28 Degrees Card - Is This Age Discrimination?

GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:03
Last edited 30/11/2018 - 13:34 by 1 other user

Sorry for the slightly ''click-bateish'' title, but I had a rather bad experience with my 28 Degrees card recently that I thought was worth sharing and of interest to at least some of you (65 years and older).

After reading a post in this forum about the recent revamping of the optional shoppers protection program, I got all enthused and decided to join up.

Well, when I tried to join up to the program both on-line and in person by phone, I was told that I was ineligible. When I asked why, I was told in exactly these words "because you are too old".

I then read the PDS and it actually does say that the Shoppers Protection Program is only eligible for card members up to 64 years of age.

So my question, is: what is the difference between a teenager who has a 28 degrees card and an 85 year old granny buying a toaster in K-Mart and both wanting Buyer's protection?

Is this legal age discrimination (Age Discrimination Act 2004)? Your comments please?

Financial

Related Stores

Latitude Financial

Comments

robbyjones on 30/11/2018 - 10:05

It is discrimination, yes, but if I had to guess I would say it is because most over 65's are retired and have time to price shop on everything they buy and therefore a bigger risk for 28 deg. Have you asked them why?
- GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:08
  
  +1
  
  Yes, naturally, I asked them. For the level of people that you get access to over the phone, all they can say is that they don't know the reason for this, but is it 'just the policy'.
  - robbyjones on 30/11/2018 - 10:08
    
    +1
    
    Don't you love that answer, it bugs me so much.
    - SirFlibbled on 30/11/2018 - 15:06
      
      +11
      
      It's not like they're going to tell the phone jockies the reasoning for their policies. It's actually better they don't know so they can't say something stupid.
  - srhardy on 01/12/2018 - 17:59
    
    wish you had the conversation recorded as they can go a row for all that. might not get you a creditcard with them but still, it would be sweet revenge as they are on the TV, PAPERS and internet news
- Diji1 on 30/11/2018 - 11:53
  
  +2
  
  So you mean they discriminate because they might actually have to fulfill their obligations.
  
  Why do people lose their money using these things again?
chumlee on 30/11/2018 - 10:11

+12

You old people are tight and too much time on your hands to lodge multiple claims daily/weekly
- GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:12
  
  +37
  
  Maybe, but if you are lucky enough, you will get there one day also!!
  - chumlee on 30/11/2018 - 10:22
    
    +1
    
    Hope so
- Plug on 01/12/2018 - 17:05
  
  -1
  
  Arsehole comment of the day.
  - chumlee on 01/12/2018 - 18:11
    
    +3
    
    It's a joke. Time to take the pole out of your butt
    - smartazz104 on 01/12/2018 - 19:00
      
      +2
      
      Unless he likes it…
- iSamurai on 02/12/2018 - 07:28
  
  I have a chrome plugin that checks the prices of some items that i've bought with the card. doesn't require much time/effort!
  - allegiance86 on 02/12/2018 - 09:53
    
    What extension do you use?
    - iSamurai on 02/12/2018 - 10:23
      
      https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smart-price-monito…
Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 10:14

+6

Its an insurance, so it may fall under the insurance umbrella, thus it's "legal descrimination" and they can get away with it.
ie. Like how certain ages will cost you more or they won't insure you at all because you're high risk with something.
- GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:17
  
  +4
  
  ok, but why is an 85 year old granny a higher risk than a 19 year old teenager buying a toaster in K-Mart a higher risk to them?
  - Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 10:21
    
    +7
    
    My guess is because the insurance includes "repayment benefits" which covers you if you lost your job or something. As an elderly, you have a lower chance of re-employment than a 19yo.
    
    Price protection is only one of the benefits of the card, I doubt you're being rejected for that specific benefit.
    - GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:25
      
      I understand that, but in my case, and like many people over 65, they are retired so the job cover is not relevant!
      - Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 10:30
        
        @GOCAT9: Just to confirm, this card is a credit card?
        
        GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:34
        
        +1
        
        @Ughhh: ok, I'll read the PDS again if you will read my post again. I never said that every >65yo is retired!
        
        What is the card being a credit card got to do with it? It could equally be applicable to a DEBIT card! But I appreciate your comment, thank you.
        
        Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 10:50
        
        @GOCAT9: Im just trying to give a (possible) answer /reason that the staff won't give you.
        
        Many, all, none, some, doesn't matter. Risk Doesn't change in their eyes.
        
        Main deterring factor for lenders is high risk.
        
        whooah1979 on 30/11/2018 - 11:33
        
        +7
        
        @GOCAT9:
        
        What is the card being a credit card got to do with it?
        
        Sect 37 of the ACT.
        
        https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00322
        Credit
        
        (4) This Part does not make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person’s age: (a) in respect of the terms or conditions on which credit is provided to, or may be obtained by, the other person; or (b) by refusing to offer credit to the other person;
        
        if the condition in subsection (5) is satisfied.
        
        (5) The condition is satisfied if the discrimination: (a) is based upon actuarial or statistical data on which it is reasonable for the first‑mentioned person to rely; and (b) is reasonable having regard to the matter of the data.
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 13:49
        
        @whooah1979: 5(b) is not satisfied and hence subsection 5 is not satisfied.
        It is very arguable that it is not reasonable.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 14:21
        
        -1
        
        @Lysander:
        
        5(b) is not satisfied
        
        Because…. you say so?
        
        In what way is denying insurance that's tied to income-earning capacity and possible payout on death based on old age (which directly impacts income earning capacity and likelihood of death), not reasonable?
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 14:35
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: But that's not what happened. If they checked the income-earning capacity and based it on that, it maybe different. But only going by age is not right or reasonable.
        
        I know plenty of 70 year old people who have income of $100000 a year despite being retired, merely through their investments. And they also have sizeable sums in the bank - which can easily repay a credit card debt.
        
        So, ONLY going by age without further checks is not reasonable in my humble opinion as a legal professional.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 14:37
        
        -7
        
        @Lysander:
        
        as a legal professional.
        
        Christ I hope not.
        
        I said:
        
        that's tied to income-earning capacity and possible payout on death
        
        And you managed to… I don't know, miss seeing half of that?
        
        Are you going to say that likelihood of death by old age is also not related to age?
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 16:09
        
        +3
        
        @HighAndDry: Mate, you want to talk about that. I am not talking about that. Plus, just because you are 70 does not mean you are croaking it any day.
        Judging by the behaviour and stupidity of many younger people their chance of dying from abuse diseases and/or stupid conduct are pretty high too.
        Also, they could just not apply that component if it is too much risk.
        
        Finally, I do not know you and you do not know me and yet you are pretty insulting and disrespectful without any justification. What are your qualifications so you can have an attitude of "I am right no matter what and can put other people down if they have a different opinion"?
        All I will comment on that is that when people react like that first time, their argument normally does not have that much merit.
        
        And just for your info: sometimes, even though factually discrimination would be warranted, it can still be illegal.
        Example: different health care tariffs for men and women of the same age based on the fact that statistically women incur a lot more costs due to pregnancies, births etc. can and in some countries are still considered illegal and discriminatory even though they would be heavily backed up and warranted by facts.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 16:10
        
        @Lysander:
        
        I am not talking about that.
        
        Great, but the thread is about that - because the insurance OP wants to buy is about that.
        
        yet you are pretty insulting and disrespectful without any justification.
        
        No, my justification was that I mentioned "A&B", and then you ignored B. Either you can't read, can't follow a line of logic, or are arguing in bad faith. I personally don't care to figure out which.
        
