Comments on: What Everybody Needs to Know About Life Insurance

By: ataru no miko

ataru no miko — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:59:05 +0000

@T:

Is this what you’re looking for?

Joint Life
Only a few companies offer this variation, available either as whole life or term, but it is worth mentioning as it can save a significant amount of money and be an option when one person has pre-existing health conditions. Joint life insures two or more people on one policy and for one premium that is more than it would be for the youngest person, but less than it would be for the oldest. The policy can be set up as first to die or second (last) to die (also known as “survivor”) option. The “first to die” pays when the first person on the policy dies and provides a survivor with an income. The survivor or second to die option assumes that the money will not be needed until the last person on the policy dies. Then it provides heirs with a legacy. This variation provides a great tax free way to pay estate taxes.

By: marion

marion — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:22:07 +0000

nice

By: You be the bank

You be the bank — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:21:28 +0000

Finding someone that is more than the average life insurance agent is key if you are looking to use life insurance as something more than death benefit. there are some incredible advantages to using cash value life insurance but they aren’t taught to every producer.

By: nick

nick — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:43:48 +0000

There are lots of big names out there on TV and radio saying that buying term and investing the difference is the only way to go…they are also saying that all you have to do is invest in a 12% mutual fund. I’m not sure where they are finding a 12% mutual fund…and they are failing to calculate the taxes involved which would turn that 12% into around 8%. Every situation is different, find someone you trust to help you with the logistics.

By: Leonard Robbins

Leonard Robbins — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:47:50 +0000

Regarding you SGLI life insurance coverage, the best thing to do would be to read the policy carefully. You will want to look at how long rates are guaranteed, and what the conversion to permanent coverage might be. Talk to a qualified independent agent to get a comparison. Remember, rates are inexpensive at your age because the chance of death is remote. Make sure that you have as many choices as possible later in life when your family may need support.
Good luck!

By: Nick Schneider

Nick Schneider — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 09:40:18 +0000

I just found this site and I am loving these articles. I would like to ask a question about life insurance. First off, I am 25 and single with no dependends. When I joined the military in 2003 I opted for SGLI which was 250k for $19.99/month at the time. It has since been increased to 400k for $27/month which I have automatically deducted from my drill pay (national guard). When I was deployed to Iraq I had two additional policies tailored for the military: SSLI and AFBA (both have no war clause) added which in all totaled $750k… just in case I bit the bullet my dad would be a very wealthy man. I plan on cancelling the two additional policies but wanted to know your advice on SGLI. Every person I have ever spoken with tell me to keep it at max 400k for $27.00 a month because it is so damn cheap. Like I said I am single with no dependends and my father is my next of kin. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow I wouldn’t mind seeing his net worth increase by almost half mil, you dig?

p.s.
about those two i am thinking of cancelling. since i enrolled in those at age 22, they say I can keep my same rate for the life of the product. so if i have no break in coverage i theoretically will be paying my very low age 22 rates even at age 50 correct?

do i even need any of it??

By: Jorge Herrera

Jorge Herrera — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:09:47 +0000

All of the buy term and invest ther rest proponents, including Dave Ramsey and Suse Ormand could make easy $100,000 if able to answer the open challenge on the internet by Pamela Yellen. This challenge has been posted for more than a year already.
The reality is they cannot prove “buy term and invest the rest is better than learning to reduce your wealth transfers and get rid of banks and financial institutions(By the way those are the ones that sponsor Dave Ramsey and Suse Ormond).
They, the buy term and invest the rest, also say that sellers of permanent life insurance offer unrealistic expectations. In the case of whole life insurance promoters, we are backed by about 100 years of performance; in the case of mutual funds and stocks, they are backed by 5 to 15 years, and of course past performance is not guarantee of future performance.
Any way, when you learn the features and benefits of a whole life insurance engineered to perform according to the Infinite Banking Concept, by reading “Becoming your own Banker” written by Nelson Nash, you will be able to help more people. In the mean while the challenge is still posted.

By: Susan

Susan — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:57:35 +0000

Regardless of whether or not one is single, he should have life insurance to cover the costs of death. Children are not the only family to consider in the event of one’s death.

My parents are not in a financial position to pay for the costs of dealing with my remains or the transportation, legal, and general costs of dissolving and liquidating my estate. I have carried a small amount of life insurance for fifteen years to offset such costs for them should the need arise.

Children are often the largest concern as survivors for most people, but think forward to who will be handling your death arrangements and provide financial resources for them to do the job. Otherwise, you might be making an emotionally difficult time financially difficult as well.

By: David Weliver

David Weliver — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:52:00 +0000

You have an excellent point, T. Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer. I’ve never heard of such a policy, even though it makes perfect sense.

My only guess is the insurance companies know they can make a lot more if couples insure both parties to the maximum amount. The chances both parents will die at the same time, though certainly not nil, are slim. That means such insurance couldn’t command a big premium.

If I learn anything else, I’ll post it hear. And if anybody else has an answer, please share!

By: T

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:30:07 +0000

I’ve been trying to be rational about buying a life insurance policy for a bit, and have gotten stuck on something:

My husband and I are both young professionals with advanced degrees and good career prospects, even if our incomes aren’t that high right now. Either one of us could be a functional single parent; if, god forbid, something should happen to one of us, really all the other would need would be a cushion to get back on their feet for a while while recovering. Say, 150k.

If, however, something would happen to both of us… we would want FAR more that twice that amount to be left for our kids. Really, we’d like more on the order of 1-5million, honestly! Enough to cover all costs associated with their care, including money to let them travel back and forth between where my family and my in-laws live (which is on different continents).

So, what we’d like to do is each be insured for ~200k, and have a 5 million “if we both die within 2 years of each other” policy on top of that. But, such a thing doesn’t seem to exist, and I can’t understand why – there have to be other people with the same need! The closest I’ve found is a second-to-die policy, but it’s a bit of a stretch.

Why isn’t this a common need – is there something I’m missing? If it is a reasonable idea, what’s the best way to pursue such a policy?