Jump to content

Life assurance - A con or not.


Recommended Posts

Listened to the radio this morning and there was a report on these over 50 policies. These are supposingly fixed sum returns so you get a guaranteed amount. If you miss a premium or stop you don't get your return. If you take out a policy say when your 51, the company will only pay out on your death after the first 2 years providing you keep paying the premiums. It seems the longer you live, the more you will lose out because you still have to pay the premiums. The example was something like a client paid somethinig in the region of £1000 im premiums but got a retun of £350. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An age-old Wizard of Id cartoon addressed this issue, when a salesman tried to sell the King a life insurance policy.

 

King: What's life insurance?

Salesman: That's where we bet you will live long enough to pay us more money than you get back in return.

King: What if, I die young?

Salesman: You WIN!

 

 

 

All life insurance policies - indeed, all insurance policies of any kind -are sold with the intention that you'll pay more in premiums than you get back on payout. The benefit to you, the individual, is one of security rather than profit; in the event that you're the unlucky person whose house really does burn down, you don't have to buy a new house all in one go and you turn a profit on the insurance bargain.

 

The kind of policies described in the OP are among the least favourable such deals, and I wouldn't recommend them, but insurance in principle is something you need to cover total disasters. If you're over 50 and your children (if any) have their own households, you don't really need life insurance any more; your death should not be a financial disaster to anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened to the radio this morning and there was a report on these over 50 policies. These are supposingly fixed sum returns so you get a guaranteed amount. If you miss a premium or stop you don't get your return. If you take out a policy say when your 51, the company will only pay out on your death after the first 2 years providing you keep paying the premiums. It seems the longer you live, the more you will lose out because you still have to pay the premiums. The example was something like a client paid somethinig in the region of £1000 im premiums but got a retun of £350. Thoughts?

 

Why do they call it life insurance (sounds better I suppose ), it's death insurance at the end of the day. We pay the premiums and when we die, some other person gets the money, Am I missing something here.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do they call it life insurance (sounds better I suppose ), it's death insurance at the end of the day. We pay the premiums and when we die, some other person gets the money, Am I missing something here.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1.

 

actually the proper term is 'assurance' ... because we WILL die one day, not insurance which is for an event which may or may not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually the proper term is 'assurance' ... because we WILL die one day, not insurance which is for an event which may or may not happen.

 

Can you cite an authority for that? (Serious question.)

 

"I assure you I have ensured that our house is insured" - English version.

 

"I insure you I have assured that our house is ensured"

 

Or "I insure you I have insured that our house is insured"

 

Or "I ensure you I have ensured that our house is ensured"

 

Or "I assure you I have assured that our house is assured"

 

Or any other combination would seem to be possible in American - where the words seem to be used interchangeably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father took out one of these policies.

When he was in his 80s he could not see the point in him paying any more into it as he had already paid in much more than the pay out amount was.

He asked how much he would get if he cashed it in, the amount offered was pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most insurances are a con these days due to how expensive they are. We are at a tipping point where it would work out cheaper for 99% of the population to self insure and just put aside the money instead of giving it to these companies.

 

It's always been cheaper for 99% of the population to self-insure; the problem is that you can't know if you are in the other 1% or not, so some people will invariably be bankrupted by a financial catastrophe if they do not have insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.