        And just for your info
        
        Does it apply here? No? Then why are you bringing it up here?
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 17:05
        
        @HighAndDry: Funny how you know everything so definitive. Maybe you should be the national decision maker and we can abolish all judges, courts, and lawyers because things are so clear-cut. Right?
        Maybe I did not bring up B because it was not relevant?
        Maybe something composed of two components can still be illegal and discriminatory even if one component is not?
        If they link both together then if even one part is discriminatory and illegal the whole lot is unless they can be separated out - that is then done and interpreted by courts, not by you!
        
        And even if I do not respond the way you want me to, that is till no reason or justification to be insulting and disrespectful as I have not insulted you.
        Manners maketh men!
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 17:13
        
        -2
        
        @Lysander:
        
        Maybe you should be the national decision maker and we can abolish all judges, courts, and lawyers because things are so clear-cut. Right?
        
        Have you seen our current government and court system lately? Yes, I've no doubt I could do a better job if I were given despotic powers (and pesky rebels didn't rise up to challenge my reign).
        
        Maybe I did not bring up B because it was not relevant?
        
        OP is talking about an insurance product that included payouts on death. How is that not relevant? Just because it's inconvenient for your argument does not make something not relevant, in case that needs saying.
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 17:33
        
        @HighAndDry: Not for the argument but for the section of law. If basing a decision on the other component is discriminatory, then even if the death related component is not, the clause/condition as a whole is discriminatory. That's what I am saying.
        The insurance product consists of several components benefits - if only one of them is discriminatory the whole product is (by law, whether you find that reasonable or not is a different matter).
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 17:56
        
        -3
        
        @Lysander: That doesn't make sense - you would have to be a mind-reader to be able to say that the company based its policy-decisions on "age as indicating income earning capacity" instead of "age as indicating probability of death". Not to mention the product itself is not discriminatory - it offers protection for both loss of income and payouts upon death, why there is an age-restriction is not noted, there just is one.
        
        Plus, I haven't conceded that using actuarial data to correlate age to income-earning capacity is invalidly discriminatory. If for no other reason, expected remaining length of working life itself would mean that as age increases, so income earning capacity decreases.
        
        Tl;dr - you're basically as objectively wrong on this point as you could possibly be on a point of law, and I'm really through trying to explain it to you any further.
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 19:48
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: It is funny how you think that you know everything better. I guess 12 years of being qualified (and working) as lawyer and consultant means nothing of course. Again, do you have any legal qualifications? Are you a judge?
        
        I am saying that if the OP was told that he is too old for a products which contain both the income and death protection this could constitute discrimination because it is unreasonable to use age on its own for the income component (as opposed to income earned or income earning capacity which they did not check as there is no info to this extent) while using age on its own might be ok for the death component (although even there further medical check should be done which is why any life insurance asks also medical questions as opposed to merely age!).
        
        In fact, when it comes to income pensioners are preferable very often as they have a steady and reliable income. This is also why many countries are happy to issue visas to pensioners to live in their country and bring money there - this does include Australia.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 20:09
        
        @Lysander: It's the one product. You want them to sell OP half a product?
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 20:16
        
        @HighAndDry: It is one product but parts of it can still be illegal and since it is not separable it means the whole product is illegal.
        Maybe read up on some basic contract law principles - there you can see that whole contracts can be invalid and unenforceable just because one essential component is illegal and unenforceable unless the illegal part is not essential or it can be cured by the court.
        
        Good night mate. Maybe use your energy for something more productive and happy like your family and friends.
        
        I wish you a pleasant weekend.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 21:00
        
        -7
        
        @Lysander: I'm not calling you a liar, and you use terminology that makes me believe that you do have some legal experience, but uh…
        
        It is one product but parts of it can still be illegal
        
        This makes no sense here. The "product" is price protection which operates in two ways - it pays off purchases if you lose your job, it pays them off if you die. This is not illegal in any way shape or form.
        
