Masculen Titan Male Enhancement 100%...
Food & Drink2 mins ago
Equality long overdue?
52 Answers
http://
Now that young male drivers will soon have true equality with young female drivers, is it now time that Insurance companies used the increase in female insurance, so as to decrease the huge premiums that young males have been paying for years?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
Then be prepared to be offended my dear, they are not all 'BOY RACERS' you know, but unlike you, they have been forced to pay these sums for years.
Now that young male drivers will soon have true equality with young female drivers, is it now time that Insurance companies used the increase in female insurance, so as to decrease the huge premiums that young males have been paying for years?
/// Experts fear that young women will be priced off the road if forced to pay the same high premiums as ‘boy-racers’. ///
/// Kelly Wright, 23, from Salford, Greater Manchester faces a hike from £890 a year to about £1,600. ///
/// She said: ‘I cannot afford this increase so would have to give up my car and therefore my job. It offends me that I will be in the same bracket as boy racers.’ ///
Then be prepared to be offended my dear, they are not all 'BOY RACERS' you know, but unlike you, they have been forced to pay these sums for years.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's an interesting subject this, because it has implications for other areas.
For example, if it's ok for insurance, how do people feel about the police targeting certain racial groups for random searches based on risk profiling?
Equally, should fat people or certain age/sex groups pay more NI than others because statistics show they're more likely to need hospital treatment?
For example, if it's ok for insurance, how do people feel about the police targeting certain racial groups for random searches based on risk profiling?
Equally, should fat people or certain age/sex groups pay more NI than others because statistics show they're more likely to need hospital treatment?
Yes, it should be OK for insurers to charge (say) Chinese drivers higher premiums if it can be shown that they are more likely than others to make claims. It is no different to charging motor traders more or seventeen year olds more. The trouble is that the European Equality Industry (aided and abetted by Harriet Harman’s ludicrous Equalities Act) deliberately chooses to interpret actuarial decisions based on statistical analysis as discrimination.
The idea of individual assessment (if it could be realistically managed) is nonsense:
Customer One - Forty years old, driving for twenty years with no accidents or claims but one speeding conviction. Premium £250.
Customer Two - Seventeen years old. Driving for a week. No accidents, claims or convictions. Premium (because he has fewer convictions) £200.
Insurers take all sorts of things into consideration when assessing risk and to suddenly announce that they are considered discriminatory because they recognise that one group of people is more likely to be involved in an accident than another is incongruous.
Insurance premium assessment is not, as jake suggests, about discrimination. It would be discrimination if insurers said “You are Chinese so we are charging you a higher premium”. But what they are saying is “Our statistics show that Chinese [or young/old/male/female/airline pilots/vicars or whatever] drivers are involved in far more accidents than others and so we are charging you a higher premium”. It’s a completely different proposition and provided it can be supported by appropriate data to suggest that it is discrimination shows a complete lack of understanding of both the insurance business and of discrimination.
To move to other areas as ludwig suggests is very appropriate. If the police can show that their intelligence suggests a particular group is more prone to commit crime than others then it makes absolute sense for them to direct their limited (and diminishing) resources towards that group. However, the equality industry thinks otherwise and we have the ludicrous situation where police have to waste their time stopping people about whom they have no suspicions whatsoever just to demonstrate they are being “”fair” (or perhaps more accurately, “not unfair“)..
Finally, NI is a different matter entirely. It is no longer an insurance scheme but is just a method of additional direct taxation where the proceeds do not necessarily benefit the “policyholders“. An “actuarial” approach to premiums is not appropriate any more than it would be when assessing Income Tax.
The idea of individual assessment (if it could be realistically managed) is nonsense:
Customer One - Forty years old, driving for twenty years with no accidents or claims but one speeding conviction. Premium £250.
Customer Two - Seventeen years old. Driving for a week. No accidents, claims or convictions. Premium (because he has fewer convictions) £200.
Insurers take all sorts of things into consideration when assessing risk and to suddenly announce that they are considered discriminatory because they recognise that one group of people is more likely to be involved in an accident than another is incongruous.
Insurance premium assessment is not, as jake suggests, about discrimination. It would be discrimination if insurers said “You are Chinese so we are charging you a higher premium”. But what they are saying is “Our statistics show that Chinese [or young/old/male/female/airline pilots/vicars or whatever] drivers are involved in far more accidents than others and so we are charging you a higher premium”. It’s a completely different proposition and provided it can be supported by appropriate data to suggest that it is discrimination shows a complete lack of understanding of both the insurance business and of discrimination.
To move to other areas as ludwig suggests is very appropriate. If the police can show that their intelligence suggests a particular group is more prone to commit crime than others then it makes absolute sense for them to direct their limited (and diminishing) resources towards that group. However, the equality industry thinks otherwise and we have the ludicrous situation where police have to waste their time stopping people about whom they have no suspicions whatsoever just to demonstrate they are being “”fair” (or perhaps more accurately, “not unfair“)..
Finally, NI is a different matter entirely. It is no longer an insurance scheme but is just a method of additional direct taxation where the proceeds do not necessarily benefit the “policyholders“. An “actuarial” approach to premiums is not appropriate any more than it would be when assessing Income Tax.
The idea of individual assessment (if it could be realistically managed) is nonsense:
Yeah of course it is .... it must be, if you think so.
There are people who make a living falsely claiming from insurance companies, if not a living, a 'nice little earner'
I am contributing my hard earned to their 'theft'
Yeah of course it is .... it must be, if you think so.
There are people who make a living falsely claiming from insurance companies, if not a living, a 'nice little earner'
I am contributing my hard earned to their 'theft'
There's a difference between discrimination and prejudice
One particular way of looking at this is that you could say that insurance companies should be free to discriminate provided that it's based on sound statistical evidence.
If it cn be shown that Chinese drivers do represent say a genuine statistically significant lower risk then they should be free to offer lower premiums. Or of course vice versa.
I'm not saying that I'd personally agree with such a course of actuion there may well be subtlties I've not thought of but it's one possible course of action.
One particular way of looking at this is that you could say that insurance companies should be free to discriminate provided that it's based on sound statistical evidence.
If it cn be shown that Chinese drivers do represent say a genuine statistically significant lower risk then they should be free to offer lower premiums. Or of course vice versa.
I'm not saying that I'd personally agree with such a course of actuion there may well be subtlties I've not thought of but it's one possible course of action.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.