Retired Navy Reservist- SBP worth the cost?

[dtbach]

I FIRED about 2 years ago and have been enjoying it very much, but money had to be watched fairly close. I just turned 60 and am now getting my Navy Pension. The good news is that money now is not tight at all! But I was shocked at what the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) is costing.

I had thought it would be about 6.5% but its over 8.25% as a Reserve cost is added on. In short, I'm paying $250/mo for a $1600/mo benefit.

At this moment, my wife and 2 kids (15 yr old) could use the benefit (and I have no choice for 2 years as I can't decline it until then). But if I live until 70 there will no need for it (kids done with college, house paid for, wife could take my SS if I pass on) but I will be stuck paying for it another 20 years.

All I would need is about $300,000 in term life insurance for 8 years (62-70). If I can find it for the same amount as my SBP payment would that not be a better choice?

I don't need convincing but my wife does. Please let me know what you would do in this circumstance. Would help in convincing the DW.

 

[Soldier]

dtbach,

I can't remember all the details but I basically went with the minimum SBP (I think 15 %) and bought term ins to go along with my whole life ins. This was all based on guidance from my financial advisor because he felt it was to my financial advantage not to take the 100% SBP. My wife and I had/have been saving since day one so she'll have that plus the ins if something happens to me. I retired in 2009 from active duty so have been receiving my retirement since then.

 

[samclem]

I had thought it would be about 6.5% but its over 8.25% as a Reserve cost is added on. In short, I'm paying $250/mo for a $1600/mo benefit.

$1600 indexed for inflation and paying out as long as your DW is alive. Right?

And remember the SBP premiums are tax deductible, any premiums you pay for private insurance won't be.

It's no surprise that "financial advisors" who are working on commission urge people not to take SBP.

Don't buy more more insurance (SBP or otherwise) than you need, but for what it offers it is a good deal (if you need it). The inflation protection is a very significant factor. With the SBP you >>know<< she'll be covered no matter what happens with regard to inflation and the markets (if the government keeps its promise). With a life insurance payout there's considerably more uncertainty--you have to estimate correctly regarding the future inflation rate, your wife needs to invest the money correctly or luck into a period of high interest so an annuity can keep up, etc.

If monthly income was "tight" before your pension started and you've got plenty now, the question is why not pay that $250 per month now (since you'll hardly miss it from the new bigger monthly check) to insure she doesn't experience those "tight" times again if you die? Of course that's a personal question, hope I didn't hit too close on that one. But I'll bet that's what she's thinking--I would be.

 

[dtbach]

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "tight" as the budget was sufficient for us, just not overly so. I was drawing $4900/mo out of our assets (approx. $1.7M) and the wife is making about $1680/mo net. So our monthly take home of $6580/mo was "adequate". Now with my Navy pension of $2500/mo (net) we feel like we are rolling in it!!

Now if I was retiring at 43 from the Navy with a 38 year old wife and a couple of 2 year olds, I could see keeping SBP and paying for it another 30 years. But in 2 years from now, the kids will be 17 and the mortgage will be paid off in 5 more years. If I have $300,000 in term and croak during that time, DW could pay off the mortgage ($55,000), put the kids through college ($75,000) [Note: we also have $20K for each in a 509 plan] which would leave her with $170K for 7 years ($24K/yr)until she could take my SS rate of $2200/mo. In the meantime of course she could up the take out of our assets to 4% and get $68K/year. I think she could live on $90+ in a mortgage free house quite nicely.

Does this start to make more sense to buy term for 8 years? My family have all lived well into their 80's (both my parents are over 90 now and doing nicely). So I would pay almost $90K over the next 30 years instead of just a bit over $10K with doing the term.

 

[MooreBonds]

In short, I'm paying $250/mo for a $1600/mo benefit.
...
All I would need is about $300,000 in term life insurance for 8 years (62-70). If I can find it for the same amount as my SBP payment would that not be a better choice?

