[Grizzly]

<p>Hey, let's get my mind off of morbid subjects by talking about another morbid subject.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>10 years ago when the kids were about to turn 9 and we were refinancing our mortgage and it was still a long way from being paid off, and the missus had no job we bought term life insurance for a significant amount of coverage.  It comes due this year.</p>
<p><br>
Our mortgage will be paid off at the same time (YAY).  So here are the known facts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) We pay "X" amount for the insurance.  If we just roll over and renew it will cost us 4X monthly to do so, and in 10 years that will be SIGNIFICANTLY more, something like 10X, and we get nothing in return if we end the policy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) We are being offered 35% of the coverage in a permanent policy, which if we pay it off in 10 years would cost us between 4 and 5x our monthly amount, BUT we would have the insurance... forever.  Putting it in other terms, we'd get more than a 2 fold return on the investment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Admittedly we don't need the same coverage, the mortgage is gone and the kids won't need the support (as much), but it would be nice to have a little something that we knew would be there in the event of one or both of our deaths.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>AND...  ya know recent health stuff has me a tad concerned about not having an exceedingly long runway ahead of me.  I am not concerned about "failing" the underwriters medical test, but in 10 years?  Maybe that would be harder.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So, would you go with option 1 for more insurance for 10 years, or option 2 for less insurance but the permanence?  Or would you shrug and say don't go with ANY?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>

 

[rlemert]

<p>  Although many people treat it like such, life insurance is not meant to be an investment. It's meant to protect one's family in the event of the insured's untimely demise. Since the mortgage will be gone and the oby's will (presumably) be on their own, your needs are being significantly reduced.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>  Unless you have a pre-paid burial plan or the like, you should have enough insurance to cover your funeral and other associated death expenses (e.g. probate costs so they don't decrease the value of the estate).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>  Some retirement plans provide the surviving spouse with a smaller pension than they would get while you're still alive. You might want to make sure your insurance covers the difference.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>  Another possible expense, moving costs if the survivor decides to go to a smaller place. (This usually comes out of the proceeds from the sale of the primary residence, though, since the survivor is usually downsizing.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>  My bottom line - I'd probably go for reduced insurance with the permanence.</p>

 

[Grizzly]

<p>When I was a young man I went looking for insurance and asked for a policy for what I thought was a prudent amount.  The guy looked at me and said "What... you're 25!  You just need enough to cover your expenses if you die..."  and sold me on a MUCH lesser policy that has paid for itself.  He also got my insurance business.  Smart man.</p>