Quote:
Originally Posted by macker
Failure to plan = Planning to fail. The only bad thing about insurance is that you can't get it when you need it. I guess if you can guarantee his insurability for the next 10-20 years your point is somewhat valid but that would also require that he has no assets and plans to leave some surprises in his estate. Not the most popular thing to do imo. Someone has to pay for it....I bought my first policy when I was 21/living in residence/with no dependents that I was aware of at the time. The policy was less than a case of beer every month and I have since converted it to a UL policy. For an extreme example of the effects taxes can have on ones estate look at Elvis Presley who died with an estate of $10,165,434 and after settlement, he lost $7,374,635 and his estate was left with $2,790,799, a 73 percent shrinkage and we all know that he was young and invincible....don't leave behind problems but rather solutions....
|
Elvis certainly failed to plan, no doubt. I agree, a person needs to have life insurance to ensure their estate is not decimated by taxes and pre-death debts. But you need to have an estate to do that.
I think you are missing my point. I am talking about the OP situation. He does not have an estate that absolutely requires life insurance at this point. He can if he wants.
From an actuarial point of view, based on his present health, the odds of him becoming a person not being able to get insured are very small. I have added life insurance throughout my career as my family has grown or my employment situation has changed. The costs have not really been that different from being 28 - 38.
What he actually should be looking at right now is disability insurance, not life insurance.
Interesting discussion ....