First of all, while I haven't personally shopped for 30 year term policies for a 62 year old, my gut feeling is that you won't find any such product (or a very hard time finding one), since - statistically speaking - you have a very high % chance of dying from old age in that 30 year term. Insurers will price it accordingly. (example: $250/month for 30 years yields $90,000 in premiums. Think many insurance companies will accept $90,000 in premiums from a 62 year old for a $300,000 policy when there's a 75% chance or so of them dying during the coverage period? I'd guess they'd want far more in premiums, considering most people 62 who apply for a 30 year term policy will die before the 30 years is up).

Another way of looking at it is that the 1,600/mo benefit (COLAed?) for your survivor's benefit is the equivalent of leaving your spouse a $300k portfolio and her withdrawing 6.4% off of it for the rest of her life. IMO, that's a pretty decent return.

You could just do a 10 year term policy....but look at what those premiums would cost, and realize you aren't likely going to die during that timeframe.

 

[Greg V]

An additional item is that your family was covered by SBP from your 20 yr point until you reached age 60 and began to receive your military annuity. Recouping the cost for that coverage is the reason for the additional "Reserve" slice of premiums.

Never hurts to examine other options such as life insurance, etc, but be sure you get an apples to apples comparison. As mentioned before, the SBP premium does reduce your taxable annuity amount, a small but tangible benefit to put into the analysis. I'm sure you'll have factors unique to your situation.

I chose SBP for both the coverage prior to age 60 and the guaranteed, lifetime, COLA'd, income stream for my spouse. Even if I could have saved some bucks on monthly premium for insurance vice SBP, the resulting lump sum would need to be properly invested and managed after my demise to generate the income. I'd be concerned about my spouse navigating those shark-infested waters solo. In this instance, top priority was for me to reduce risk vice optimize costs, and that showed in my choice.

Best of luck in your analysis.

 

[jclarksnakes]

I like the way you think but it all depends upon how much 300K of term life insurance will cost you for 8 years.

 

[jclarksnakes]

dtbach,

I can't remember all the details but I basically went with the minimum SBP (I think 15 %) and bought term ins to go along with my whole life ins. This was all based on guidance from my financial advisor because he felt it was to my financial advantage not to take the 100% SBP. My wife and I had/have been saving since day one so she'll have that plus the ins if something happens to me. I retired in 2009 from active duty so have been receiving my retirement since then.

Did the financial advisor sell you the whole life insurance policy?

 

[packrat44]

When I retired from the reserves at 60 I elected to NOT take SBP. It would cost 15% of my pension for life for my DW to receive 55% of my pension. and that would be reduced to 35% when she reached 62. That appeared to be too costly for the coverage.

 

[Greg V]

The SBP reduction at age 62 (an adjustment based on Social Security) was phased out Apr 1, 2008 so the amount a spouse receives remains at 55% of the selected base amount. May or may not make a difference in one's choice...

 

[dtbach]

When I retired from the reserves at 60 I elected to NOT take SBP. It would cost 15% of my pension for life for my DW to receive 55% of my pension. and that would be reduced to 35% when she reached 62. That appeared to be too costly for the coverage.

I'm getting a couple of quotes for short term life policies that will cover me for the years between 62-70. It's not like I would be leaving the family penniless if I die after that. If I had no or minimal assets I would keep the SBP but at 70, the DW can take my SS (about $35K) and will have over $2M in assets plus a paid off house to live it.

At the cost of SBP for me ($3K/year) we could go on a cruise every other year.

Am I missing something? Tell me why I should stick with SBP in my circumstance.

 

[GolfingDuo]

I FIRED about 2 years ago and have been enjoying it very much, but money had to be watched fairly close. I just turned 60 and am now getting my Navy Pension. The good news is that money now is not tight at all! But I was shocked at what the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) is costing.

I had thought it would be about 6.5% but its over 8.25% as a Reserve cost is added on. In short, I'm paying $250/mo for a $1600/mo benefit.

At this moment, my wife and 2 kids (15 yr old) could use the benefit (and I have no choice for 2 years as I can't decline it until then). But if I live until 70 there will no need for it (kids done with college, house paid for, wife could take my SS if I pass on) but I will be stuck paying for it another 20 years.

