Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-12-2012, 06:17 AM   #21
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Life insurance has been used to pay estate taxes for years, but less so recently because of the new $5M per spouse exemption. A guaranteed UL policy will maximize the death benefit for the lowest possible premium and is still guaranteed for life. If there are two spouses living, a survivorship guaranteed UL policy will be even less expensive.
__________________

__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-12-2012, 07:54 AM   #22
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cville
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Well, I was just continuing the discussion to see if there is a hole in my thinking. I don't trust my own thinking, so I try to see if the smart people on this forum can challenge it and point out if/where I made a mistake. To me, that is different from 'arguing', but we all see things differently.
So arguing about arguing - hrmmm - sorry, I couldn't resist

However, on to the point about whole life as an estate planning tool. I've always understood it like Harley described, but I'm sitting here thinking, if I want to have a say $10M policy to pass along to my heirs, I'm thinking that on the whole I'm going to have to pay in a sum sufficient to amas say $10.5M before I'm supposed to die so that they insurance company has $10M to pay out and say $0.5M for overhead/profit. So would it not turn out the same if I put say $10K a year in a low cost fund or index every year in my heirs name(s) as the annual gift rather than putting it into paying the premiums for a policy? Wouldn't my heirs end up with the same $10.5M if they followed similiar AA as the insurance company?

No arguing here, just now I'm feeling confused on a topic I thought I understood.
__________________

__________________
RetireBy90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 08:05 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireBy90 View Post
So arguing about arguing - hrmmm - sorry, I couldn't resist

However, on to the point about whole life as an estate planning tool. I've always understood it like Harley described, but I'm sitting here thinking, if I want to have a say $10M policy to pass along to my heirs, I'm thinking that on the whole I'm going to have to pay in a sum sufficient to amas say $10.5M before I'm supposed to die so that they insurance company has $10M to pay out and say $0.5M for overhead/profit. So would it not turn out the same if I put say $10K a year in a low cost fund or index every year in my heirs name(s) as the annual gift rather than putting it into paying the premiums for a policy? Wouldn't my heirs end up with the same $10.5M if they followed similiar AA as the insurance company?

No arguing here, just now I'm feeling confused on a topic I thought I understood.
No, it doesn't work that way. It sort of works that way for the pool (all the people of your age and rating that buy policies in the same year that you buy), but not for any individual policyholder.

The premiums paid by others in your pool also contribute to the payment of death benefits as well as interest earnings on the premiums received in excess of benefits paid. So those who buy a policy and lapse help support the payment of death benefits for those who keep their policies.
__________________
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 09:24 AM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
Sorry, shouldn't have said arguing. I meant that if you don't think someone is understanding your point you are very patient in explaining it as many times as needed. But on this one I think it's just another situation of agree to disagree. ...
No problem. Even I sometimes get to the point that the back-forth on a topic gets tiring, so I just drop out of the conversation.

That said, just ignore the following if you don't care to continue - but I really don't see this as something that two people could 'agree to disagree' on. It either is or isn't, regardless of either of our opinions.

Quote:
But no matter whether people agree it's a good method or not, regarding the OP I don't think this can be classified as a scam.
Scam is a strong word. But I do think the insurance salespeople distort the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
Life insurance has been used to pay estate taxes for years, ...
As is said, insurance is often 'sold', not purchased. Whether this is an appropriate use is questionable, just because there is a history of it. There is a pretty strong history of people being sold whole life, when they would have best been served by term (family bread-winners).



Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireBy90 View Post
So arguing about arguing - hrmmm - sorry, I couldn't resist
Something like that


Quote:
However, on to the point about whole life as an estate planning tool. I've always understood it like Harley described, but I'm sitting here thinking, if I want to have a say $10M policy to pass along to my heirs, I'm thinking that on the whole I'm going to have to pay in a sum sufficient to amas say $10.5M before I'm supposed to die so that they insurance company has $10M to pay out and say $0.5M for overhead/profit. So would it not turn out the same if I put say $10K a year in a low cost fund or index every year in my heirs name(s) as the annual gift rather than putting it into paying the premiums for a policy? Wouldn't my heirs end up with the same $10.5M if they followed similiar AA as the insurance company?

No arguing here, just now I'm feeling confused on a topic I thought I understood.
My point exactly. On average, how can that not be true?

It could still make sense for liquidity to pay estate taxes in some cases. Say $1M is needed to pay estate taxes for a non-liquid business. If the estate owner dies at a relatively young age, there would not have been time to move that $1M out of the estate. But the ins policy would supply the $1M in that case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
No, it doesn't work that way. ... So those who buy a policy and lapse help support the payment of death benefits for those who keep their policies.
True, but that would apply to anyone buying a LI policy. If that is a strong enough effect, it would make LI a good investment period. From that, it holds that we should buy it on groups of old people regardless of estate issues. But when I run the numbers, it does not seem like a good investment (as Brewer has mentioned).

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Talking about two different things....
Old 04-21-2012, 11:40 AM   #25
Confused about dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Notown
Posts: 4
Talking about two different things....

dgoldenz gave a short but very good explanation. But I guess there are still questions about this. I'm not an insurance agent, but have worked in insurance, banking and financial services as a back-office admin for 35 years so can understand the confusion. (BTW, if dgoldenz or anyone else thinks I've made a mistake in my explanations below, please correct me, thanks!)

This thread has diverged into two different avenues. Insurance is risk mitigation for MANY reasons, not just one or two as we are discussing here. Middle-class consumers think of life insurance as income protection because that is one of their biggest financial risks.

However, for the wealthy, income protection becomes secondary to estate tax planning. Because of the many current uncertainties about the estate tax laws, it's a subject of intense interest for the wealthy and their financial advisors. It's hard to make plans when you don't know what Congress is going to do (altho one can try to guess) or when they're going to do it. And estate tax law changes have been made retroactive in the past, making one's decision even more difficult.

So....if you are talking about income protection, the factors for how much you buy and what you buy, are very different than if you are talking about estate tax planning.

Income protection comes in the form of Term (either Level or Increasing), Whole Life, or Universal Life. Most people are focused on how much they're going to pay in premiums. Term is the most affordable because it has no cash value. If you are concerned about cash value, you are looking at insurance partially from an investment standpoint rather than face value protection.

You're the policy owner, so it's your choice. Just remember that insurers exact a heavy toll for cash value policies; you'll get less face value protection for your premium $$. A $100K policy, even tax free, makes for a puny drawdown at 4%. It should be noted that if you are the policy owner, the face value of the policy IS included in the total value of your estate at time of death, for estate tax purposes. It does, however, pass income tax-free to the beneficiary(ies), and is a Payable On Death (PoD) asset, therefore not under probate or trust control.

Estate Tax Planning for the wealthy most often uses Variable Universal Life (VUL) which optimally is held in an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT). Once set up this trust cannot be changed; it is a legal entity unto itself. Everyone has to follow all the IRS rules to the letter, or the trust will be disallowed. The insured(s) are NOT the policyowners but they do pay the premium, which varies each year according to the fluctuating market value of the investible portion of the VUL.

This premium allows the payers to remove excess after-tax cash from their estate, every year. Given that they may live 10, 20 or more years after setting up the ILIT, the total estate-taxable cash eventually drained off can be very substantial!

On one $5M VUL ILIT we set up for a young 40-ish couple who are Silicon Valley execs with substantial stock options, their initial premium was $22K for the first year. Although the start-up costs are substantial due to legal work, follow-up costs are relatively minor in succeeding years. Assuming nothing happens to them and they continue to fund the policy (they planned for a 10-15 year contribution period and to retire afterwards, leaving the policy able to fund itself), the face value may grow to substantially more than $5M, depending on how well the investible allocation does.

This allows them to be sure that no matter what Congress does, their son will have sufficient cash to offset the parents' estate tax hit, and he may well have extra non-taxable cash paid out from the policy if things go well. Remember, the ILIT is not owned by his parents, so it is not counted in the total value of the estate!

So you can see that these are two different scenarios, with very different numbers, because they are focused on achieving risk mitigation of two different goals. They are both life insurance-based, but they are "beasts of a different color", entirely.
__________________
Tre2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 12:34 PM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
VUL is one of the worst products for estate tax planning with an ILIT.
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 01:01 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
packrat44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: near Canadian border and near Mexican border
Posts: 1,142
Tre2012,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
__________________
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
packrat44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 10:25 PM   #28
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
VUL is one of the worst products for estate tax planning with an ILIT.
"Worst" for whom?

I love it when the insurance posters start lobbing hand grenades at each other on a discussion board of DIY investors.
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 06:45 AM   #29
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords View Post
"Worst" for whom?

