Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:56:03 -0500
From: Mark Bole 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Paying for parents' retirement -- contingency planning
	iQBVAwUARPnv4/l/I4+O31e5AQG4FwIAqnjcxr2aUDFUW0nA87oy2u4cIMokAsIJ
	WksDi+w2XuSWMKxyy+COhRLulqfM6bMjEihVIo8unzWmHFddqo2/3A==
	=5C8M

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:

[...]
> 
> I think the OP is being very smart. He has life insurance to protect his
> wife and children in the case of his death. This is the same death that you
> say is unlikely to happen. Do you think the insurance where his wife is
> beneficiary is an unreasonable expenditure? His parents are dependent upon
> his income, too, 

You missed the point, it isn't about life insurance per se.  And the 
only event I estimated the probability of was that of him outliving his 
parents, not the probability of his death.

It's about insuring the far-reaching future of young children who have 
neither the knowledge nor the legal ability to control their financial 
situation, versus insuring the limited future of senior citizens who do 
have control over how and where they live, and about whose overall 
financial and family situation we know almost nothing.

I see a big difference between the two.

-Mark Bole