All I would need is about $300,000 in term life insurance for 8 years (62-70). If I can find it for the same amount as my SBP payment would that not be a better choice?

I don't need convincing but my wife does. Please let me know what you would do in this circumstance. Would help in convincing the DW.

Okay let me get this straight. You are worried about 3k a year to give your spouse guaranteed income for the rest of her life and are deciding to spend it on a 300k term life insurance policy that will only be in effect for 8 years and you are only 60? Hmmmmm that is kind of odd. I guess you just want to take it with you? No at age 85 or so when you are gone and you didnt take the SBP and didnt renew the 300k policy or maybe you decided that a 5k policy would be better so that at least you are buried? I dont understand? Sorry if I am sounding insensitive but that is pretty heartless in my book. Look I am in a similar circumstance with you. I am age 55+ and a reservist. My wife will depend on our collective pension because she stuck that out with me. We did it together. It was not just you. All the times you had to go away and she had to run the household and you dont think protecting her until she no longer needs it. If she passes away before you you will still be covered but if you go before her she gets nothing? Ouch!

 

[dtbach]

Okay let me get this straight. You are worried about 3k a year to give your spouse guaranteed income for the rest of her life and are deciding to spend it on a 300k term life insurance policy that will only be in effect for 8 years and you are only 60? Hmmmmm that is kind of odd. I guess you just want to take it with you? No at age 85 or so when you are gone and you didnt take the SBP and didnt renew the 300k policy or maybe you decided that a 5k policy would be better so that at least you are buried? I dont understand? Sorry if I am sounding insensitive but that is pretty heartless in my book. Look I am in a similar circumstance with you. I am age 55+ and a reservist. My wife will depend on our collective pension because she stuck that out with me. We did it together. It was not just you. All the times you had to go away and she had to run the household and you dont think protecting her until she no longer needs it. If she passes away before you you will still be covered but if you go before her she gets nothing? Ouch!

Did you read my other posts??

"I'm getting a couple of quotes for short term life policies that will cover me for the years between 62-70. It's not like I would be leaving the family penniless if I die after that. If I had no or minimal assets I would keep the SBP but at 70, the DW can take my SS (about $35K) and will have over $2M in assets plus a paid off house to live it"

Its not like she would be penniless. And I'd rather spend it on fun stuff together rather than an annuity which won't really make much of a difference in her financial well being. I don't think I'm being "heartless" here. But I could be wrong. Anyway, I'll look at the situation 2 years from now before deciding what option to take (with her input of course)

 

[ChainsBeGone]

I'm getting a couple of quotes for short term life policies that will cover me for the years between 62-70. It's not like I would be leaving the family penniless if I die after that. If I had no or minimal assets I would keep the SBP but at 70, the DW can take my SS (about $35K) and will have over $2M in assets plus a paid off house to live it.

At the cost of SBP for me ($3K/year) we could go on a cruise every other year.

Am I missing something? Tell me why I should stick with SBP in my circumstance.

"Tell me why...." Because it will give your spouse peace of mind - that is as valuable as the financial benefit.

 

[Greg V]

Golf, I think you're being a bit harsh on the OP, though I just may be limited by the shortcomings of understanding your meaning solely through the written word. Real conversations alway work better. My take on his question is that he's curious if there are other viable alternatives that cost less. There's nothing wrong with taking a look. I don't see any intent to take action detrimental to his spouse.

dtbach, you asked for some pro-SBP thoughts on the SBP vs Insurance issue. I passed along my choice earlier in the thread. To recap, I selected SBP as I saw it maximizing my spouse's financial security while minimizing risk. Cost mattered, but was a secondary consideration. Here are some thoughts for your perusal:

1. Successfully choosing enough insurance to generate the needed income requires you to accurately forecast future rates of return for safe, conservative investments. That could be a challenge and has some risk if you are wrong. With SBP, you know what you've got, no matter the state of the markets and it is a lifetime program. It enables more accurate financial planning.