        You're saying that deciding whether or not to offer it to customers based on age is illegal discrimination if it uses age as an indicator of income earning capacity (I disagree, but let's say you're right), but it still wouldn't be illegal discrimination in using age as an indicator of likelihood of dying - and seeing as how it's the same product, it'd still be perfectly valid to use age as a factor for eligibility.
        
        There's no need to consider severability because "part of the contract is invalid" - it's the same contract, the eligibility criteria inherently has to take into account the whole of the product.
        
        If I have to use an analogy, and I feel like I do, it's like if you had a medication that cures your flu, but causes birth defects in pregnant women. Doctors would discriminate by not offering it to pregnant, or possibly pregnant, women. You can't just say - well no, I want just the "cure flu" part, that doesn't affect pregnant women so if you withhold that, it's illegal discrimination. See how stupid that is?
        
        (Also I'm bored and I went through your comment history. I'll eat my hat if you have 12 years as any kind of professional, much less a legal one. At most you're a third year law student, and even then you'd be a disappointing one.)
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 21:11
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: Choose your hat.
        I am happy to send my qualifications to Scotty, he can confirm them and then you will video yourself eating a hat (and I insist on you eating it) which can then be posted on Ozbargain.
        
        Will you put your money where your mouth is or are you just all talk?
        
        Plus, I ask you again: what are your qualifications? Are you a professional "money recipient" with too much time on your hands?
        
        Finally, you still do not get the fine distinction (by the way your analogy is very flawed but I think you know that) but that's ok. Again, you simply state that the contract is valid without having any further information. While all I am saying is that if the sole reason for rejection is age, then case law shows it would be held invalid but of course more info is required as those cases vary based on the facts.
        
        Are you going to rise to the challenge? I will up it - what about you eat one hat per bachelor degree, two hats per Master's degree, and three hats per PhD degree? You do not have to eat them all at once but can do it over 10 weeks if you like!
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 21:14
        
        -5
        
        @Lysander: Ok, you might just have a reading problem. I said this:
        
        I'll eat my hat if you have 12 years as any kind of professional
        
        You counter with…
        
        I will up it - what about you eat one hat per bachelor degree…,
        
        Did I even mention degrees?
        
        Again, you simply state that the contract is valid without having any further information.
        
        Only you're talking about contracts - the current issue is about refusal to provide services. There's no contract.
        
        Nope, I give up.
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 21:19
        
        @HighAndDry: Mate, to be a lawyer one must have at least one degree these days. In fact, for most professional occupations (or what is called such) one needs to have a degree.
        
        I was admitted in 2006. Now it is 2018. How many years does that make (not even counting my work before the law)?
        
        Refusal to supply can also be illegal - search the ACCC website - easily explained there. Once limb is unconsciability which is very flexible and wide.
        
        Degrees or not, will you stand by your words? I am happy to send all my qualifications to Scotty if you agree to literally eat your hat if he confirms the qualifications and work history.
        Come one - I am sure a vide of you eating your hat would be a hit on Ozbargain and would also make some other people a bit more cautious re their aggression and misplaced boldness.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 21:21
        
        -2
        
        @Lysander:
        
        Mate, to be a lawyer one must have at least one degree these days. In fact, for most professional occupations (or what is called such) one needs to have a degree.
        
        Yes, but just because you have a degree, wouldn't make you a lawyer. It's a "all ducks are birds, not all birds are ducks" kind of basic logic thing.
        
        Again, I'm a little sad law degrees are so devalued now. (or since 2006).
        
        And in case you haven't gotten the hint, no, I wasn't really interested in getting into an online pissing contest with a crazy person who's willing to send his qualifications and work history to an online forum moderator to win said pissing contest. Christ wtf?
        
        Lysander on 30/11/2018 - 21:24
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: Hm, a degree, the PLT, training contract, admission - yeah, that makes me a lawyer!
        I am little sad that there are still people who just comment for the comment's sake regardless of whether it is appropriate for them to comment but of course on the other hand I am grateful as if there were not such people my colleagues and I would have a lot less work.
        So thank you HighAndDry.
        I thought that you are all just talk.
        
        Have a nice night. And if you still cannot find a more productive activity, go and harass someone else with 10% knowledge bites, please.
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 21:26
        
        -1
        
        @Lysander: Yay! Congrats to you I guess. Have a good night Lysander.
        
        Ok, one last attempt because I think there's an easier way to explain it, and I do apologise for getting side tracked earlier.
        
        This is an insurance product, so everything is about risk. The risk of a claim here is something like [A (risk of losing income aka income capacity) + B (risk of dying aka.. dying)]. The total risk is (A + B).
        
        Even if you're right and age can't be validly used as an indicator of A so A = 0, (A + B) can still be too high to insure, if just B is too high, B being chance of the person dying and validly indicated by old age.
        
        So if the cut-off is (A + B) being too high, this can validly be true if just B is too high.
        
        Entropy Sky on 01/12/2018 - 20:22
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: Nice to see you here again Dr High of Royal College of OZBargain, who specialise in Omni Knowledge of Cosmos.
        
        Ughhh on 01/12/2018 - 12:07
        
        @Lysander: Would you lend $20k to an 80yo who has common old age illnesses?
        
        Lysander on 01/12/2018 - 13:49
        
        @Ughhh: Yes, I would if they had a steady income and assets.
        
        Plus, you are introducing a new factor. Has the OP said that he/she has got a common old age illness which presents a risk of him.her dying in the next month?
        
        The point is, a decision ONLY based on age is discriminatory. If they did a health check etc. too, then that is FINE.
        However, that is NOT the case here.
        
        So you see, we are not disagreeing - you just introduced an additional factor which according to the info the OP has provided does not come into play.
        
        Plus, 64 years old in a time where life expectancy is over 80 is not that old.
        
        whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 13:54
        
        @Lysander:
        
        The point is, a decision ONLY based on age is discriminatory.
        
        The credit issuer is allowed to deny an application for credit based on age as long as it doesn't violates section 37.
        
        Ughhh on 01/12/2018 - 14:49
        
        @Lysander:
        
        Has the OP said that he/she has got a common old age illness which presents a risk of him.her dying in the next month?
        
        Common means common, not rare. As far as I know, lenders look further than just 1 month when calculating ability to pay and thus the risk. If you really are a lawyer, I'm sure you would know debt recovery and court proceedings can take longer than 1 month or 'next month'.
        
        The decision isn't based on age number alone, it's the risk that comes with age, info gathered from statistics. You don't need to be a doctor to know a 70yo falling down stairs is more likely to be more severely injured than a 20yo body. How is a health check going to help? In addition, a policy requesting every elder applicant to do a health check would be followed by a massive PR problem.
        
        smpantsonfire on 01/12/2018 - 11:20
        
        @Lysander: If that's their income, why would they need to apply for a credit card?
        
        Lysander on 01/12/2018 - 13:46
        
        +1
        
        @smpantsonfire: Because you need a credit card to pay for many things such as things online. Also, paying by credit card has legal protections over paying with a credit card.
        I think a lot of people do not need a credit card because they need the credit on it but because it is a payment tool.
        Are you telling me that your 70 year old father who worked all his life and now gets a decent pension should not have a credit card?
        When I was a student it was difficult to even book a bargain flight as I had no credit card and by the time BPay or something else was done, the offer was gone.
        I have never needed a credit card for the credit - merely as a tool for paying.
      - chillin222 on 02/12/2018 - 12:49
        
        @GOCAT9: If you go and listen to CBA's testimony at the Royal Commission, you will see they got absolutely roasted for selling CC insurance to customers who weren't eligible to claim all the benefits (e.g. students/unemployed). I imagine this is the reason.
        
        The real question is why this product is called 'Shoppers Protection' when really it is a form of life insurance. There may be some regulatory reason why they've had to bundle the products together.
        
