Life Insurance?

Scatmandu wrote:

Maybe I should have explained my wife's chosen lifestyle: home-birthin', breast-feedin', home-schoolin', organic-gardenin', home-cookin', full-time mother of my children who "gave up" a lucrative career as a management consultant to be a home economist.

Ah, so now it's HER chosen lifestyle. The fact that its your view that a mans job is to keep her in that lifestyle is just what, coincidence? How much of the choice was really hers.

Come to think of it, don't bother answering that one. I already know what you're going to say. No need to kid me along with yourself.

We each have our roles: mine is to support the family and its various activities financially; hers is to make that possible. Neither of us could do the other's job;

Life is not a screenplay. In marriages these days both spouses often have to earn money, take care of the children. There is no one role for males anymore nor one role for women. There is no "should" except in the eyes of the Ward Cleaver's of the world.

Here's hoping you manage to join the 21st century sometime. Even joining the 20th would be a big step.

you know, it's okay for him to have a different opinion than you on the roles of men and women in a marriage.

how sad. wrote:

There is no "should" except in the eyes of the Ward Cleaver's of the world.

Here's hoping you manage to join the 21st century sometime. Even joining the 20th would be a big step.

*sigh*; is that the best you have?

Sure--okay, I live in a bubble; but it's a d*mn nice bubble. She seems to like it too (and, FYI, she has made ALL of these decisions; as stated, I merely facilitate her requirements--but you can believe what you need to believe to confirm your own bitter world view).

And the following statement is true in its entirety: I thank every day--EVERY day--Those Powers That Be (some say G-d) for my continuing good fortune; and I am thanked--actually THANKED--by my wife and children in return.

You should search for some of my other threads to see if I have ever said anything otherwise...

Scatmandu wrote:

Sure--okay, I live in a bubble; but it's a d*mn nice bubble. She seems to like it too (and, FYI, she has made ALL of these decisions; as stated,

Who are you trying to convince?

I merely facilitate her requirements--but you can believe what you need to believe to confirm your own bitter world view).

I appreciate your permission to believe what I want to believe. But my "bitter world view" is simply a desire to point out the primitive nature of thinking that states

"In a marriage situation, the man exists to facilitate the chosen lifestyle of the wife"

And that

if you *make* your wife work--because you cannot function without her paycheck--well, um...what good are you, you know, as a man?

Do you understand what a dinosaur you are? I don't think so. Not really. You already envision people "making" their wives work, but we are to believe you didn't "make" yours stay home right? Spare me.

How sad. A shame your wife never married an actual man.

Nikevapor2 wrote:

Hmmm. Yeah its possible jackass. I'm 25 and I make well over $100,000 a year. No need for my wife to work if we have to pay over $800 a month for child care.

can i ask what you do for a living?

Don't have too much to add, but wanted to point out that many people already have some life insurance provided through their employer. Mine is 2x salary. Also I and many other people have access to buy more at group rates. I did not have to go through any underwriting tests, etc. and have my term cheaper than I could get it on the open market--though it can go up on a yearly basis so I don't get an inflation hedge.

A dinosaur? Then a happy one!

When I get a chance, I'll ask my wife to take a look: maybe she'll opine.

we no longer have to converse I ready all I had to read...

his kids are "home schooled"

Buddy as long as you're happy in your life thats great honestly cause thats the most important thing. and its good that you prefaced stuff with the fact that its your opinion like that "support a family" means the wife stays at home however you questioned a lot of manhoods out there when you said if you "make your wife work because you cannot function without her paycheck and in all honesty if had said to my face i probably would have given you a good knock.

but again you home school your kids...try to protect them forever and they'll be dinosaurs just like you.

Whole life is a excellent product for certain situations. The wealthy use it as a tool to pass large sums of cash from one generation to another. Estate planners use it all the time and it makes sense.

The middle class should buy large blocks of term insurance.

Another poster said you should buy Long Term Care when your sixty, not true, if you can afford you should buy it before sixty, its much more affordable when your younger.

You people haven't a clue what you are talking about. I am embarrassed to have wasted my time reading this stuff. Get a life.

Mrs. "Scatmandu"

I have a head cold wrote:

Whole life is a excellent product for certain situations. The wealthy use it as a tool to pass large sums of cash from one generation to another. Estate planners use it all the time and it makes sense.

The middle class should buy large blocks of term insurance.

Another poster said you should buy Long Term Care when your sixty, not true, if you can afford you should buy it before sixty, its much more affordable when your younger.

Whole life is NOT good insurance ever -- not in any situation; you're just flat out wrong on that. The amount of return on whole life insurance is dismal. You are much better off getting term insurance and then putting what extra you would have paid for whole life into a mutual fund.