2. The combination of SBP and Soc Security provides a strong, predictable foundation of COLA'd income, potentially preserving a sizeable portion of your investments for large, unplanned expenses (health care maybe?), legacy for children/charities, etc since you will not require your investments to generate as much income.

Without knowing your insurance quotes, we can't do a good cost-benefit analysis to help you with your choice. I'm sure you'll do that work once you have the info and will make the best decision for you and your family based upon your priorities and financial/personal circumstances.

Happy ciphering.

 

[GolfingDuo]

Did you read my other posts??

"I'm getting a couple of quotes for short term life policies that will cover me for the years between 62-70. It's not like I would be leaving the family penniless if I die after that. If I had no or minimal assets I would keep the SBP but at 70, the DW can take my SS (about $35K) and will have over $2M in assets plus a paid off house to live it"

Its not like she would be penniless. And I'd rather spend it on fun stuff together rather than an annuity which won't really make much of a difference in her financial well being. I don't think I'm being "heartless" here. But I could be wrong. Anyway, I'll look at the situation 2 years from now before deciding what option to take (with her input of course)

No she won't be penniless. I did miss the 2mil in assets so please except my apologies. The paid off house is okay but that is not liquid and could go up or down depending on market and location. Still with that kind of assets why give money to the insurance companies. They already have some of the largest buildings and are always finding ways on how not to pay out. Just my feeling, if I had 2 mil in assets I wouldnt get any insurance. I am not even sure I will get life insurance when I retire anyway. It will be expensive enough to pay health insurance. still it is your life and you know better than me. You have that 2 mil where I only have a mil in assets and two pensions. So we are not even in the same income bracket.

 

[Soldier]

The SBP reduction at age 62 (an adjustment based on Social Security) was phased out Apr 1, 2008 so the amount a spouse receives remains at 55% of the selected base amount. May or may not make a difference in one's choice...

For clarification I retired (MRD) in 2007 but was recalled to active duty for two more years so I/wife had to make the SBP decision in 2007. Sorry about confusion.

 

[dtbach]

I believe I may have found a way to get rid of SBP and still protect income for my wife.

I will set up a Charitable Trust with the University of Wisconsin (my alma mater) with an initial contribution of $100,000 and a $640/mo payment into the trust. It will have a $300,000 life insurance wrapper around it to protect for the years 62-70. $500 is the contribution and $140 cost of insurance. In two years I drop the SBP which means now my contribution really drops to $390 as I no longer pay in $250 for SBP.

At a 5% growth it should be about $238,000 in ten years. I can then add another $100,000 to bring it to $338,000. They guarantee a 5% payout so that would be about $1400/mo.

In the meantime, I would get a tax deduction of approx. $47,000 (Cap gains of the stocks I would put into the trust) and the majority of the initial payments from the trust is also cap gains.

So now the DW gets insurance protection in between, a guaranteed $1400/mo payment if I die after 70 (at which time the house is payed off, the kids are out of college, she draws my higher SS of $2900/mo and she still has approx. $1.5M in assets.

And if I live to 90 like my dad, I will have saved 28 x 12 x $250 = $84,000 in SPB payments.

Where are the chinks in this plan??

 

[GolfingDuo]

I believe I may have found a way to get rid of SBP and still protect income for my wife.

I will set up a Charitable Trust with the University of Wisconsin (my alma mater) with an initial contribution of $100,000 and a $640/mo payment into the trust. It will have a $300,000 life insurance wrapper around it to protect for the years 62-70. $500 is the contribution and $140 cost of insurance. In two years I drop the SBP which means now my contribution really drops to $390 as I no longer pay in $250 for SBP.

At a 5% growth it should be about $238,000 in ten years. I can then add another $100,000 to bring it to $338,000. They guarantee a 5% payout so that would be about $1400/mo.

In the meantime, I would get a tax deduction of approx. $47,000 (Cap gains of the stocks I would put into the trust) and the majority of the initial payments from the trust is also cap gains.

