Started By
Message
locked post

Term Life vs. Whole Life

Posted on 7/28/10 at 10:55 am
Posted by Glock17
Member since Oct 2007
23030 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 10:55 am
I'm almost 30, and don't have life insurance with the exception of a line of duty situation.

Which is the better option? Should I have both?

I'm pretty clueless about these things
Posted by Boh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2009
12361 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:03 am to
I've always heard term life is better, but I'm not sure.
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:03 am to
I have a ticket that I need to get fixed.

I'll sit down and talk to you about it one afternoon if you are interested in a barter.

I'll give you a teaser of:

quote:

Should I have both?


No.
Posted by mytigger
Member since Jan 2008
15280 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:06 am to
Term Life is what you want. Whole life is a total rip off.
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28325 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:11 am to
FWIW, term and whole life are not "competitors" as most people unknowingly believe and have been told. Whole life is supposed to be used to cover permanent expenses. Term life is supposed to be used to cover temporary/expiring expenses.

The bulk of our life insurance needs should be covered with term life (mortgage, salary/income, child's future education expenses), but everyone needs at least some whole life.

Also keep in mind that the money you put into term life will likely never be seen again by you or your heirs. 98% of term life insurance never pays out, and the insurance company keeps it all. Nonetheless, it is needed to protect yourself and your family against the expiring financial expenses. But I do find it funny when people say whole life is a rip-off, yet in the same breathe they tell you to buy term life. It's quite ironic.

Term life is for "just in case" situations. Whole life is for, "no matter what, this will happen eventually" situations.
This post was edited on 7/28/10 at 11:21 am
Posted by Tiger4Ever
Member since Aug 2003
36790 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:14 am to
quote:

Also keep in mind that the money you put into term life will likely never be seen again by you or your heirs. 98% of term life insurance never pays out, and the insurance company keeps it all. Nonetheless, it is needed. But I do find it funny when people say whole life is a rip-off, yet in the same breathe they tell you to buy term life. It's quite ironic.




I'm ok with this because it means I lived to be older than 56.

I want to live past 56, fyi.
Posted by guttata
prairieville
Member since Feb 2006
22629 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:16 am to
Term. The agent makes like 3x's more if he/she can convince you to buy whole.
Posted by bayoudude
Member since Dec 2007
25840 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:19 am to
Whole life for the amount of coverage i needed was out of my price range. I ended up getting 30yr term with $750k payout. I have a small policy through work that as long as I am there will pay out enough for burial expenses +. I figure after I am 60 I shouldn't need much if any coverage. If I do then I failed somewhere.
Posted by hen
past the point of no return
Member since Sep 2007
1751 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:21 am to
quote:

The bulk of our life insurance needs should be covered with term life (mortgage, salary/income, child's future education expenses), but everyone needs at least some whole life.


You gave reasons why someone should buy term, but no reasons why someone needs "some whole life." Please provide support for your statement regarding whole life. Why is it necessary?
Posted by JWS3
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2008
2502 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:26 am to
You made the correct decision, quoting my wife who was an insurance agent "Every time I sold a whole/universal life policy, I felt like I was robbing someone."
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28325 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:26 am to
To cover permanent expenses (funeral, burial, revolving credit) as well as a better way to transfer money to heirs federally tax-free.
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
109689 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:28 am to
quote:

Whole life is supposed to be used to cover permanent expenses. Term life is supposed to be used to cover temporary/expiring expenses.


Where are you getting this from?
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28325 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:31 am to
quote:

Where are you getting this from?



Whole = forever

Term = temporary


Most of our life insurance needs should be covered with term, but we as humans do have permanent expenses, which term does not and will not cover because the term insurance will expire before they happen.

While I obviously believe term covers most of our needs, I think many people do not understand the difference between term and whole life. Term life is like renting insurance, whole life is like buying insurance.
This post was edited on 7/28/10 at 11:35 am
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
109689 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:33 am to
quote:

Whole = forever

Term = temporary


Those terms aren't referring to what the benefits are for, you realize? Or it seems, you don't.
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28325 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:36 am to
quote:

Those terms aren't referring to what the benefits are for, you realize? Or it seems, you don't.



Posted by hen
past the point of no return
Member since Sep 2007
1751 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:39 am to
quote:

To cover permanent expenses (funeral, burial, revolving credit)


Seems like even minimal saving over a lifetime could accomplish the same goals at a lower cost.
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
109689 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:41 am to
You purchase "Term" Life for a specefied time period (the term).

You can purchase whatever benefit payoff you choose (be it something to just cover things like mortgage and funeral expenses, or an amount that will allow your wife and kids to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, if you kick the bucket).

A "Whole" Life policy, will pay out benefits whenever you die.

The nomenclature has nothing to do with what one intends as the purpose of the benefits.
Posted by JWS3
Baton Rouge
Member since Jun 2008
2502 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Seems like even minimal saving over a lifetime could accomplish the same goals at a lower cost.


This!
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28325 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:43 am to
quote:

You purchase "Term" Life for a specefied time period (the term).

You can purchase whatever benefit payoff you choose (be it something to just cover things like mortgage and funeral expenses, or an amount that will allow your wife and kids to live comfortably for the rest of their lives, if you kick the bucket).

A "Whole" Life policy, will pay out benefits whenever you die.

The nomenclature has nothing to do with what one intends as the purpose of the benefits.



I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, as you just repeated what I've already stated above.

Term life is for temporary expenses, as it pays off if you die within the term, and it does not pay off after the term. It is best used for "expiring" expenses (cough cough: expenses with a term).

Whole life is for permanent expenses, as it pays off when you die, regardless of when you die. It is best used for permanent expenses that never go away.
This post was edited on 7/28/10 at 11:48 am
Posted by Y.A. Tittle
Member since Sep 2003
109689 posts
Posted on 7/28/10 at 11:47 am to
quote:

Whole life is for permanent expenses, as it pays off when you do, regardless of when you die. It is best used for permanent expenses that never go away.


Such as?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram