Cyclone Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 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. In English most of those sentences are gibberish. To ensure means to make sure it has or will happen. To insure means to set up a policy providing compensation against an event happening. To assure is to confirm to someone that it has or will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 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. Oxford English Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0045150#m_en_gb0045150 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Life assurance is not supposed to be a sort of savings scheme! You take it out so that, if you die young, your family isn't plunged into financial disaster, with the possibility of house been re-possessed because they can't afford the mortgage, or them not having enough to pay for the funeral, etc, to say nothing of being lumbered with any debts you might have. A straightforward policy, where you pay so much per month in return for a set pay-out in the event of your death, is much cheaper than one that promises a return on your money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Life assurance is not supposed to be a sort of savings scheme! You take it out so that, if you die young, your family isn't plunged into financial disaster, with the possibility of house been re-possessed because they can't afford the mortgage, or them not having enough to pay for the funeral, etc, to say nothing of being lumbered with any debts you might have. A straightforward policy, where you pay so much per month in return for a set pay-out in the event of your death, is much cheaper than one that promises a return on your money. It's not cheaper if you don't die young! Really, I think it'd make me more depressed in old age if I lived past the age where I started giving them 100% pure profit every month. I suppose you could cut your losses & stop paying at some point, but then there wouldn't be any payout. You can get fixed term insurance/investment policies that will pay out if you die & also pay out if you don't die. I'd rather go for one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 Life assurance is not supposed to be a sort of savings scheme! You take it out so that, if you die young, your family isn't plunged into financial disaster, with the possibility of house been re-possessed because they can't afford the mortgage, or them not having enough to pay for the funeral, etc, to say nothing of being lumbered with any debts you might have. A straightforward policy, where you pay so much per month in return for a set pay-out in the event of your death, is much cheaper than one that promises a return on your money. So why have a scheme then? Why not just save your money and put it in the bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So why have a scheme then? Why not just save your money and put it in the bank? By the time you get to 50, it's probably wiser. If you're in your twenties, have young children, and don't want to leave them at the mercy of the social services should you meet an untimely end, then life assurance is a good idea. Nowadays, statistically, if you haven't already met an untimely end by fifty, the chances are at least 50-50 that you'll reach eighty, so a policy of the type you originally described is highly unlikely to turn a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I dont understand why people are complaining. If you dont have a need for it then dont get it! Simples. For some people it fills an essential part of financial planning. For example if your house would trigger inheritance tax, but you want to keep the house in the family without passing a large tax burden onto next of kin. Or you have a wife, 2 children and a mortgage that your wife couldnt afford if you died. Getting life assurance benfits you through peace of mind and showing you care. If you just put £6 a month into a bank and died next year, your partner (the beneficiary) would have the massive total of £72 plus interest to put towards the mortgage. How very considerate of you. Buy life policy for the mortgage (and more if you like) and at least your partner wont be kicked out of their home when they're dealing with the loss of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Life policies arent about profit, they're about managing risk. - Peace of mind. A younger person would pay a smaller premium as the risk of death is less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So why have a scheme then? Why not just save your money and put it in the bank? Because you *may* need much more money than that. Take a successful professional, earning a good wage, with a mortgage, wife/partner/significant other, 2.4 children, couple of bank/car loans etc. If he dies, then the wife either gets a job fast, gets rid of the property fast, or goes bankrupt. If he has life insurance for a specific period then (note insurance not assurance as it's not certain they die) then if he does die his wife etc gets a payout. I provide cover for my employees of 4x annual salary or £100k whichever the greater. That's at least five years of sustained income at the usual levels to get things sorted and find employment etc. Once s/he has retired they need nowhere near as much as they will have pension, and the pension will continue after death to the partner. In this case life assurance (because they will die it's not a bet) makes much less sense than a funeral bond and possibly medical cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 By the time you get to 50, it's probably wiser. If you're in your twenties, have young children, and don't want to leave them at the mercy of the social services should you meet an untimely end, then life assurance is a good idea. Nowadays, statistically, if you haven't already met an untimely end by fifty, the chances are at least 50-50 that you'll reach eighty, so a policy of the type you originally described is highly unlikely to turn a profit. I'm talking about over 50 schemes. The fact is, the longer you live the more you pay in premiums and the less you get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.