So now the DW gets insurance protection in between, a guaranteed $1400/mo payment if I die after 70 (at which time the house is payed off, the kids are out of college, she draws my higher SS of $2900/mo and she still has approx. $1.5M in assets.

And if I live to 90 like my dad, I will have saved 28 x 12 x $250 = $84,000 in SPB payments.

Where are the chinks in this plan??

I only see one and I just learned this today. If you have other questions about FERS retirement I can answer a lot of them since I went to my pre retirement brief today. The one chink I see is FEHB. If you do not select at least 1/4 SBP she will not be able to carry FEHB beyond your death. It ends if you are carrying it along.

To admin can I post a slide show from my brief here on the forum? It is not copy righted materiel as they gave it to us and it is generic.

I am looking again at this post. Did I miss that you are just talking about your reserve retirement pension? If that is the case then I can understand all of your work on avoiding the payment though 84,000 over a 28 year period is not that much money in the grand scheme of things.

I hope Dtbach you can understand. To others I apologize to any who think or felt I was being too harsh. I didnt mean it to be harsh.

 

[Greg V]

It's great for you to support your alma mater. Universities rely heavily on their grads to fund important programs. I am ill equipped to discuss the ins and outs of charitable trusts. Asking some questions will be good education for me. Here goes:

For the amounts of money involved, does this accurately describe your contributions?

1. Initial funding of 100K via stock, 47K of which is appreciation on the initial stock investment.
2. After that 100K, you put in $640/month (cash, I assume, not securities)...didn't really get how long (10 yrs?)...$500 goes to the trust and $140 to a $300K life ins policy
3. At the 10 yr point you add another 100K to trust.

Under the terms of the trust, do you/your family receive an annuity only if you die...and only after age 70? It would seem you'd get a deferred annuity of some sort, living or dead, out of this arrangement.

Does UW have control of the money used to fund the trust from the date you start the contributions? Are those resources completely unavailable to you in case of unplanned expenses? Does your family get any benefit, except for the life ins, if you die prior to age 70 ?

Do you avoid taxation on the 47K of capital gains, making funding of the trust easier, or do you actually get a tax deduction?

How did the premium for the insurance "wrapper" compare to the quotes you received for term insurance only?

It seems you're putting in $260K (mitigated by tax savings on the securities put in the trust) plus a little over $13K in ins premiums for the trust arrangement if your payments end at age 70 (today's dollars). For SBP, up to age 90 (in today's dollars) you're paying $84K.

If you're getting a $1400/mo guaranteed annuity starting at 70 (don't have to die for UW to pay), you also have $470K of guaranteed income, assuming the age 90 scenario. If that's the case, you're not just ensuring an income stream for your spouse in case of your death, you're also annuitizing some of your assets to give you another guaranteed income stream for your financial planning. You could compare the costs and conditions of similar deferred annuities to see how the UW plan stacks up. Of course, part of the allure of this plan is that UW would benefit.

I'm not sure these things are chinks as much as gaps in my understanding of the arrangement. It seems SBP and the UW plan are doing different things, making a direct cost/benefit analysis tougher. Appreciate the chance to discuss and examine these types of estate vehicles.

BTW, GolfingDuo is on target about the FERS Survivor Annuity having implications for survivor's health care access for any readers who are in that boat. While the programs have similarities, dtbach's military program does not have that same issue. It's a big deal for the civil servants.

 

[GolfingDuo]

It's great for you to support your alma mater. Universities rely heavily on their grads to fund important programs. I am ill equipped to discuss the ins and outs of charitable trusts. Asking some questions will be good education for me. Here goes:

For the amounts of money involved, does this accurately describe your contributions?

1. Initial funding of 100K via stock, 47K of which is appreciation on the initial stock investment.
2. After that 100K, you put in $640/month (cash, I assume, not securities)...didn't really get how long (10 yrs?)...$500 goes to the trust and $140 to a $300K life ins policy
3. At the 10 yr point you add another 100K to trust.

