Do all LDS do this part 3 (life insurance)

[Gwen]

My husband and I were discussing life insurance policies and the conversation turned to how much life insurance should there be on each spouse. When he has talked to other men (in the church) about what they do and it seems the basic idea is 9times your salary on him and enough for burial expenses on her and each of the kids.

Now I've heard this a lot in my life, he has to be covered because the family is without income if something happens to him. I have no problem with that.

On the wife.... only burial expenses? Really? So after that how is he going to take care of the kids? Without me he will have to get the kids in daycare, maybe an after school provider, possibly a tutor, food expenses will go up because he won't have the time to cook so more connivance foods not to mention he won't have the time to shop for the good deals/sales/etc that I do so all expenses will go up. So after he puts me in the ground then what?

So I asked him what their plan was for these things if they only cover the burial of their wife. His response was "I guess they have to get remarried right away". Now the men I remember talking about this same plan that is exactly what they said. As a kid hearing it I didn't see a problem with this, having grown up I better grasp what I do and what my value is/should be. I find this rather insulting.

Do all LDS men think this way?

[applepansy]

No, not all LDS men think this way.

I remember seeing an article a few years back that quantified the cost of replacing "Mom". The article used what it would cost to hire a maid, tutor, a driver, somebody for the bedroom , the cost of overtime pay and shift differential. The bottom line was that it would be cost prohibitive and insuring mom is a good idea. I'll keep looking for it. It was an interesting read.

Added this link:

http://swz.salary.com/MomSalaryWizard/LayoutScripts/Mswl_NewSearch.aspx

the estimate for me:

Earning Statement Our Family

For the year ending: June 2011

Job title Hourly Rate Hours worked

Housekeeper $9.32 520

Cook $12.40 520

Day Care Center Teacher $12.27 624

Facilities Manager $29.66 416

Computer Operator $14.45 208

Van Driver $13.95 260

Psychologist $34.58 104

Janitor $9.13 416

Laundry Machine Operator $9.08 208

Chief Executive Officer $47.37 104

Staff Nurse - RN $26.57 52

Event Planner $24.40 52

Nutritionist $21.72 104

Logistics Analyst $21.26 0

Interior Designer $17.27 104

Bookkeeper $15.86 260

Administrative Assistant $15.36 52

Plumber $15.08 0

General Maintenance Worker $12.99 52

Groundskeeper $11.91 260

Total Value

Regular Hourly Rate $15.65 2,080 $32,543

Over Time Rate $23.47 2,236 $52,476

Yearly Salary for all I do would be: $85,019

Edited June 29, 2011 by applepansy

[estradling75]

I carry alot more then funeral expenses. I carry enough clear out the mortgage/other debts, with a chunk left over. I figure I'll still have a job I'll just need enough to get me to the point were the youngest kid can start fending for themselves/enter school and it not unreasonable for the older kids to watch them for a few hours.

[slamjet]

My ex doubled my life insurance when I got a motorcycle. Her rules were I was to either die, or walk away. No laying in a hospital bed taking up all the money and not helping support our kids.

Pragmatic to the end.

[Jenamarie]

I'm covered for far more than funeral expenses as well.

[Vort]

Do all LDS men think this way?

Yes. All of us.

I find it a little funny, and a little pathetic, how things like this are viewed. "Oh, I see. A man is worth a million dollars, but a wife is only worth twenty thousand!"

How about this instead? "If a man dies, he sees to it that his family is taken care of. If a wife dies, well, I guess the man just has to work three times as hard while he's dealing with his grief, because we just couldn't afford to pay premiums on the woman."

Somehow, it doesn't occur to people that LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR THE SURVIVORS, not for the "insured".

For the record, I am insured for a lot, my wife not. If I die early, there will be enough to let her stay home with the kids for perhaps ten years, maybe longer if she's careful (which she always is). If she dies early, there is enough after expenses to go for perhaps a year or two.

But of course, I could always decide to remarry, despite having promised my wife I never will. How hard can it be, finding a wife when you're fifty years old and have five kids and no significant financial cushion? I'm sure the women would be lining up. Probably really nice women who would treat me and my children well, too.

Moral: Whatever the situation, make sure you spin it so that the man is always the bad guy.

[mnn727]

Never heard of that, so no not all LDS think that way.

DW and I are both insured for enought to pay off the mortgage and have about 2 years of expenses taken care of along with burial expenses. I have a bit more because my employer supplies 1 1/2 times my annual salary on top of what we have outside of work.

[skippy740]

I'm willing to bet that NONE of them used a true ethical life insurance agent who understands Human Economic Life Values as taught by Solomon Huebner of The American College.

I am a life insurance agent. The amount of insurance on the wife should be based on her economic value to the family. I believe that having a pool of money for child care (so the husband can work) is important and vital.

I believe that having enough to provide support during a grieving period is also important. Don't expect to have your wife pass and be able to just show up to work after using up all your vacation and sick days and perform as well as you have been.