        In any case, the true culprit here is probably our nanny state.
HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 10:40

So my question, is: what is the difference between a teenager who has a 28 degrees card and an 85 year old granny buying a toaster in K-Mart and both wanting Buyer's protection?

To be blunt? Because the 85 year old is more likely to kick the bucket and not repay their debts/or be able to be pursued for those debts.
- Tech5 on 30/11/2018 - 10:53
  
  How does that apply to buyer protection?
  - Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 11:07
    
    The buyer protection is an insurance, looks like its charged depending on the balance, so it's not prepay like regular car Insurance. Technically, you have a debt during that period. I think it's capped at $50, but I assume the lender and their legal finance team has decided on risk VS reward.
    - Tech5 on 30/11/2018 - 11:14
      
      Ahh I see. I thought it was just for price protection
      - Ughhh on 30/11/2018 - 11:33
        
        +1
        
        @Tech5: It also covers you if you lose your job, injured and unable to work and even death. So there is risk involved for 28 degrees, not just a simple $30 refund for a toaster.
- GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 10:53
  
  yep, fair enough, I agree with that. It's just a pity then that people cannot elect to have the price protection part and waive the age related (job/death etc) part of the insurance!
  - Seedy seed on 30/11/2018 - 11:00
    
    +3
    
    Better yet, get a fake id!
  - HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 11:39
    
    +1
    
    https://www.ratecity.com.au/credit-cards/price-protection-gu…
    
    There are a few other (possibly not as suitable) options if all you want is price protection.
whooah1979 on 30/11/2018 - 11:27

+3
(Age Discrimination Act 2004)?

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/cons…

AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT 2004 - SECT 37
Credit

(4) This Part does not make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person's age: (a) in respect of the terms or conditions on which credit is provided to, or may be obtained by, the other person; or

(b) by refusing to offer credit to the other person;

if the condition in subsection (5) is satisfied.

(5) The condition is satisfied if the discrimination: (a) is based upon actuarial or statistical data on which it is reasonable for the first-mentioned person to rely; and (b) is reasonable having regard to the matter of the data.
- GOCAT9 on 30/11/2018 - 11:37
  
  +1
  
  good relevant post, thank you for that.
  - Diji1 on 30/11/2018 - 12:13
    
    Let's hope you can do something as the Liberal Party and the Labour Party do not support citizen's over big business.
    
    For example, the Liberal Party is obsessed with passing a free trade agreement called the TPP that it attempted to keep secret from the population. The only reason we know about it is Wikileaks. The TPP would give multinational corporations the right to sue the government itself to change conditions in the country.
    
    You must understand, the Liberal Party is fighting to get this agreement in place even as Trump pulled the USA out of it. It is fighting to have multinational corporations control the country.
    
    The TPP will give Citibank the right to sue the Australian Government to remove age discrinination.
    - whooah1979 on 30/11/2018 - 12:19
      
      +1
      
      Section 37 of the Act works in Citibank's favour. Why would they sue?
    - chumlee on 30/11/2018 - 12:29
      
      +1
      
      When the TPP agreement was reached by the participanting countries, each one claimed it would be a great deal for their countries. That told me that it's a dud deal and for one country to win, another has to lose. I suspect Australia will be a loser in the TPP
    - HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 13:15
      
      -1
      
      the Liberal Party is fighting to get this agreement in place even as Trump pulled the USA out of it.
      
