Read our cookies policy.
stephenni1971 wrote: »
YOu get confused between a NEED and a WISH. You WISH to leave the house to your family but you dont NEED to.
On the other hand if you have a family you have a NEED to cover yourself for their benefit if you died.
Obviously I hardly need to mention the net effect of inflation on 200,000 over 40 years as you will have already done your research and considered the ned for indexation on the policy to counter the effect.
kingstreet wrote: »
VJ - you've bought cover for 40 years but seem to have decided to ignore the other relevant issues which should have been considered at the time.
I don't NEED to get contents insurance either, I could just re-buy everything should I be burgled. I WISH to, as it gives me peace of mind.
dunstonh wrote: »
Your expert advice would be pretty easily be classed as a mis-sale if it was professional advice.
dunstonh wrote: »
need means financial need. Not wish. You have a financial need for contents insurance.
You have a financial need for life assurance but you are choosing to go with terms that exceed that need and paying more for doing so. Are you also paying more on all your other financial needs or are you compromising on them?
The average of a term assurance policy is just 7 years. Mainly as requirements change. You will have the same life policy for 40 years.
I find that if I speak to my accountant they point me to a lawyer for a trust, if I speak to financial advisors I use for pensions they seem to want to know everything about everything - which I dont particularly want to do.
oilit wrote: »
Looking for some thoughts here - from those that have actually done this rather than those that havent...
I read earlier in the thread that setting up a trust is free - which I am guessing was really referring to policy in trust - as opposed to a physical stand alone trust.
I have 2 kids, and want to take out two individual policies for equal amount £x payout each, thus if either i or my wife die first or have critical illness, the other party is the beneficiary.
Now, assuming death for a minute, this would leave the remaining policy active and obviously set up to pay a dead person, so is it easier to set up a trust so that either policy pays to the surviving party and if that party is dead then it goes to the trust - or should we rely on the surviving party changing the beneficiary on their policy upon the death of the first party (i hope that makes sense !)
The thought being - if either parent is alive then they should be the beneficiary - if not then it needs to be split between the two children.
Its safe to assume that the payout and other items would break thru the IHT threshold.
I find that if I speak to my accountant they point me to a lawyer for a trust, if I speak to financial advisors I use for pensions they seem to want to know everything about everything - which I dont particularly want to do. Finally, to try to mitigate risk, I am considering having the two policies with two different providers - any thoughts as to why this isnt a good route to go also welcome!
thanks - and sorry if the opening sentence is a bit abrupt - but it looks like there are some knowledgable people on this thread - who probably have experience in these matters.
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support