Life Assurance

max

Registered User
Messages
113
I was advised by someone recently to consider taking out a whole-of-life life assurance and critical illness policy. The reason given was that as a 27 year old, it would be a lot cheaper now than if I were to take it out in, say, 20 years time. Does anybody have any opinion on this?
 
You need to post a lot more info than that!

For example, if you are single with no dependants, why would you need life assurance at all, especially whole of life ?

If you are married, with 4 kids, then it would certainly be advisable to have life assurance, etc

What are your plans for the future ? ...
 
I don't have any dependents or a pension - and for this reason I'm personally wondering what the point is?
 
I was advised by someone
By whom? Somebody with a vested interest in selling you a policy? Somebody with actual knowledge/expertise in this area?

Do you have a mortgage? If you have no mortgage and no dependents then chances are you don't need life assurance cover. Critical illness is a separate issue and you'd need to assess your risk factors to decide whether or not this was justified. Bear in mind that many critical illness policies include high charges and also only pay out in restricted circumstances and possibly for a restricted period of time. Always read the terms & conditions carefully and satisfy yourself that any particular policy suits your specific needs.
 
For someone with no dependents you have no need for life assurance other than what's needed to cover any mortagage or loans.

Savings should be a priority, and a pension is merely a tax efficient savings plan.

Insuring your helath is important. VHI (or similar) cover is essential, and after that perhaps think about income protection.

Whole of life cover for you? Nah.

I'd pay a proper independent advisor a fee to do a financial "healthcheck".
 
Insuring your helath is important. VHI (or similar) cover is essential
Not everybody would agree with this especially for somebody young and/or relatively healthy with no significant health risk factors and as long as community rating persists.
 
It certainly would be cheaper now at age 27 than much later, but you will also end up paying premia for that much longer. As a general rule, the younger you are, the more cover you can get without undergoing any medical testing (subject to a clean bill of health at time of proposal). I agree that if you have no mortgage or dependants, there seems little need for life cover, unless you want to provide for someone else? Serious illness cover is expensive, and is for SERIOUS illnesses, so claims may be difficult. IMHO whole of life policies are very generous commission earners for the seller, so be careful who is giving you this advice and what their motivation is.
 
Not everybody would agree with this especially for somebody young and/or relatively healthy with no significant health risk factors and as long as community rating persists.

Young people get sick too. Carrying no health insurance is a big risk imho.
 
Young people get sick too.
Yes
Carrying no health insurance is a big risk imho.
It's a risk but not necessarily a big one depending on the individual's situation and not necessarily one that's worth insuring against (other than "self" insurance). As ever there's no one size fits all right answer and much depends on the individual's situation. I'm just pointing out a contrary but nonetheless valid point of view on this matter.
 
Max,

A lot depends on your circumstances, are you self employed, would your income stop in the event of a serious illness, could you afford to pay all you commitments in the event of a serios illness. If you have a mortgage presently you will possibly already have a life policy (mortgage protection). It is also obvious that it will be cheaper now than in later life, I would consider that a poor arguement for taking out such a policy. It all comes down to your personal circumstances.

Michael (for Atlantic Insurance)
 
Back
Top