      Never in a million years would I have picked you to agree with Trump…
    - Baysew on 30/11/2018 - 14:34
      
      +1
      
      The only reason we know about it is Wikileaks
      
      I think you are confusing Wikileaks with Wikipedia Trans-Pacific Partnership
      - HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 14:40
        
        -1
        
        @Baysew: Please don't make me defend Diji1 =(
        
        But they're actually right on this point - the details of TPP negotiations only came out because Wikileaks obtained internal position papers (iirc) of some of the major countries. Under the Secrecy of Negotiations section of the Wiki(pedia) page:
        
        As with many trade agreements, until being finalized, negotiations for the TPP were conducted with significant secrecy. Drafts of the agreement were kept classified during negotiations, and access to the working text was significantly restricted even for government officials and business representatives involved in the talks.[201] Despite this, some sections of TPP drafts were leaked to the public by WikiLeaks, which published an intellectual property chapter draft in 2013,[202][203] an environmental chapter draft in 2014,[204] and the final intellectual property chapter in 2014.[205]
        
        Baysew on 30/11/2018 - 18:15
        
        +1
        
        @HighAndDry: Rather than defending him, could you tell me the name of the mysterious party, that isn't Liberal or Labor, that Diji1 wants all us idiots to vote for.
        
        (There was no secret TPP, the negotiations are secret as stated further down in the article.)
        
        "some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise."
        
        HighAndDry on 30/11/2018 - 18:34
        
        +1
        
        @Baysew: Yeah, there are valid reasons for being anti-TPP, but "OMG they were done in secret!" was not one of these. All major international agreements are negotiated in secret. Considering what an absolute dumpster fire modern day social media (and even mainstream media) is, this should not come as a surprise to anyone.
        
        And, well…
        
        could you tell me the name of the mysterious party, that isn't Liberal or Labor, that Diji1 wants all us idiots to vote for.
        
        I think Lysander had a bright idea that
        
        Maybe you should be the national decision maker and we can abolish all judges, courts, and lawyers because things are so clear-cut. Right?
        
        So, maybe I am the solution Diji1's been looking for all along!
        
        Baysew on 01/12/2018 - 11:33
        
        +2
        
        @HighAndDry: The hat eating challenge is a far more appealing idea.
stirlo on 30/11/2018 - 12:26

+1

Are you sure it's not because the insurance product includes the life/disablility/income insurance and the price protection cannot be separated as their all in the same PDS? I'm pretty sure it would not be just for price protection but rather the other benefits which would be more risky to provide to the elderly
derpdeder on 30/11/2018 - 13:43

+1

No, it is not discrimination. Not sure why Whooah1979 is quoting credit lending discrimination exemptions, but it is related to insurance, not credit and is just above it in the Act but basically says the same thing.

There are a number of elements of the Shopper Protection Insurance that are affected by age, particularly on the Balance Benefits part of the policy. These relate to death/disability/involuntary redundancy, which 28 Degrees have judged higher risk (must be backed by data) than they are willing to accept as part of their complimentary insurance. Just the same way complimentary travel insurance generally excludes people of a certain age.
FoodnTravel on 30/11/2018 - 14:07

I haven't read much of this post but putting my 2 cents in. Does this card offer travel insurance? Travel insurance can be a lot more expensive to cover an 85yr old vs a 19yr old. However, saying 'you are too old' is perhaps honest but unprofessional. You would think they would say you do not satify our criteria.
peterw1 on 01/12/2018 - 10:58

-4

as we now accept gender fluidity maybe you should initiate age fluidity.
Hardlyworkin on 01/12/2018 - 15:52

Do you need shoppers protection for purchasing crocs?
Herbse on 01/12/2018 - 17:12

Maybe because old people will rack up a credit card debt and then die?..
jno on 01/12/2018 - 19:50

+2

I work at a bank and most lending policies are difficult for 65 and over, just the way it is.

Its riskier because you either retired now or will be retired soon and how will you afford repayments and etc without hardship

Responsible lending and all that ya know
MarsTitan on 01/12/2018 - 22:07

Yes
sabracad on 02/12/2018 - 01:25

I'd speculate it's because the insurance is all inclusive. There are a number of components - eg. those associated with payout of card balance where the claim rates would be substantially higher as age increases. A more widely held policy would have tiered premiums - it's probably not worth their while for the hassle.

28 Degrees Card - Is This Age Discrimination?

Related Stores

Comments

New Forum Topics