Comments on: Why You Might Not Want to Wait Until You’re Married With Children to Get Life Insurance

By: goss

goss — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:38:36 +0000

… but it said that you would be paying 525-550 a year, that isn’t what you would be paying per month.

By: brad@northwesternmutual

brad@northwesternmutual — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:32:49 +0000

This is a great post, Jeremy. It’s always important to consider your long-term goals as soon as possible, married or not. Let’s say, some day, a working woman wants to help protect her future family with a $500,000 term life insurance policy. That policy may be affordable for her today, but since prices generally increase as she grows older, it may not be affordable for her tomorrow. By waiting, she might fall short of meeting her financial goals. By taking action, she could lock in a fixed rate that works with her budget and her vision. In any case, it’s never too early to start considering long-term financial goals, and it’s never too soon to speak with a financial professional about how to achieve them.

By: Credit Girl

Credit Girl — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:08:24 +0000

As a young and a single person, the issue of life insurance never really ever came up because I am still young and healthy. However, this article really helped me weigh the pros and cons of life insurance at a young age and I think that I may have to start considering this once I reach my 30s.

By: Honey

Honey — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:16:28 +0000

I bought a package that has term components but will transition to a whole life policy over the course of years. I bought this when I was 28, not married (though in LTR), no plans to have kids.

Why would I buy life insurance? Why would I buy whole (which I have never seen recommended anywhere)? Because my mom died of a long term illness that is similar to MS or Parkinson’s, and I have a 50% chance of having the same. She died when she was 46, so compared to other folks I have a very high chance of being totally uninsurable later (this is also why I am desperate for the health care reform to pass – I want to be able to change jobs, which may mean being unemployed at some stages of my life, and I want to know I would be covered and couldn’t be charged more).

I have short- and long-term disability through my work, and also a supplemental disability policy through my life insurance package. I will also get long-term care insurance at some point, but even if I’m unable to get that for health reasons later, I want to know that whatever my medical costs might be, they would be paid for after my debt and my boyfriend (who will be my husband) would not be financially burdened.

By: DS2009

DS2009 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:45:04 +0000

I just wanted to give you a different take on your numbers presented in the article. Basically as you get to the 40 and 45 year thresholds the premium is much more expensive to initiate. However, the 25 or 30 yrs old could have put the money into a 6-8% investment and if allocating 525-550/month would have built up a substantial savings after 20 or 15 yrs respectively.
For a 25 yr old after 20 yrs, when they are 45 they would have saved $33,205 with a 7% growth rate.

This money could then be used to purchase the term life insurance which would take them into later years of their life. I believe that the savings amount would then offset the greater premium for the term life if taken at 45.

By: Tim Landry

Tim Landry — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:23:02 +0000

To the “Young and single – waste of money” concept – I cannot disagree with the initial thought contained in your comment BUT one of the KEY benefits of youth is USUALLY good health. STRONG suggestion – because I have seen that “good health” vanish far too often and ALWAYS unexpectedly: buy a small amount of life insurance now with the largest guaranteed insurability feature you can find – hopefully enough to let you LATER buy AT LEAST $1,000,000 of insurance. This does two things now – one not very important and one PACIFIC OCEAN HUGE – provides life insurance now at a VERY LOW cost and PROTECTS YOUR INSURABILITY FOR LATER so you CAN buy it when you need it. Diabetes is FLOODING the worlld – diabetes virtually guarantees you cannot get “standard” insurance – and insulin dependent diabetes ELIMINATES standard insurance

By: Tim Landry

Tim Landry — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:22:01 +0000

First and foremost – I am NOT a Life Insurance agent – I am licensed to sell it because where I live just having an Accident and Sickness Insurance License is not an option – but I specialize in Disability Insurance – Critical Illness and Long Term Care Insurance. If you buy life insurance thinking you will not need it later in life, you are almost certainly making a HUGE mistake. The people who are the most successful investors are those who need life insurance the most. It is BY FAR the most efficient way to pay whatever taxes fall due on death – to cover the costs related to business transfers – etc. The number of life insurance sales made to people in their 70′s and 80′s is HUGE – and ALL of these people have been successful in life. If you are NOT successful, you will not need life insurance – BUT IF YOU ARE, YOU WILL.I know (GD DO I EVER) know all the objections to permanent life insurance. YES – term is a cost effective solution while you are raising your kids and growing your estate – but the more successfully you grow that estate, the more you will need permament insurance.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:43:32 +0000

kdice, that’s an important consideration, indeed, and something each person would have a different answer to.

You may not need a 30-year term if you wait to buy, but you may also still have insurance needs after say age 55. At that age you still may not have a paid off house, your spouse may rely on your income still, and your children may only just be getting ready for college, etc.

There’s no one situation that’s the same for everyone, but there’s also more to consider than just burial costs, especially if you have outstanding debts such as a mortgage or a non-working spouse.

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:37:04 +0000

I understand the younger you join the better policies there are but I find there no reason to have any policy if you are young and single.

By: kdice

kdice — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:25:35 +0000

You make an interesting argument, but I’m not sure I agree with one assumption. If you buy a 30 year term at age 25, it will run out at age 55. So if I buy at age 40, do I really need a 30 year term? Or would I be looking for something more like a 15 year term (no idea if it’s sold like that)? Is comparing all the 30 year term rates really the right comparison? Or, should we assume that after age 55 you will have enough money to “self-insure” burial, have enough set aside that spouse can live, etc. and we really should compare cost of term up to a certain age? I really don’t know the answer here, just struck me as I was reading…