TheBoss! wrote: » Only a neanderthal cavewoman would believe that women should have cheaper car insurance. Your suppression of us men based on our weaknesses is coming to an end, do you hear me, an end!!
bluewolf wrote: Because it has nothing to do with equality, it should be based on stats. Much like women paying more to purchase an annuity is fair and based on stats.
Stark wrote: » As far as I know, the law around annuities has changed as well.
GalwayGuy2 wrote: » Well to be fair (statistics or not) you shouldn't charge men more because they're seen as bad drivers. That's like a company hiring a woman because there's more chance of her getting pregnant and needing time off (in relation to pregnancy) than a man.
Davion Wrong Orangutan wrote: » And he's off. Welcome back, Pete.
TheFruitarian wrote: » Yeah sure, I'd say you welcomed him back with the use of the report button. He was obviousily joking about the cavewoman thing. Guess his post last night winding you over modding CVP&L, when it used to be AH, must have hit a sore spot. What was it you said in reply, that you didn't know how you'd make Cmod now? Well, seems clear how you're gonna try anyway.
phoenix0250 wrote: » The insurance system in Ireland is ridiculous and over-priced to begin with. Firstly, its silly that both you and the car have to be insured. Ie. even if your bike is insured your wife cannot drive your car or you are insured but cannot drive your friend's...this creates an unnecessary limitation of who and when drives what. They have a great system in Australia where you pay a fee covering both motor tax and insurance (both depending on the type of vehicle). Done!... vehicle taxed and insured with anyone able to drive it (as long as they have the required licence of course) This erases age +gender discrimination and makes it fair as insurance is compulsory and no type of people are being ripped off. All for ~€250 a year.
TheFruitarian wrote: » Guess his post last night winding you over modding CVP&L, when it used to be AH, must have hit a sore spot. What was it you said in reply, that you didn't know how you'd make Cmod now? Well, seems clear how you're gonna try anyway.
bluewolf wrote: » Because it has nothing to do with equality, it should be based on stats.
bluewolf wrote: » Because it has nothing to do with equality, it should be based on stats. Much like women paying more to purchase an annuity is fair and based on stats.
1210m5g wrote: » If the stats showed that black and asian people were a higher risk should all of them have to pay more?
pmcmahon wrote: » over charging men for insurance-fair over charging women for insurance-chauvinistic profiteering. sigh.
poeticseraphim wrote: » Women have tp put up with being asked 'will you have kids' in job ineterviews and THAT being used against us.. If there truly was genedr equality this would work....there isn't..
peoticseraphim wrote: » But glad you boys are starting to see the light 'GENDER EQUALITY ROCKS'...so maybe you remember that
poeticseraphim wrote: » Just to point out...no man is actually going to pay less............and Insurance companies have used the eu (WHO WERE STUPIDLY BLIND AT THE POTENTIAL PROFITEERING) regulation to rip more people off. No man will actually benefit from this.
Hal Decks wrote: » The Insurance market is very competitive. If you toe the line your premium will not scare you. Act the maggot and you will pay.
Net income fell to $1.08 billion from $1.33 billion a year earlier, the Zurich-based company said in a statement today. ... Meanwhile, operating profit at Zurich's Irish operations dropped from $15 million in 2011 to $9 million in the first six months of this year, while new business after tax declined from $33 million to $31 million.