Ignorant EU Tosspots: We Must All Be Equal!

Even when we\’re not all equal.

Male pensioners will lose up to £10,000 in retirement income due to the introduction this week of European Court rules banning sex discrimination by financial firms, a report warns.

I\’ve been shouting about this for years: so at least we can tell what my influence on the public debate is, ie, none.

Women live longer than men thus any pot of money set aside to provide an annuity for men will produce more per year in income than the same pot for women.

Similarly (against all the jokes) women drivers are safer than male. Thus insurers offer them lower insurance rates. (I have a feeling that that safety doesn\’t actually come from dings and dents. The really expensive part of car insurance is insuring everyone else on the road against being slammed into at high speed. The catastrophic stuff. And my feeling is, backed up by no evidence at all, that women do this part less than men, not the breaking a tail light in a parking disaster.)

This is now also illegal.

So how did we end up with an entire continent run by idiot fuckwits who would deny the simple evidence of the real world? Sure, of course, The French have always acted this way. But how did we ever allow a system of governance that does this?

Can we leave yet?

18 comments on “Ignorant EU Tosspots: We Must All Be Equal!

  1. I’m looking forward to them banning age and disability discrimination in pension annuities. Why should crippled 65-year-olds be entitled to more from their pot than me, a healthy 30-something.

  2. I don’t understand those calculations. If men’s annuity payment are falling from £5,900, from £6,500 (per 100k), and 80% of annuities are men’s, then for it to be revenue neutral (which I assume it must be) women’s must be rising to £5,900 from just £3,500.

    I don’t think there was that much difference between men and women’s annuities.

  3. no, Tim, you cannot evaluate your influence on the debate

    this is the EU, there is no debate…

  4. Really, who is now going to tie money up in a 30 year investment like a pension when there is NO certainty that some progressive or far-left loons aren’t simply going to plunder it?

  5. The explanation is that the high priests of the new religion, political correctness, have no interest in reality: just the high priests of more traditional religions have no interest in reality.

  6. How did we end up? Hmm. Well, the New Left (as opposed to the Old Left), and particularly second Wave Feminism, are a predominantly Anglospheric, and in that predominantly American, phenomenon. (And even more precisely, in that, a predominantly American Jewish phenomenon).

    So the answer would be something like “because we decided to adopt the philosophy of a handful of neurotically pushy American Jewish Princesses”. Something like that.

    So why did we adopt that? Well, the answer there is American hegemony. Any hegemons- Romans, Ancient Greeks, Britain (when an imperial superpower) tends to generate dominant cultures and discourse. Hence Indians and Chinamen wearing English business suits and so on. With the rise of the USA to superpower status, politics on both left and right (and libertarians and left anarchists and other minors too) are basically using american paradigms and discourses.

    It’s really astonishing to realise the power of “right place at the right time”. The likes of Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin, in other times and places, would have been dismissed as unhinged. But, in the right place at the right time, they changed the world. It’s quite remarkable really. But that’s the why of it, anyway.

    In another century’s time we might all be copying the Indians and the Chinese.

  7. Actually the reason why recent pensioners are poorer is down to the very clever banking regulators who have distorted interest rates. If anyone, male or female, bought an inflation-linked annuity at NRA just before the ECJ (not EU) ruling came into effect he/she would need to live 7 years beyond life expectancy (92 against 85 for men, 96 against 89 for women) just to get his/her money back without interest.
    Methusaleh could have bought a higher annuity in 1997 than an “impaired life” (heavy smoker or drinker or with a history of heart disease) can today.
    Of course this is wrong but if you are concerned about male pensioners curse Brown, Bernanke and King (and particularly David Blanchflower whose remedy for over-indebted governments is to combine low interest rates with high inflation).

  8. I’ve started going to the gym again.

    When I retire I am going to set myself up as a love god and make a fortune fornicating boisterously with lonely millionairesses who will want to give me lots of money.

    Beats working for a living or trying to live off a minimum pension.

    Anyone got a better plan?

  9. @ BertEBassett
    True
    I have pointed out previously that women have more accidents per mile and the data shows that women are involved in more two-car collisions than men despite there being more male drivers.
    However the argument is about under-25 drivers where the cost to insurers is much higher for male than female drivers.
    Incidentally it does not apply for older drivers: when the younger boy went to college my wife sold her car and effectively took over mine so the premium went up because *she* was the main driver instead of me and our insurer deemed that I, a male, was lower risk.

  10. just before the ECJ (not EU) ruling

    But the ECJ, unlike the ECHR, is, in fact, part and parcel of the EU? It ain’tn’t the Commission, the Council of Ministers nor even the Parliament of Fools but it is part of the fundamental structure of the great Gramscian experiment.

  11. Clearly, it’s now insane for a man to put money into a pension. So soon only women will have pensions, and the anomaly will disappear.

  12. Actually, it’s hard to see how the judges of the CJEU could have come to any other conclusion, bound as they were by the provisions of EU Council Directive 2004/113 which implemented equal treatment of men and women in terms of access and supply of goods and services. So criticism of the recent CJEU judgement is misplaced.

    It could be argued that the Directive itself was wrong to remove insurers’ rights to calibrate premiums based on the sex of the insured. It’s hard to make an assessment, given the insurance industry’s notorious reluctance to provide transparency in the ways that premiums are loaded. They do love to talk about “boy racers”, but not every young man scorches around the roads at weekends.

    It may be that the implementation of the Directive might prevent insurance companies from mining premiums based on broad brush generalisations rather than more sophisticated and therefore more expensive analysis. This would certainly be fairer; it can’t be assumed that insurance companies have been hitherto been acting in the best interests of the public.

    Incidentally, I don’t understand the sideswipe at the French. Their position on this issue is exactly the same as the UK’s.

  13. I forgot to mention that in 1964 the US banned discrimination on the basis of sex in connection with pension funds. Does that make them ignorant tosspots too?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>