Under the terms of the trust, do you/your family receive an annuity only if you die...and only after age 70? It would seem you'd get a deferred annuity of some sort, living or dead, out of this arrangement.

Does UW have control of the money used to fund the trust from the date you start the contributions? Are those resources completely unavailable to you in case of unplanned expenses? Does your family get any benefit, except for the life ins, if you die prior to age 70 ?

Do you avoid taxation on the 47K of capital gains, making funding of the trust easier, or do you actually get a tax deduction?

How did the premium for the insurance "wrapper" compare to the quotes you received for term insurance only?

It seems you're putting in $260K (mitigated by tax savings on the securities put in the trust) plus a little over $13K in ins premiums for the trust arrangement if your payments end at age 70 (today's dollars). For SBP, up to age 90 (in today's dollars) you're paying $84K.

If you're getting a $1400/mo guaranteed annuity starting at 70 (don't have to die for UW to pay), you also have $470K of guaranteed income, assuming the age 90 scenario. If that's the case, you're not just ensuring an income stream for your spouse in case of your death, you're also annuitizing some of your assets to give you another guaranteed income stream for your financial planning. You could compare the costs and conditions of similar deferred annuities to see how the UW plan stacks up. Of course, part of the allure of this plan is that UW would benefit.

I'm not sure these things are chinks as much as gaps in my understanding of the arrangement. It seems SBP and the UW plan are doing different things, making a direct cost/benefit analysis tougher. Appreciate the chance to discuss and examine these types of estate vehicles.

BTW, GolfingDuo is on target about the FERS Survivor Annuity having implications for survivor's health care access for any readers who are in that boat. While the programs have similarities, dtbach's military program does not have that same issue. It's a big deal for the civil servants.

Greg V thank you for that positive note here. I am one of many dual status military technicians. Today I went to a pre retirement seminar and got a lot of great information that is very important to the FERS side of my retirement. I can completely understand Dtbach's work to lower the amounth paid out. I am considering taking only the 1/4 SBP for the FERS if only to continue the option for FEHB (Federal Employee Health Benefit) plan. The percentage required to continue is 5% of my annuity instead of the 10% for the full (50%) SBP. We have time since I am still four and a half years from retirement. I feel much better now about my up coming retirement and I was pretty confident about our income but now I have a better feel for the actual numbers.

 

[Sniggle]

I declined the SBP when I got my 20 year letter (with notarized wife signature), and just bought a term life policy to cover me up till 65.

I will probably decline again when I hit 59.5 in 10 years, assuming my health is still good.

When I did the numbers, it was much cheaper, with more coverage, to just buy a term policy.

 

[GolfingDuo]

I declined the SBP when I got my 20 year letter (with notarized wife signature), and just bought a term life policy to cover me up till 65.

I will probably decline again when I hit 59.5 in 10 years, assuming my health is still good.

When I did the numbers, it was much cheaper, with more coverage, to just buy a term policy.

I am just curious how is that cheaper. I have heard now three people say the same thing. I guess I just don't see the benefit. If we buy a term policy for x time, at the end of x term it will be gone. Yes if I pass on before x time then it makes sense. If not then how does that equate to giving income into the future? Especially in the 8 year time frame. If it is a 20 year term then that makes sense. Of course no one is gonna insure a 80 year old man for short money to replace 100k income. I get the term life insurance to replace income when young. I just don't see it into retirement. Maybe someone can help.

 

[dtbach]

It's great for you to support your alma mater. Universities rely heavily on their grads to fund important programs. I am ill equipped to discuss the ins and outs of charitable trusts. Asking some questions will be good education for me. Here goes:

For the amounts of money involved, does this accurately describe your contributions?

1. Initial funding of 100K via stock, 47K of which is appreciation on the initial stock investment.
2. After that 100K, you put in $640/month (cash, I assume, not securities)...didn't really get how long (10 yrs?)...$500 goes to the trust and $140 to a $300K life ins policy
3. At the 10 yr point you add another 100K to trust.

Under the terms of the trust, do you/your family receive an annuity only if you die...and only after age 70? It would seem you'd get a deferred annuity of some sort, living or dead, out of this arrangement.

