Pension Mess - Not sure What to do

taktikback

give it up guys - the Op is clearly not about to make an objective decision here - this is a case of "I'm right because I am"...

atush

Quite possibly.

But I continue to argue for some insurance for his children's sake.

bigadaj

In some ways I can see the op s point but think it is misguided. I think his perspective is that money in your pocket, or reducing debt, is potentially of more use than that which may be wasted on insurance that it is never called upon.

We have gone through the issues with ppi and similar and people seem to polarise into those who have insurance for everything or nothing.

Everyone should make an objective opinion of their circumstances and in insurance terms balance the cost against impacts of events and likelihood of occurrence, life insurance with dependents should make sense for most people as whilst the likelihood is low, the cost is also low and the impact of an improbable event would be very large. Each to their own however.

atush

I have never taken out PPI or insurance on home products.

I do insure my home and car (required by the bank and law) and my life for my children's sake. I only insure what I need to.

richyg

atush/bigadaj,

I agree with you both. Insurance on the compulsory and evalaute the risks on the rest.

Of course every company will sell you their policy on the worst case scenario. Widows and crying children is indeed a risk but I think theres a 1/300 chance of dying in 1 year in your 30's (from memory)

Meanwhile always remember that the insurance policy holders premiums pay for the plushest and newest offices in the town, all of adverstising , the managers foreign holidays and the range rovers in the car park etc etc.

A non drinking non smoking 30 year old might be better investing in the kids future isas etc , and risking his wife throwing herself on the mercy of the state in needing benefits, which for the record he is also paying in his taxes anyway.

There is no correct answer as we all know , just a case of
whether or how you consider insuring yourself or not.

Rich.

atush

It was my understanding they would no longer cover the mtg in the case or redundancy (or death) so if the wife has to 'throw herself ont eh mercy' of the govt I am going to assume this would mean losing the house first. Assuming the equity would go as well (which the OP is so proud of building up at the expense of other obligations).

After all, the bank won't stop the mtg the month he dies, and many months would go by with her in arrears before any sale, and the bank would force her to sell low. I still dont understand how he has a mtg w/o LA as we had to have it for our mtg.

kidmugsy

cosmicDolphin wrote: »

I understand many others have a more cautious point of view and respect that.

Fine, but don't expect the respect to be reciprocated.

cosmicDolphin

Tsmee wrote: »

OP - Can I suggest you time your unexpected death for a Friday, if poss?

Simple!

Certainly, that means I won't miss red Dwarf on the Thursday

cosmicDolphin

atush wrote: »

I agree with all of the above. You are in sales yourself? Yet you begrudge a small commission earned by a salesman for a term life assurance policy?

Well I only pay for things I know I need, any insurance is a gamble.

cosmicDolphin

richbeth wrote: »

I'm really not sure if you're Trolling but if you're not...
RB

Not Trolling just being honest.