Do all LDS do this part 3 (life insurance)

[miztrniceguy]

I got the maximum I could for both of us and our children through my employers policy.

[estradling75]

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

I think what you are seeing is simply different risk tolerance. Insurance is something you pay for and hope to never have to use. Therefore you have to decide how much do you want to pay every month for something you hope to never use. Money that you then can't use to meet your monthly bills.

Guys have it pounded into their heads that they are the protector and provider. With that its not much of a stretch to get life insurance to make sure those roles are covered. The risk of leaving your wife and kids uncovered isn't well tolerated by most guys so they will try to cover it as best they can. Whereas for the guy is weighting that monthly payment for his wife's policy against being able to get stuff for his family now. Loss of money now vs. a small chance of a potenially big hit later. A big hit that lands firmly on his shoulder to deal with (kids would be his responsibility). I see more guys being willing to take this risk, which leads to smaller or no policies on the wife.

Its not necessary a wise move, really but its not one that is hard to understand

[Echo2002]

I'm single with no children, I wonder if I even need Life Insurance?

The men who are only getting enough money to cover funeral expenses for their wives are going to be in for a rude awakening if something ever happens to her. Like others have said, even if the wife is a stay-at-home mom, to replace the things she does for the children will cost a considerable amount of money over time. Also, a man can't guarantee that he will just be able to find another wife.

I can understand only covering the children's funeral expenses, but you would be crazy to only do that for the wife.

[skippy740]

I'm single with no children, I wonder if I even need Life Insurance?

It still costs money to die. You may not need a large policy, but something is probably better than nothing.

If you plan to have a family, getting a larger term policy may be in order.

One additional reason to get life insurance while you're single is to be sure that you can have the insurance for later. Stuff happens that can cause one to become uninsurable.

About 5 years ago, I woke up with Bell's Palsy. Half of my face was paralyzed. I thought I must've had a stroke! It was wierd to speak with a little lisp. Others said they couldn't notice anything... but for someone who sells for a living, I was fearful. It went away after a couple of weeks along with taking steroids prescribed by my doctor.

Now, this didn't make me uninsurable, but it sure did awaken me to the fact that our bodies are fragile and anything can happen at anytime.

If you have business interests, that needs to be planned for business succession.

If you have significant assets (over 1 million), you probably need estate planning. Life insurance is a great way to pay for estate taxes for pennies on the dollar and preserve the illiquid assets for your family to enjoy.

[skippy740]

Oh, and group insurance is only as good as you keeping your job with the employer.

If you get let go for whatever reason, your group life insurance is gone.

Maximize it, but plan for when you won't have that job anymore as well.

[crashdown]

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.)

I have learned something new today: Vort is a MAN! Which is good because when I thought he was a woman, I didn't like "her" very much. Seemed a little too sympathetic to the men and what self-respecting woman doesn't enjoy ripping on men? I'm just teasing.

My hubby increased my life insurance after our financial planner pointed out how much it would cost to have the kids in daycare if I should die. Thank goodness he did that. Now I'm insured quite well so if I should die first, my hubby won't have to work like a dog to make ends meet.

And Vort--men aren't all that bad, even you. It's just that we women are constantly being bombarded by the adversary, telling us we aren't good enough, we have no worth, etc. It's never ending, Vort. This insurance thing is just another way Satan tries to manipulate people into thinking a woman has no value. And as you can see, it works quite well.

[Just_A_Guy]

Skippy, I'd always heard that you want enough life insurance so that you could retire off the interest that the principal would bring--so, if I want my wife to have a continued income of $30K per year after my death, I should have a policy of about one million dollars (allowing for a conservative 3% return per annum). What say ye?

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.

For what it's worth, from someone who's dabbled in estate planning law:

1) Life insurance proceeds are a "nonprobate transfer", so they won't be distributed by will (unless you named your own estate as beneficiary on your life insurance policy. And really, why would you?).

2) Many states have what is called an "elective share" for the surviving spouse, meaning that the survivor gets one-third to one-half of the decedent's estate EVEN IF the decedent's will said everything should go to the kids. The way you get around this (in most states) is with a prenuptial agreement where each spouse waives his or her elective share in the other spouse's estate. [People often look down on prenups as some kind of indicator of a lack of commitment, but really any parent who is getting married ought to have a prenup for precisely this reason.]

Edited June 30, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

Skippy, I'd always heard that you want enough life insurance so that you could retire off the interest that the principal would bring--so, if I want my wife to have a continued income of $30K per year after my death, I should have a policy of about one million dollars (allowing for a conservative 3% return per annum). What say ye?

Agreed, but don't forget about inflation eroding the purchasing power of that money.

You should review your total coverage and be sure that it will help achieve your goals based on today's financial environment.

For what it's worth, from someone who's dabbled in estate planning law:

1) Life insurance proceeds are a "nonprobate transfer", so they won't be distributed by will (unless you named your own estate as beneficiary on your life insurance policy. And really, why would you?).