Does UW have control of the money used to fund the trust from the date you start the contributions? Are those resources completely unavailable to you in case of unplanned expenses? Does your family get any benefit, except for the life ins, if you die prior to age 70 ?

Do you avoid taxation on the 47K of capital gains, making funding of the trust easier, or do you actually get a tax deduction?

How did the premium for the insurance "wrapper" compare to the quotes you received for term insurance only?

It seems you're putting in $260K (mitigated by tax savings on the securities put in the trust) plus a little over $13K in ins premiums for the trust arrangement if your payments end at age 70 (today's dollars). For SBP, up to age 90 (in today's dollars) you're paying $84K.

If you're getting a $1400/mo guaranteed annuity starting at 70 (don't have to die for UW to pay), you also have $470K of guaranteed income, assuming the age 90 scenario. If that's the case, you're not just ensuring an income stream for your spouse in case of your death, you're also annuitizing some of your assets to give you another guaranteed income stream for your financial planning. You could compare the costs and conditions of similar deferred annuities to see how the UW plan stacks up. Of course, part of the allure of this plan is that UW would benefit.

I'm not sure these things are chinks as much as gaps in my understanding of the arrangement. It seems SBP and the UW plan are doing different things, making a direct cost/benefit analysis tougher. Appreciate the chance to discuss and examine these types of estate vehicles.

BTW, GolfingDuo is on target about the FERS Survivor Annuity having implications for survivor's health care access for any readers who are in that boat. While the programs have similarities, dtbach's military program does not have that same issue. It's a big deal for the civil servants.

I'm learning some things myself as I go along. Lets get the FERS thing out of the way. It has nothing to do with my situation. DW and kids still get Tricare if I go whether or not I have SPB.

On the trust thing, the UW gets whatever is left of the trust after both DW and I are gone (kids don't get anything from it). During the 8 years from 62 to 70, If I die, the $300,000 would get added to whatever we had in the trust and then she gets paid at 5% out of it. So lets say I croak at 65 and we had built up $130,000 into it, now its worth $430,000 and she gets 5% a year from it (or about $1790/mo). It's not COLA protected but its better initially than the $1660/mo from SBP.

If I DO live however, at 70 we BOTH get a stream of income out of the trust (as will either one of us, until both die). So during the 8 years from 62 - 70 I saved $24,000 from not paying SBP and in fact subsidized the trust with that money. If I live another 20 years after that I will have saved an additional $60,000. Plus obviously the stream of money from the trust for those years.

I am just curious how is that cheaper. I have heard now three people say the same thing. I guess I just don't see the benefit. If we buy a term policy for x time, at the end of x term it will be gone. Yes if I pass on before x time then it makes sense. If not then how does that equate to giving income into the future? Especially in the 8 year time frame. If it is a 20 year term then that makes sense. Of course no one is gonna insure a 80 year old man for short money to replace 100k income. I get the term life insurance to replace income when young. I just don't see it into retirement. Maybe someone can help.

Hopefully I have answered you question on the 8 year time frame.

 

[jclarksnakes]

No she won't be penniless. I did miss the 2mil in assets so please except my apologies. The paid off house is okay but that is not liquid and could go up or down depending on market and location. Still with that kind of assets why give money to the insurance companies. They already have some of the largest buildings and are always finding ways on how not to pay out..........

Who has bigger buidlings than the insurance companies? The government comes to mind as the obvious answer. The OP can either give money to an insurance company or to the government. He is smart to be looking for the best cost for the coverage he actually needs. When I retired from active duty in 1993 we looked at the choices and bought term life insurance and declined the SBP. The term insurance ends in a few years when DW's pension and SS will be more than she actually needs to live. I plan to live another 40 years. I would really be pissed to look back at age 100 on 60 years of SBP payments knowing that I really only needed 22 years of insured coverage.

I know nothing about setting up a charitable trust but what the OP has posted so far about setting up a trust with wraparound insurance looks very interesting.