Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2016, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Clinton Township, MI
1,901 posts, read 1,828,582 times
Reputation: 2329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
If you don’t have a couple of thousand saved -- (ever heard of an emergency fund?) then you shouldn’t be having a child anyway.
And if you DO have a child with no money saved….then you’re being financially irresponsible in the first place -- period.
And getting life insurance on that child doesn’t change that.

And of course there’s another option: if you can’t afford a funeral – then you don’t have one.
Or you could put in on a credit card…..but don’t tell me ….. the same couple that had a baby with no money saved, also has bad credit.

That makes them doubly financially irresponsible.
Maybe broke people should take steps to make sure they procreate, or get their ass(ets) together before they reproduce.
You guys are tripping me out with this on-going debate over $2 a month.

Even if the parents are responsible with savings put aside, we are talking no more than $625 from age 0 - 25 for an additional $10,000 - $15,000 that will be paid in case said kid is killed or dies, which DOES happen unfortunately. Why about $2 a month is getting this level of debate is beyond me?

I see the rider as an additional pay-out for expenses on the side, that doesn't mean someone is financially irresponsible and hasn't saved anything for their child.

Now can we end this foolish debate over $2 a month? Or should we allow it to continue for another 10 pages
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2016, 10:35 AM
 
3,050 posts, read 4,992,883 times
Reputation: 3780
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99 View Post
You guys are tripping me out with this on-going debate over $2 a month.

Even if the parents are responsible with savings put aside, we are talking no more than $625 from age 0 - 25 for an additional $10,000 - $15,000 that will be paid in case said kid is killed or dies, which DOES happen unfortunately. Why about $2 a month is getting this level of debate is beyond me?

I see the rider as an additional pay-out for expenses on the side, that doesn't mean someone is financially irresponsible and hasn't saved anything for their child.

Now can we end this foolish debate over $2 a month? Or should we allow it to continue for another 10 pages

Well, you could take that $2, put it into savings each month and with the magic of compounding interest, in 10 years you would have $254.51.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 01:10 PM
 
26,191 posts, read 21,576,919 times
Reputation: 22772
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99 View Post
You guys are tripping me out with this on-going debate over $2 a month.

Even if the parents are responsible with savings put aside, we are talking no more than $625 from age 0 - 25 for an additional $10,000 - $15,000 that will be paid in case said kid is killed or dies, which DOES happen unfortunately. Why about $2 a month is getting this level of debate is beyond me?

I see the rider as an additional pay-out for expenses on the side, that doesn't mean someone is financially irresponsible and hasn't saved anything for their child.

Now can we end this foolish debate over $2 a month? Or should we allow it to continue for another 10 pages

A Lottery ticket is a waste of money too even if it's only 2.00

Again you are simply throwing out the 2.00 figure it may or may not be that much
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 01:33 PM
 
10,611 posts, read 12,122,166 times
Reputation: 16779
Since you're gambling for $2.00….(on odds regarding something that likely won't happy) go ahead and buy a Powerball ticket while you're at it. I know I was in for a ticket in our lottery pool at work.

And yes, you're absolutely correct. I think getting insurance on a child is unnecessary, even though I bought tickets for a 1.5 billion dollar lottery drawing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 01:52 PM
 
3,050 posts, read 4,992,883 times
Reputation: 3780
I pay a total of 96 cents per month for 2 kids at $10,000 each.


Is it a waste of money? I sure hope so!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Clinton Township, MI
1,901 posts, read 1,828,582 times
Reputation: 2329
Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
Since you're gambling for $2.00….(on odds regarding something that likely won't happy) go ahead and buy a Powerball ticket while you're at it. I know I was in for a ticket in our lottery pool at work.

And yes, you're absolutely correct. I think getting insurance on a child is unnecessary, even though I bought tickets for a 1.5 billion dollar lottery drawing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
A Lottery ticket is a waste of money too even if it's only 2.00

Again you are simply throwing out the 2.00 figure it may or may not be that much
You guys are insane to compare an insurance rider to a lottery ticket ? One is bought for gambling and the other is bought for PEACE OF MIND.