I love it when the insurance posters start lobbing hand grenades at each other on a discussion board of DIY investors.
For the person buying life insurance to provide liquidity and/or pay for estate taxes. VUL's do not have a guaranteed death benefit, the cash value is useless inside an ILIT, and the investments within the VUL would have to be kept up every year by the trustee. So there's 3 strikes...
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 10:37 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
For the person buying life insurance to provide liquidity and/or pay for estate taxes. VUL's do not have a guaranteed death benefit, the cash value is useless inside an ILIT, and the investments within the VUL would have to be kept up every year by the trustee. So there's 3 strikes...
So, dgoldenz, what do you think of the original question about using whole life as a method of passing on an inheritence outside of estate taxes, the way Ed Slott proposes? I was hoping you'd weigh in. I know very little about insurance, and was wondering if I was missing something.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 05:33 AM   #31
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley View Post
So, dgoldenz, what do you think of the original question about using whole life as a method of passing on an inheritence outside of estate taxes, the way Ed Slott proposes? I was hoping you'd weigh in. I know very little about insurance, and was wondering if I was missing something.
Guaranteed universal life is the best way to minimize the cost of life insurance for estate tax planning. A GUL policy will generally cost 50-60% less than a whole life policy with the same death benefit and is still guaranteed for life. Since the cash value can't be taken out of the ILIT, the cash value is useless anyway. WL is designed to build cash value, while GUL is designed to minimize the premium and never build any significant cash value. Since the purpose of estate tax planning is getting the most guaranteed death benefit for the lowest price, GUL or survivorship GUL (if married/both spouses alive) is the best way to do it.
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 09:29 AM   #32
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
Guaranteed universal life is the best way to minimize the cost of life insurance for estate tax planning. A GUL policy will generally cost 50-60% less than a whole life policy with the same death benefit and is still guaranteed for life. Since the cash value can't be taken out of the ILIT, the cash value is useless anyway. WL is designed to build cash value, while GUL is designed to minimize the premium and never build any significant cash value. Since the purpose of estate tax planning is getting the most guaranteed death benefit for the lowest price, GUL or survivorship GUL (if married/both spouses alive) is the best way to do it.
Fully agree. GUL is what I would use in such instances.
__________________
"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."



- Will Rogers
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 11:52 AM   #33
Recycles dryer sheets
ducky911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 397
I do not buy into this estate planning. The biggest plus to his plan is to save on taxes. I have no idea what the changes to the tax code will be in thirty years and i do not care to guess now at a cost. These plans make life insurance look like a box that you can put alittle in and get alot out and that is so not true. The insurance companies make sure that more goes in than goes out.
__________________
You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
I hate (despise) loads and fees
Retired July '11 investments 55/45 in very low cost index and mutual funds, balance once a year at best.
ducky911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 03:59 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tre2012 View Post
Estate Tax Planning for the wealthy most often uses Variable Universal Life (VUL) which optimally is held in an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT). Once set up this trust cannot be changed; it is a legal entity unto itself. Everyone has to follow all the IRS rules to the letter, or the trust will be disallowed. The insured(s) are NOT the policyowners but they do pay the premium, which varies each year according to the fluctuating market value of the investible portion of the VUL.[/FONT][/COLOR]

This premium allows the payers to remove excess after-tax cash from their estate, every year. Given that they may live 10, 20 or more years after setting up the ILIT, the total estate-taxable cash eventually drained off can be very substantial!
If my goal is to slide money out of the potential estate before I die, couldn't I just set up a trust and put deposits into it, without any life insurance?

And, do gift taxes get involved here? It seems that money going into the trust is a gift to whomever the trust will pay eventually, so does that complicate the picture?
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 04:26 PM   #35
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
If my goal is to slide money out of the potential estate before I die, couldn't I just set up a trust and put deposits into it, without any life insurance?

And, do gift taxes get involved here? It seems that money going into the trust is a gift to whomever the trust will pay eventually, so does that complicate the picture?
Moving money out of the estate can be difficult when it is comprised mostly of illiquid assets (usually real estate or a business ownership stake). Since the estate is taxed on its value, heirs will usually not want to liquidate the real estate/business in order to pay the tax, hence the life insurance need.

There is a gifting exemption of $13k/person per year for each spouse, so if you had three kids for example, a husband/wife could gift them up to $78k/year without eating into their lifetime gifting exemption. With an ILIT/life insurance setup, the gift is the premium for the policy, which goes into the trust and then from the trust to the insurance company. The heirs could take the gift, but then they wouldn't get the death benefit of the life insurance.

Ex: John and Susan have a $50M net worth with $45M of it in real estate holdings and a $10M combined exemption from the estate tax. If John and Susan died, the heirs would owe tax on $40M, but only have $5M in liquid assets to pay it with. To pay the tax, they would need to liquidate the real estate holdings and if they don't do it on their own, the IRS will do it for them, fire-sale style.

