Life assurance

[Welshbeef]

I need to get two policies set up one for the wife and one for myself both will be level and both will be 40 year policies.

The question is is it recommended to go for 10 x salary on each policy.
Our mortgage should be cleared well within ten years but I want total security for my family if anything happens to me and god forbid anything happens to my wife I would want any survivor to not ever need to work again and be able to live in our family home and be able to pay for the maintence etc.

So it isn't just to cover off the mortgage it's to cover the next 40 years.

What's people's views on the multiples?

[ukshooter]

There are a lot of variables to consider. You might also want to think about the payout being a monthly income too as well as just a lump sum payment. You should speak to a financial adviser to come up with the right options for your circumstances.

Happy to help if you want.

[F458]

Are you a director of a company?

[Welshbeef]

F458 said:

Are you a director of a company?

Not currently but have been within the last three years.

I know there is the issue of putting it into trust but you have to name who it goes to when you set it up - problem is we are ecpecting one child soon could be the only one but say in te future there are more then it would have to be a new policy.


I'd say lump sum would be the option I'd want for either scenario.

[scotal]

Welshbeef said:

Not currently but have been within the last three years.

I know there is the issue of putting it into trust but you have to name who it goes to when you set it up - problem is we are ecpecting one child soon could be the only one but say in te future there are more then it would have to be a new policy.


I'd say lump sum would be the option I'd want for either scenario.

Done your will yet?
Do so.

Remember if your Mrs is to be the beneficiary there is no IHT between spouses.

If you want me to run through Life Assurance with you I'd be happy to.

[jdearden]

Yhm

[Ayahuasca]

No need for new policies just because you have more children - you can just add beneficiaries to a trust.

Also consider critical illness and PHI cover - far more likely to happen than death prior to retirement age.

[dingg]

Welshbeef said:

I need to get two policies set up one for the wife and one for myself both will be level and both will be 40 year policies.

The question is is it recommended to go for 10 x salary on each policy.
Our mortgage should be cleared well within ten years but I want total security for my family if anything happens to me and god forbid anything happens to my wife I would want any survivor to not ever need to work again and be able to live in our family home and be able to pay for the maintence etc.

So it isn't just to cover off the mortgage it's to cover the next 40 years.

What's people's views on the multiples?

hhmmmm

my view fwiw yes indeed insure the missus heavily - you will need the cash should the unfortunate happen , you still need to work and pay for someone to looka fter the children etc etc.

otoh you pop your clogs would you really want the missus to be a catch for someone at your expense?


no gain at all for you - insure yourself so the house is paid off and she has a year or two to sort herself out with another bloke but no more would be and is my plan.

something to ponder over maybe

[Welshbeef]

Ayahuasca said:

No need for new policies just because you have more children - you can just add beneficiaries to a trust.

Also consider critical illness and PHI cover - far more likely to happen than death prior to retirement age.

The policies I'm looking at are 40 years which takes us up to young 70's.

[Ayahuasca]

Welshbeef said:

Ayahuasca said:

No need for new policies just because you have more children - you can just add beneficiaries to a trust.

Also consider critical illness and PHI cover - far more likely to happen than death prior to retirement age.

The policies I'm looking at are 40 years which takes us up to young 70's.

OK, in that case have you considered a 'decreasing term assurance' where the amount of cover reduces over the term ? The reason being that if you need 10x income now, you will probably not need anything like that when you are 60, 65, etc (less time to spend it..) DTA is cheaper than level assurance.

[Sarnie]

dingg said:

hhmmmm

my view fwiw yes indeed insure the missus heavily - you will need the cash should the unfortunate happen , you still need to work and pay for someone to looka fter the children etc etc.

otoh you pop your clogs would you really want the missus to be a catch for someone at your expense?


no gain at all for you - insure yourself so the house is paid off and she has a year or two to sort herself out with another bloke but no more would be and is my plan.

something to ponder over maybe

Some of us care for our loved ones

[Welshbeef]

Ayahuasca said:

OK, in that case have you considered a 'decreasing term assurance' where the amount of cover reduces over the term ? The reason being that if you need 10x income now, you will probably not need anything like that when you are 60, 65, etc (less time to spend it..) DTA is cheaper than level assurance.

Thing is it would then flow into the estate

Also from what I've seen the difference between an 18 year policy (same amount) and a 40 year policy is a mere £12-16pcm per person. That really shocked me at how little it is.