How much life insurance do you need:

http://finsecurity.com/finsecurity/pdfs/2a2-01.pdf

Get a real life insurance agent in your state to give proper guidance and advice in the purchase of life insurance coverage.

BTW, it's more important to have the proper amount of protection than the kind of protection you have. Term is a great way to start. You can usually convert that term to a permanent policy during the term period. But get the proper amount of coverage in place first.

BTW, 9x salary isn't NEARLY enough.

Capital to replace earning power:

http://finsecurity.com/finsecurity/pdfs/2a1-02.pdf

Edited June 29, 2011 by skippy740

[Soulsearcher]

I agree with skippy, when i was an insurance agent the amounts were based on specifics related directly to each client and women were always insured for pretty much as much as the man to cover the value of what they contributed through either salary or domestic. If young kids were involved the amount insured on both parents usually included enough to help raise them and a bit to start an education.

[john doe]

I'm insured for about twice what my wife is. I figured that if I were to die I want the mortgage and all the bills paid off, plus a cushion for her in the bank. If she dies, it would pay the bills and about half the mortgage, allowing me to refinance to a much smaller house payment if need be. The kids are old enough to that we wouldn't need a caregiver. I was once scolded by a financial advisor for having too much life insurance. His point was that you could put the added money for premiums into good investments and over time come out ahead of life insurance. I haven't really bought into that idea yet, but probably should look at it.

[NeuroTypical]

So I asked him what their plan was for these things if they only cover the burial of their wife. His response was "I guess they have to get remarried right away".

Wait - REmarried? As in, they are adults who were once already married, but got divorced and moved back home?

I can see not wanting my death (or my wife's death) to result in supporting an adult in a dependent-child-type relationship for any amount of time. That's sort of the point of raising kids, right? You raise them so that they can go out and be independent adults that can handle their own affairs? Life insurance as a way of letting adults live in your house and eat your food even after you're dead? I can see wanting to pass on that.

[This is all assuming I'm reading that statement right, and also assuming there are no permanent disabilities or whatever standing in the way of them living their own lives...]

Edited June 29, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Soulsearcher]

i keep seeing people mentioning insurance to pay of their mortgage. Just out of curiosity, i am wondering if you can't get life insured mortgages in the US? I know most of the people i know in canada with mortgages have them life insured so if one of the people die the mortgage is paid off. Life insurance is separate from that.

[Gwen]

As in you have a husband and wife with children still at home. Instead of keeping proper life insurance on his wife so if anything happened to her he could afford a nanny or whatever was needed to fill his dead wife's shoes while he is off at work the long term plan is to quickly get married again (remarried) so the new wife can raise the kids he had with the dead wife.

Clear enough?

I'm just wondering if this is a southern thing, southern LDS thing or LDS thing.

Am i the only one that has ever heard of this "plan"?

[john doe]

i keep seeing people mentioning insurance to pay of their mortgage. Just out of curiosity, i am wondering if you can't get life insured mortgages in the US? I know most of the people i know in canada with mortgages have them life insured so if one of the people die the mortgage is paid off. Life insurance is separate from that.

You can, but it's generally judged to be expensive in relation to the expected return. Personally I'd rather have a general policy that can be used by the beneficiary as they see fit. You can buy insurance on just about anything in life or death if the price is right. Just like extended warrantys, sometimes they are worth it, sometimes they're not.

[skippy740]

I was once scolded by a financial advisor for having too much life insurance. His point was that you could put the added money for premiums into good investments and over time come out ahead of life insurance. I haven't really bought into that idea yet, but probably should look at it.

Some financial advisors aren't worth their salt. Some are simply trying to find as much money as they can in a person's budget to sell them more mutual funds, etc.

Not only is every planning situation different, but so is every financial advisor. Each has their own inherant biases, either self-imposed or imposed by their firm.

YouTube - Advisors vs Salespeople.flv

[skippy740]

i keep seeing people mentioning insurance to pay of their mortgage. Just out of curiosity, i am wondering if you can't get life insured mortgages in the US? I know most of the people i know in canada with mortgages have them life insured so if one of the people die the mortgage is paid off. Life insurance is separate from that.

This is the #1 reason why people buy life insurance today.

However, I don't like CREDIT Life insurance. This is a policy where the BANK or LENDER is the beneficiary for the remaining amount of the loan.

Not only are these policies expensive, but it removes the flexibility for the beneficiaries.

If you have a standard life insurance policy (where you designate your own beneficiaries), then they can continue to just make payments on the house, sell the house, or whatever. They have control, instead of the financial institution who is the beneficiary on those CREDIT insurance policies... or decreasing term policies.

I don't like them, and I don't sell them.

As always, talk to a professional insurance agent in your state for specific guidance for your own situation.

[john doe]

As in you have a husband and wife with children still at home. Instead of keeping proper life insurance on his wife so if anything happened to her he could afford a nanny or whatever was needed to fill his dead wife's shoes while he is off at work the long term plan is to quickly get married again (remarried) so the new wife can raise the kids he had with the dead wife.

