Worth reading

[nfs]

From the IFID website.

4% works pretty darned well

If your net worth is 30 times your income, you don't need life insurance

Buying an annuity before age 65-70 is not a good idea

An early portfolio disaster will doom your retirement

 

[guitarplayer]

if my net worth is 30 times my income...

so if i earn 40k a year, i need to be worth 40k * 30 = 120000$

heck that's a lot!

 

[justin]

if my net worth is 30 times my income...

so if i earn 40k a year, i need to be worth 40k * 30 = 120000$

heck that's a lot!

add another zero to your target net worth

 

[Martha]

If your net worth is 30 times your income, you don't need life insurance

Balony. Presumes the need to replace all your income, when you might save a good portion of it. Maybe instead of 30 times income, it should be 30 times expenses.

 

[justin]

Balony. Presumes the need to replace all your income, when you might save a good portion of it. Maybe instead of 30 times income, it should be 30 times expenses.

Of course, once you're gone, your expenses are gone too. Your spouse's expenses don't go away. But the deceased individual's insurance, car payments, food, entertainment, etc. expenses are zero... I don't think the survivor would have half of the pre-death expenses, but there would be a significant reduction.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Balony.   Presumes the need to replace all your income, when you might save a good portion of it.  Maybe instead of 30 times income, it should be 30 times expenses.

Martha! Tell me this is a CHP, because it makes no sense to me.

JG

 

[Nords]

Balony.   Presumes the need to replace all your income, when you might save a good portion of it.  Maybe instead of 30 times income, it should be 30 times expenses.

Yeah, no kidding, and I guess it makes more sense when you're not burdened with a high IQ.

The author also neglects the use of life insurance for estate planning & dependent trusts.

 

[Arif]

I haven't figured out the insurance thing. But I think it would be based on what is lost when that spouse dies. If you lose 50% of the deceased pension then you would need to replace that. BUT if it is from retirement accounts that gets transferred to the surviving spouse then don't see a reason to protect it. Like I said not fully versed on insurance so this might be skewd thinking and off base. Fire away.