too because they statistically fail it and waste their state paid for education.

Institutions funded by non-voluntary contributions from the public may not discriminate against any sector of that public - individuals have no choice to opt in and may not opt out. Institutions funded by voluntary contributions from anyone who chooses may discriminate against any group - individuals have choice to opt in and may opt out.

It's not group A or group B, it's males or females.

Yep. Group A and Group B are males and females. You don't invalidate the point by changing the labels.


Car Insurance is opt-in based on your choice to own and drive a car. It is not involuntary contribution. It is not paid for by all members of society according to their means. It is not taxation. It is voluntary. If you choose to opt into owning and driving a car, you opt into buying car insurance. Car insurance premiums are calculated on risk groups according to the risk you pose to the insurer of them having to reimburse you - restore you to the position you were before an accident - in the event of an accident. One of those risk groups is gender - females have a lower weighted accident risk and lower weighted accident cost compared to males and the risk they pose and thus the premium calculated for them is lower.

You accept all of this information yet still don't see that it is not discriminatory nor that creating legislation to deny it is legalised gender discrimination.

 

[Touring Mars]

So why are black people not having higher insurance?
The answer is because it's morally unfair racial discrimination

Nope. The answer should have nothing to do with 'moral fairness', but should be based on whether or not ethnicity has anything to do with increased risk.

Why don't we just start charging black people more council tax as they require more police time and resources?
Let's reduce their access to school too because they statistically fail it and waste their state paid for education.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand - please keep it on topic... we're talking about forcing insurance companies to neglect risk factors, not about anything else.

 

[Joel]

By this same logic I should be picketing at the EU headquarters for a removal of all driving restrictions because I couldn't drive when I was 12.

 

[Alex.]

I'm looking at insurance on an upgrade from my aygo, something a little faster. A polo 2006 1.9 GTI is £3700

 

[Jondot]

I'm looking at insurance on an upgrade from my aygo, something a little faster. A polo 2006 1.9 GTI is £3700

That's because a group 13 hot hatch is to a teenager what a Morphy Richards Turbosteam is to a unsupervised toddler.

 

[Alex.]

Indeed. Going to have to go for a 1.4 Polo I think, sometime in early 2012.