Clear enough?

I'm just wondering if this is a southern thing, southern LDS thing or LDS thing.

Am i the only one that has ever heard of this "plan"?

I'm guessing it's a thing. Not LDS, not southern, not southern LDS, just a thing that some people tell themselves to justify paying a lower premium that that they can't justify in other ways. The thinking is not limited to certain stereotypical groups, it cuts across cultures, religions, and races.

[Soulsearcher]

You can, but it's generally judged to be expensive in relation to the expected return. Personally I'd rather have a general policy that can be used by the beneficiary as they see fit. You can buy insurance on just about anything in life or death if the price is right. Just like extended warrantys, sometimes they are worth it, sometimes they're not.

Hmmm From talking to my parents it was just an automatic part of their mortgage, nothing really extra. I'll have to inquire again, but it seems almost typical here. Should ask my friend who just bought a house to. Something for me to ponder on.

[Vort]

Hmmm From talking to my parents it was just an automatic part of their mortgage, nothing really extra. I'll have to inquire again, but it seems almost typical here. Should ask my friend who just bought a house to. Something for me to ponder on.

That it is typical does not mean that it's not extra. Of course it costs extra to insure your mortgage.

[Gwen]

I'm guessing it's a thing. Not LDS, not southern, not southern LDS, just a thing that some people tell themselves to justify paying a lower premium that that they can't justify in other ways. The thinking is not limited to certain stereotypical groups, it cuts across cultures, religions, and races.

And yet no one else has posted about having heard this before. It's all I've ever heard from LDS men and I've never left the south (never talked to non LDS about it). Just leaves me wondering.

[mightynancy]

Somehow, it doesn't occur to people that LIFE INSURANCE IS FOR THE SURVIVORS, not for the "insured".

Condescending much? You mean I can't really use money when I'm dead? Golly!

The thing is, if we want to make someone out to be the bad guy, what about the gold-digging woman who wants to get rich upon the death of that poor guy? Meanwhile, he's willing to soldier on bravely, with just a little help for a decent burial.

Really, the gender difference in insurance is quite interesting. Is it because couples are unaware of financial losses other than wages when a spouse dies? Are (stay-home) women's contributions to the household less valued from a financial standpoint? Are couples just financially uneducated?

In our family, no, we're not like the OP. We're both insured enough that the other would be able to take a leave from work to grieve and help the kids through it. Given that, as the lower earner, I ought to have MORE insurance so the higher earner can take time off. We're equally insured right now.

[Vort]

Condescending much?

Perhaps you can figure out a better response to "having grown up I better grasp what I do and what my value is/should be." It's the man getting screwed by lack of insurance, not the woman, yet somehow it's still the man's fault for "undervaluing" his wife.

(No offense intended to Gwen. I'm very fond of Gwen. I just encounter the subtle and not-so-subtle anti-male bias seemingly at every turn, and sometimes I get tired of it.)

Edited June 29, 2011 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

My wife once looked at me and said "You know, when we first got married, you said you'd die for me. And you haven't yet."

[rimshot]

[RescueMom]

This thread gives me reason #563 to remain single.

I have life insurance, that will pay for the house, burial expense, and bills....plus leave my kids with a good chunk of change.

And if I ever get married again, my beneficiaries will remain my children. Yes it is written in my will...so let it be written so let it be done. Of course my kids are grown.

[Gwen]

Perhaps you can figure out a better response to "having grown up I better grasp what I do and what my value is/should be." It's the man getting screwed by lack of insurance, not the woman, yet somehow it's still the man's fault for "undervaluing" his wife.

(No offense intended to Gwen. I'm very fond of Gwen. I just encounter the subtle and not-so-subtle anti-male bias seemingly at every turn, and sometimes I get tired of it.)

That's a fair perspective. Yes the man gets the "bad" end of the deal financially. However, I also have to think of my children and his thinking that he'll get re-married quickly.... if he's desperate for a wife what kind of stand in mother will they have? and if he's not as hot as he thinks he is and never finds one? then what happens to my kids?

then there is the side connotations of "i'll just remarry". Soooo the new wife is nothing more than a maid, child care taker, cook and .....? If one is capable of seeing any woman that way then what am I? Am i that easily forgotten that there is no grieving time? If that's such a good plan then why not save even more by cutting down on what we have on him and I'll plan on remarrying quickly too. If it's good enough for him why not me? But I guess there is that doctrine that men can be sealed to more than one woman but women can't so I guess in the end no one will want me because I can't be sealed to them.... But some woman will want to be second fiddle? Maybe I'm reading to much into it but it is insulting.

Maybe some background will help. I grew up with a father that never saw my mom as equal. He (in front of the kids) made it clear no one would ever want her and he'd be re married in less than 6 months if anything happened to mom. It was a very unequal relationship and so yes sometimes I am sensitive to things when it seems unequal.

Am I alone in this and over reacting, making mountains from mole hills or is it a fair complaint?