Instead of putting their heirs in this position, John and Susan could buy a $25M survivorship life insurance policy with a premium of $250k/year that pays the tax for them. Assuming they have 3 kids, the annual exemption would be $78k and the remaining $172k would be applied against their lifetime exemption of $10M. Instead of liquidating their entire legacy of real estate holdings, they can simply pay the premium each year and liquidate as they wish.

You get the idea.
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 05:08 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
Moving money out of the estate can be difficult when it is comprised mostly of illiquid assets (usually real estate or a business ownership stake). Since the estate is taxed on its value, heirs will usually not want to liquidate the real estate/business in order to pay the tax, hence the life insurance need.

There is a gifting exemption of $13k/person per year for each spouse, so if you had three kids for example, a husband/wife could gift them up to $78k/year without eating into their lifetime gifting exemption. With an ILIT/life insurance setup, the gift is the premium for the policy, which goes into the trust and then from the trust to the insurance company. The heirs could take the gift, but then they wouldn't get the death benefit of the life insurance.

Ex: John and Susan have a $50M net worth with $45M of it in real estate holdings and a $10M combined exemption from the estate tax. If John and Susan died, the heirs would owe tax on $40M, but only have $5M in liquid assets to pay it with. To pay the tax, they would need to liquidate the real estate holdings and if they don't do it on their own, the IRS will do it for them, fire-sale style.

Instead of putting their heirs in this position, John and Susan could buy a $25M survivorship life insurance policy with a premium of $250k/year that pays the tax for them. Assuming they have 3 kids, the annual exemption would be $78k and the remaining $172k would be applied against their lifetime exemption of $10M. Instead of liquidating their entire legacy of real estate holdings, they can simply pay the premium each year and liquidate as they wish.

You get the idea.
Thanks for the example. I'm sure that the liquidity is the issue.

Based on earlier posts, it looks like the $25 million life insurance policy increases the estate to $75 million (less the accumulated premium). Is that correct, and how many dollars of estate tax does that add?
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 05:15 PM   #37
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Thanks for the example. I'm sure that the liquidity is the issue.

Based on earlier posts, it looks like the $25 million life insurance policy increases the estate to $75 million (less the accumulated premium). Is that correct, and how many dollars of estate tax does that add?
The proceeds are not part of the estate, they are direct to the beneficiaries. The cash is used to pay the estate tax on the $50M.
__________________
MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 06:19 PM   #38
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Thanks for the example. I'm sure that the liquidity is the issue.

Based on earlier posts, it looks like the $25 million life insurance policy increases the estate to $75 million (less the accumulated premium). Is that correct, and how many dollars of estate tax does that add?
Using an ILIT as the owner and beneficiary exempts the value of the proceeds from being included as part of the estate, as long as the ILIT was the owner/beneficiary of the policy since its inception. If the original owner was a person and then changed to an ILIT after the policy was already in force, the proceeds would be included in the estate value if death occured in the first 3 years (3-year "contemplation of death" rule). If an ILIT is not used, the proceeds would also be included in the estate.
__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 07:14 PM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgoldenz View Post
Using an ILIT as the owner and beneficiary exempts the value of the proceeds from being included as part of the estate, as long as the ILIT was the owner/beneficiary of the policy since its inception. If the original owner was a person and then changed to an ILIT after the policy was already in force, the proceeds would be included in the estate value if death occured in the first 3 years (3-year "contemplation of death" rule). If an ILIT is not used, the proceeds would also be included in the estate.
Okay, I think I'm getting it.
A regular insurance policy, owned by the deceased, would be included in the estate.
But, making the ILIT the owner, keeps the proceeds out of the estate (subject to original issue and 3 year rules).
And, there is no non-insurance trust which can provide the same tax treatment - i.e. any trust that simply held mutual funds would be subject to estate tax.

Am I getting close?
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 07:46 PM   #40
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Okay, I think I'm getting it.
A regular insurance policy, owned by the deceased, would be included in the estate.
But, making the ILIT the owner, keeps the proceeds out of the estate (subject to original issue and 3 year rules).
And, there is no non-insurance trust which can provide the same tax treatment - i.e. any trust that simply held mutual funds would be subject to estate tax.

Am I getting close?
Bingo.
__________________

__________________
Disclaimer - I am an independent insurance agent. If the above message contains insurance-related content, it is NOT intended as advice, and may not be accurate, applicable or sufficient depending on specific circumstances. Don't rely on it for any purpose. I do encourage you to consult an independent agent for insurance-related advice if you have a question that is specific in nature.
dgoldenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
life insurance


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.