Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0600
From: "cal lester" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Single, No Dependents: Need Term Life?
	processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox7.ucsd.edu;
	Wed, 04 January 2006 07:38:24 -0800 (PST)
	iQBVAwUAQ7vsAfl/I4+O31e5AQE7XAIAytqhX8URV2++tQ5Bm7eB9j0Of+jK4TWG
	ToluT4RENPTjaZ+Msrlkn1qVunjx3F2I43GqCqdCsUsFGkBGOYCkZw==
	=7Z0X


"Sgt.Sausage"  wrote in message
news:55cb3$43bb2b06$42a1e606$13844@FUSE.NET...
>
> "BRH"  wrote in message
> news:jIadneDt6-NJhybenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Just thumbed thru an article in this week's Newsweek magazine which
> > recommends term life in the amount of at least 8x annual salary.  All
> > artic;les that I've ever read assumes that you're married with
dependents.
>
> > I'm single, 53, with no dependents, and have basic term coverage thru
> > work.  (It's in the amount of my annual salary + $2000).  I've often
> > wondered whether I even need that amount of coverage.
>
> > I figure that, as long as I have enough set aside for my own burial
> > expenses, and have a will that distributes my remaining assets, I don't
> > really need term life coverage.
>
> That, to me, is the important part. Have enough assets -- be it
> insurance or other, that some long lost "next of kin" doesn't get
> stuck holding the bag for burial/cremation/ costs.
>
> If there's no one to benefit as the named benificiary (spouse,
> child, other), then you're simply wasting your hard-earned
> money.


    There should NOT be a "benefit" to anyone. That borders
    on GAMBLING. Life Insurance is NOT a GAMBLE, nor
    should it be used as such. It's primary purpose is to provide
    a "replacement" of the income that would be LOST with DEATH.


>
> My wife and I are similar -- no children, but we do have
> each other. We're both professionally employed and could
> more than maintain our current lifestyle on a single one of
> our paychecks, and have enough assets to cover 20 years
> worth of living. We have no need of this type of insurance,
> and have none. It would be pointless.
>
> OTOH, if it's provided by work, and cheap - as in doesn't
> cost you a thing --  why not name your favorite charity as
> the beneficiary (question to others: is this legal?)
>

        ABSOLUTELY ! ! ! ! It is an EXCELLENT way to
        provide for your favorite charity or alma-mater. As a
        matter of fact, if the charity is made the OWNER of the
        contract, then in MANY cases, the Annual Premium
        could be treated as a Charitable Contribution (tax deductible).

Cal Lester  CLU