Euro vision gives bleak outlook for men's pensions

Men’s pensions could end up as out of tune with reality as this year’s British Eurovision entry, according to Terry O’Halloran, national pensions spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses. That is, if “interfering bureaucrats” in Brussels have their way.

A draft directive from the European Social Affairs Commission’s Anna Diamantopolou plans to outlaw sex based risk assessment, meaning so-called pensions “equality” between men and women.
But, says Mr O’Halloran, “this is not a sexist issue” and if the changes were adopted, men’s pensions saving, already low, would be further disincentivised. “This is purely an issue of mathematics and Ms Diamantopolou and her colleagues need to find better and more productive things to do with their time than interfere with fundamental principles that have stood the test of time in providing equitable value for money for male and female annuitant and insurance purchases based on sound actuarial and commercial facts,” he says.
Using select tables women live, on average, seven years longer than men and therefore their income has to be provided from a pot of money for seven years longer, according to Mr O’Halloran. “It stands to reason that their annuity rates will be lower than those for their male counterparts,” he adds.
The subject of annuity equalisation is one usually sidestepped at pensions conferences, or at best the source of light hearted banter. It may be time to give serious debate to the topic.
Mr O’Halloran maintains: “Men do not complain that women get cheaper life assurance or better rates for motor insurance. They are facts of life because the risks of a claim are lower.” Annuities, then, should be afforded similar treatment.
The proposed directive begs all sorts of questions. Given the choice between living an extra seven years or getting a better annuity rate, what would most people choose?
Cue the cries from the women: we shouldn’t be penalised for living so long!
And from the men: we shouldn’t be penalised for dying so young!
Which is the more compelling argument? Answers on a postcard please.
Tel: 01522 537491