I surely believe that if you stay in an inner city where the violence is high, then the child rider should be added to your term life policy due to the high amount of kids under 25 (whom are covered) that get killed in such areas: Homicides in Chicago down, number of children killed stays the same | Chicago Reporter

Also talk to the parents of the kids from Sandy Hook (a quiet, peaceful, suburb area) and tell them a child life insurance rider is a waste of money because it could "never happen in a million years" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_...chool_shooting

You buy insurance for PEACE OF MIND, all insurance could be considered a "waste" if you don't actually have to use it. Based on the "rationale" you guys are putting up here, my full coverage car insurance in 2015 was a waste because I didn't have a claim where I needed to use it.

- I don't want to have to use my full coverage car insurance, that would mean a bad event happened.

- I wouldn't want to have my Term Life insurance policy kick in, that would mean I'm dead or living with a critical/terminal illness.

- I wouldn't want to have a Disability insurance policy kick in, that would mean I'm disabled.

- I wouldn't want to have my Renter's insurance policy kick in, that would mean something bad just happened within or around my apartment.

- I wouldn't want my Personal Umbrella policy to kick in, that would mean I probably just had a very bad car accident, hurt some people and they are seeking damages over $500,000.

- Just like someone doesn't want to use their child rider insurance, that would mean their kid just died.

But we buy most types of insurance for PEACE OF MIND, we aren't buying it to "hopefully" one day have to use it (except for health insurance related policies which we want to use every year for routine exams)

Last edited by jotucker99; 01-25-2016 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 04:18 AM
 
106,630 posts, read 108,773,903 times
Reputation: 80122
all insurance covers THE REMOTE CHANCES IN LIFE that could be financially devastating to us .

since statistics can only have two outcomes for us humans things either work out for us or they don't .

while insurers can tell us how many people will be on the wrong side of the statistic they can't tell us who and that is our problem .

so all of us have different fears , needs and reasons we want to protect against certain remote chances of events happening while choosing to ignore others .

but the key word when it comes to insurance is financially devastating .

not just a big expense if we can handle it , but one that would or could do so much damage recovery would be difficult or impossible . .

there are time certain insurance can also improve outcomes financially . annuity's are income insurance , permanent life insurance can perform the role of creating great tax efficiency in planning . so there are times insurance products can circumvent risks that while not financially devastating they can save you quite a bit of money .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 05:12 AM
 
106,630 posts, read 108,773,903 times
Reputation: 80122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
It's these comprehensive strategies that offer often times the best possible outcome yet draw so many tears from the crowd who simply hate annuities/insurance but aren't well versed enough to actually understand why this works.

This is where buy spy/VOO and agg simply don't compare
the problem is few who promote buy term and invest the difference actually look at the results after retirement .

yep by retirement buy term and invest had a higher balance by retirement , no question . , but in all but the most favorable market outcomes through retirement that is where the advantage ended .

integrated strategy's using whole life , your own investing and a single premium immediate annuity beat buy term and invest 100% of the time income draw wise allowing higher incomes and it beat more left for heirs 2/3's of the time . the fact life insurance is tax free with no rmd's played a very key role . also the insurance has no sequence risk on the income side so you do not need as much held in reserve for poor markets with the income annuity allowing higher income draws day 1 .

as you and i know ignorance can be quite costly when you run on myth and what the uninformed think .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 07:25 AM
 
3,050 posts, read 4,992,883 times
Reputation: 3780
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
but the key word when it comes to insurance is financially devastating .

not just a big expense if we can handle it , but one that would or could do so much damage recovery would be difficult or impossible . .

So you would not insure a $20,000 car against theft?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 07:28 AM
 
106,630 posts, read 108,773,903 times
Reputation: 80122
depends on my resources . while personally i would insure a 20k car against loss i wouldn't do a 10k car .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top