2) Many states have what is called an "elective share" for the surviving spouse, meaning that the survivor gets one-third to one-half of the decedent's estate EVEN IF the decedent's will said everything should go to the kids. The way you get around this (in most states) is with a prenuptial agreement where each spouse waives his or her elective share in the other spouse's estate. [People often look down on prenups as some kind of indicator of a lack of commitment, but really any parent who is getting married ought to have a prenup for precisely this reason.]

Insurance proceeds (as well as qualified plans, like 401(k)s and IRAs) all transfer by "contract" because they should all have a named beneficiary.

If no beneficiary is named, then it is included in the probate proceedings.

There are trusts that can be established for the purpose of spousal &/or children support. This is the typical A-B trust. Special provisions can be made if you are a parent and marrying again.

I'm not an attorney. Speak to a qualified estate planning attorney in your state for specific legal and estate planning advice.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . typical A-B trust.

My understanding was that A-B trusts are typically an estate-tax minimization measure. (I included them in any estate over a million dollars, because until late last year we didn't know what Congress was going to do with regard to EGTRRA--and, really, we still don't, except that you (for now) get to pass $5 million tax-free at your death.)

Life insurance proceeds, AFAIK, don't add to the taxable value of the estate so long you were careful not to have the decedent possess any of the "incidents of ownership" of the plan. That's why, in a perfect world, your wife would buy the policy that insures you, and you would buy the policy that insures your wife. (I'm not sure whether this is common knowledge in insurance circles; our State Farm agent did not know this.)

[skippy740]

And sometimes, for much larger amounts an ILIT trust (Individual Life Insurance Trust) can make sense.

I don't do a lot of estate planning as most people need more basic services. I just remember that there are many ways to word a trust... and if you want to ensure that assets are properly managed and passed to whom they are intended for, then using a corporate trust company can make a lot of sense (instead of a family member). This keeps the relationships intact and possibly angry at a 3rd party, instead of each other.

I've found that most P&C agents don't know much about financial planning & life insurance. It's just a completely different discipline that requires a completely different mindset. It's like the difference between working in a diner (like Denny's) and working in fine-dining (like Morton's Steakhouse). They may both be in food-service, but the two environments and mindsets to work in each are completely different.

[rex8499]

Both my wife and I have double our salary. We don't have kids yet. It would be enough for us to pay off the house in one chunk so the other could live mortgage free, but would still need to keep working in life.

[pam]

I have a life insurance policy so that if anything happened to me, my kids would have enough to take care of burial expenses, any debts I still owe and be able to live off of for awhile.

[Vort]

when I thought he was a woman, I didn't like "her" very much.

Now at least you can dislike the right sex!

Seemed a little too sympathetic to the men and what self-respecting woman doesn't enjoy ripping on men? I'm just teasing.

For the record, my wife is a brilliant and self-respecting woman, and she never rips on men.

I realize you were teasing, but my observation is that LDS men rarely criticize women or womanhood. When they do, it's in private, and as often as not is met with a negative reaction, like "I don't think women are like that. My wife isn't." LDS women, on the other hand, are far more likely to criticize men and manhood, privately or in public, and are typically met with laughter and agreement all around. I think it's a nauseating state of affairs, and I fear for my sons (and also for my daughter, for different reasons). But perhaps my experiences are not representative of the larger Church. I hope not.

And Vort--men aren't all that bad, even you.

Wow. Uh, thanks.

Reminds me of the canonical high school nerd compliment attempt to a girl: "For a fat chick, you don't sweat much."

[Gwen]

I realize you were teasing, but my observation is that LDS men rarely criticize women or womanhood. When they do, it's in private, and as often as not is met with a negative reaction, like "I don't think women are like that. My wife isn't." LDS women, on the other hand, are far more likely to criticize men and manhood, privately or in public, and are typically met with laughter and agreement all around. I think it's a nauseating state of affairs, and I fear for my sons (and also for my daughter, for different reasons). But perhaps my experiences are not representative of the larger Church. I hope not.

I guess this is the fun part of being on a forum where people are from around the world. This is exactly the opposite of my experiance. It is the men who are likely to critisize and talk down about women. Yes they will say motherhood and such in general are good things and speak highly of it.... in general. In action and speach there are a lot of things of a demeaning nature. They are the priesthood, the head of the house, wear the pants, etc. There is an obligation to stay in line. The women on the other hand tend to rarely speak negativly, he is the priesthood, he presides, he should be revered, have the last say, etc.

I too fear for my children, for the opposite reasons. But don't misunderstand me I do revere fatherhood and the priesthood role. Those that have been on the same topics as me over the years know I'll be the first out the gate on father's rights. I've been complaining about the degrading media toward men since the late 90's, I saw it then and it made me sick, it's only worse now. I've always worried about how my son's were ever going to respect themselves in a society that told them they were dumb. But teaching them that women are subserviant as the alternative isn't right either. So your experiance isn't representative of the rest of the church, I hope my experiances is also isolated (so far the insurance attitude seems to be).

[LDSJewess]

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?

Gwen,

I think you need to get past the emotions and come to a realization of what insurance actually is.

Insurance is a business based on dollars and cents and bottom line not the value of a persons feeling of self worth or lack thereof.

When as a couple you decide to purchase life insurance, you are simply making a purchase based on your need; no differently then if you go to the store and buy an item.

Insurance is meant to secure a sum of money to replace an income from the deceased so the the survivor can continue to maintain the lifestyle that they had before the deceased died. It is not necessarily about men and women, rather it is merely about income replacement.

In my personal situation my husband earns the highest income. Our life insurance policy is $250,000.00 on HIM because we still have a mortgage on the house. If he dies and I lose the income he is earnign to pay the mortgage, I would have the option of paying off the house, or paying on it throughout the life of the loans, or until I die depending on which came first. Whatever is left be it money in the bank or paid for real estate would then pass to our children.

The policy on me is only $50,000.00. If I die my husband would pay funeral costs and any personal debts and have a little capitol to continue my small business or sell it and use the money as he sees fit.

This does not mean that I am personally worth less. It does mean that his income pays a greater part of our bills. If I die, he still has the income needed to pay these major bills.

Our children are grown; however if we had children, I doubt that we would have changed this set up just for day ccare and house cleaning etc:

You have to keep in mind that depending on your age and health, what your husband would pay in added insurance premiums could likely exceed the cost of day care, house cleaning etc: You could save that money on premiums to invest in your children's college fund and use it while you are still alive.

Death is not something any of us are looking forward to, and I am likely just because of being older going to leave this earth before you conisdering the natural course of things.

But short of a couple dying in an accident where they are traveling together in a car, plane train or something comes through the roof of our homes when we are sitting together; it is likely one goes before the other. The remaining spouse would likely re-marry, and a loving spouse would likely encourage that regardless of if there are still children living at home.

Had my spouse died when my children were still young, I would have likely re-married with his blessing and someone else would have raised his children (or vise versa) is I had died and he re-married and someone else raised my children.

As it is unless we live to be VERY old and wind up in assisted living, we would still possibly re-marry in the event of one dying before the other and the surviving spouse would get to know our grand and great grand children.

Once we are both gone, and our children and grandchildren inherit what is left, I don't think they will care if the pay out of our insurance policies came from Mom or Dad.

Gwen, you will never need money or an insurance policy to determine what you are worth to your family. You need to know what your worth is and just consider the money part for exactly what it is. A business transaction.

Do not pay added unnecessary premiums for an insurance policy UNLESS you are insuring actual income. It is money to replace money, no more no less.

Edited July 1, 2011 by LDSJewess

[crashdown]

Gwen and Vort---My experience is that it goes both ways. I have female friends who are constantly criticizing their husbands and male friends who are constantly complaining about their wives. I don't think either sex treats the other one as well as we should.

And for the record, Vort, I am also sick of men being put down. I don't like it when fathers are portrayed on TV as stupid, bumbling oafs...or absent altogether. Nor do I like it when men get taken advantage of (and get shafted) during divorce proceedings. (which is a whole other can of worms) Nor do I like to see men henpecked.

I like the old days when Michael Landon was the father on Little House on the Prairie and he was kind, wise, and fair to all his children. He treated his wife with respect and she adored him and loved him in return. A bit idealistic? Perhaps, but in my little bubble, I like it that way.

[mnn727]

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.

That went away quite a while ago, I have asked on my last 2 mortgages and they were clueless as to what I was talking about.

Its actually diminishing term life insurance tied to a mortgage.

[mnn727]

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.

I'm LDS and I'm in the South but to me it would be a stupid thing to do.

[DeniseM]

John Doe - You definitely should not be over-insured so that is something you may want to think about further.

Gwen – I don’t think you can generalize all LDS men like that. Unfortunately, there are a few, but it is an individual perspective and you’ll find this trait in men who are not LDS as well.

All the life insurance agents I have ever spoken have told me never to underestimate the value of a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM). In fact, according to some figures I read from salary.com the total worth of an SAHM in 2007 was about $140,000 annually!

Denise

Edited August 5, 2011 by john doe
removed advertising link

[shine7]

When my dh died, we had very little life insurance. That taught me to get some life insurance, and I did. It isn't enough to pay off the mortgage, so after reading here, I'm going to get more life insurance, or maybe just sell this house and buy a condo.

[DeniseM]

John Doe - You definitely should not be over-insured so that is something you may want to think about further.

Gwen – I don’t think you can generalize all LDS men like that. Unfortunately, there are a few, but it is an individual perspective and you’ll find this trait in men who are not LDS as well.

All the life insurance agents I have ever spoken have told me never to underestimate the value of a stay-at-home-mom (SAHM). In fact, according to some figures I read from salary.com the total worth of an SAHM in 2007 was about $140,000 annually!

Denise