Also, no one should buy long term care before age 60. Yes it is cheaper if you buy it at 40, but the chance you will need it prior to age 60 is outrageously small. So, you want to pay premiums for years and years before there's even a whiff of a chance that you will need it? Buy at age 60, not before. Buying Long Term Care insurance before you are 60 is like buying extended warranties on products -- don't ever do either. It's throwing your money away.

you're getting out of your league here, flagpole. your investment advice is fine. it's not like you're giving out elaborate advice then - and it's good to keep things simple. but don't start getting into tax or estate planning. you don't have the first clue.

chuck d wrote:

you're getting out of your league here, flagpole. your investment advice is fine. it's not like you're giving out elaborate advice then - and it's good to keep things simple. but don't start getting into tax or estate planning. you don't have the first clue.

You're WRONG brother. Some wealthy people use whole life to set up an insurance trust. They use it to pay estate taxes from the proceeds of the policy. There are other ways to do this than paying into a horrible investment vehicle.

The ONLY reason you should EVER have and keep a whole life policy is if you already have one and can't get other life insurance for some reason.

Example time:

30 year old non-smoker male can get a policy of $125,000 (whole life) for about $100 a month. OR, buy a term policy for 20 years and pay $7 a month. That gives me $93 dollars a month to invest. In 20 years, in addition to having the life insurance, you would have $56,000 (at 9% annual return). Your whole life cash value would be no where near that. Life insurance people make a killing on commission on whole life insurance which is why they want to sell it to you. It's crap. Worst investment vehicle out there -- I don't care if you're wealthy and have little kids when you're old or not. Sorry Chuck d, but I understand it all just fine. Insurance salesmen are not someone to buy investments from. The only possible exception is with SOME VARIABLE annuities, but you have to do your research and get the ones that have a guaranteed floor and decide if you want your money locked up or not. Whole life though sucks every time.

no, i'm not wrong. you have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, what about Universal Life Insurance?

Mid-level premiums (somewhere between term and whole life) along with insurance that doesn't cut out in 15, 20 or 30 years.

If I die, my wife gets 30k+ per year from social security. It gets partially phased out when each kid turns 18 or so. I also will not be an expense either. Insurance is needed to replace the rest. If my wife remarries, then fine, but she will not be forced to for financial reasons. As for universal life, there are a lot of strings attached, like front-end loads sometimes about $800/100k of insurance, and huge exit fees if you want your money early. Why not just invest in a no-strings-attached mutual fund. And no, insurance isn't cheaper if you buy young. The premiums are generally the same, you just have time to accumulate money as cash value, which you can do easier by being in a mutual fund.

chuck d wrote:

you're getting out of your league here, flagpole. your investment advice is fine. it's not like you're giving out elaborate advice then - and it's good to keep things simple. but don't start getting into tax or estate planning. you don't have the first clue.

I often agree with you chuck, but you so often come off as an asshole. You can say the exact same thing in multiple ways and you seem to always choose the way of the ass.

I know there are a lot of jerks on this board, but of the regular posters who use the same name, I would like to expect more out of those ones.

Here is a verrrrrrrrrrrrrry good insurance principle: only insure when you want to eliminate risk. Insurance is always a bad bet, because the insurance companies hire actuaries to set premiums so they will always win over the long haul. Never buy insurance as an investment, or buy early to "save" money. Buy insurance to cover risk you cannot afford to take, like a death. Auto insurance is a good ide, not just because most states require it, but there is a lot at risk, and you could lose everything without it. Extended warranties, and huge policies bought early on in life are a complete waste of time. They rarely cover risk that we cannot afford to live with, and they are bad bets from start to finish.

saywhat?!?! wrote:

Okay, what about Universal Life Insurance?

Mid-level premiums (somewhere between term and whole life) along with insurance that doesn't cut out in 15, 20 or 30 years.

A Univeral Life policy is just a more recent version of Whole Life. The problem with Universal Life is that it is wrapped up with an annual renewable term life policy (or ART). ARTs go up every year based on your age, so it's a HORRIBLE way to pay for term life insurance. If you were to buy a term life policy for 20 or 30 years then you pay a fixed premium based on your age and health when you bought the thing. It does not go up.

What you should do is pay for term life insurance until about age 60 (or sooner). The only reason for life insurance at all is to replace income (or pay for child care) if you or your spouse were to die. If there are no kids in the house anymore and you're 57 with your house paid for and no debt, and you've invested so you will have plenty of retirement money at age 59 1/2, then you don't need life insurance at all.

Buy term life insurance ONLY. Invest enough money so that when the life insurance is over that you are self insured. If for some reason you need a few more years of term life when your current term is over, then buy some more. It is SUPER CHEAP, protects you and your dependents when you are still building wealth, and it doesn't rape you of investment money like a Whole Life or Universal Life policy will. A typical example of a bad whole life policy is that in 10 years of paying on a $20,000 whole life policy, you may have a cash value of about $500. Had you paid for a term lilfe policy and invested the difference, you would have had about four times that much in 10 years.

Whole Life and Universal Life policies have huge fees, and you're just lining the pockets of the insurance salesmen. The only people who got to retire on a Whole Life policy were the salemen who sold them.

There's isn't a worse investment vehicle out there that is commonly sold. They suck. Term life only. Term life only. Term life only.