"cal lester" <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> wrote
- quote -


I don't want to get into an argument with you, Cal Lester,
but from a Do-it-yourselfer standpoint, I really feel the
statements above are remiss.

AFAIC, life insurance is an investment like any other, and
so necessarily a gamble. But perhaps we're just quibbling
over semantics.

I know you qualify your statement about the purpose of life
insurance with the word, "primary," but in the same breath,
you seem to be shooting down the previous posters' comments.
By far, I prefer the summary of purposes given at
http://www.alcos.com/app.php?id=135&sec=4 . See especially
the section on "For Personal and For the Family."

I am acquainted with people who buy life insurance for
"wealth creation," subsequent to their deaths and for use
within the family, and this makes sense to me. Evidently so
marketing its product makes sense to Alcos, too.

You seem to be thinking more in this vein with your
subsequent comment about charities.

"Sgt.Sausage" <someone[at]microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:55cb3$43bb2b06$42a1e606$13844[at]FUSE.NET...
- quote -


There should NOT be a "benefit" to anyone. That borders
on GAMBLING. Life Insurance is NOT a GAMBLE, nor
should it be used as such. It's primary purpose is to provide
a "replacement" of the income that would be LOST with DEATH.


- quote -

ABSOLUTELY ! ! ! ! It is an EXCELLENT way to
provide for your favorite charity or alma-mater. As a
matter of fact, if the charity is made the OWNER of the
contract, then in MANY cases, the Annual Premium
could be treated as a Charitable Contribution (tax deductible).

Cal Lester CLU

"BRH" <BRH[at]giganews.com> wrote in message
news:jIadneDt6-NJhybenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

That, to me, is the important part. Have enough assets -- be it
insurance or other, that some long lost "next of kin" doesn't get
stuck holding the bag for burial/cremation/<whatever> costs.

If there's no one to benefit as the named benificiary (spouse,
child, other), then you're simply wasting your hard-earned
money.

My wife and I are similar -- no children, but we do have
each other. We're both professionally employed and could
more than maintain our current lifestyle on a single one of
our paychecks, and have enough assets to cover 20 years
worth of living. We have no need of this type of insurance,
and have none. It would be pointless.

OTOH, if it's provided by work, and cheap - as in doesn't
cost you a thing -- why not name your favorite charity as
the beneficiary (question to others: is this legal?)

"BRH" <BRH[at]giganews.com> wrote in message
news:jIadneDt6-NJhybenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d[at]comcast.com...
- quote -

You are 100% correct. Unfortunately MOST people do NOT understand
the BASIC purpose of ANY Life Insurance Policy. Other than to make
a profit for the Carrier, the BASIC purpose for the Insured is to provide a
specific number of DOLLARS at a specific time (USUALY at DEATH).

Based ONLY on the information given above, I agree that there is NO
NEED for Life Insurance at this time.
You might want to look at Disability Coverage, if you do not have any
that YOU OWN..........

Cal Lester CLU (42 years)

BRH wrote:
- quote -

You are absolutely right: you don't need any insurance as long as you
leave enough money to settle up your debts and pay for your burial.
Technically, you don't even have to have enough money to cover your
debts and burial since, by definition, you can't possibly suffer any
negative consequences from skipping out on your debts through death.
However, not stiffing your creditors when you die is the considerate
thing to do.

Mass media general interest publications like Newsweek are filled with
financial advice that is either a gross oversimplification that will
tend to mislead the average reader, or which is just plain stupid. I
tend to automatically tune out any recommendation which doesn't come
with an detailed explanation for the reasoning behind it.

Andy

Just thumbed thru an article in this week's Newsweek magazine which
recommends term life in the amount of at least 8x annual salary. All
artic;les that I've ever read assumes that you're married with dependents.

I'm single, 53, with no dependents, and have basic term coverage thru
work. (It's in the amount of my annual salary + $2000). I've often
wondered whether I even need that amount of coverage.

I figure that, as long as I have enough set aside for my own burial
expenses, and have a will that distributes my remaining assets, I don't
really need term life coverage.

......But, I could be wrong. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks!