Life Insurance question...

[Postman]

Can someone who knows about such things tell me if it is a bad idea to have a "whole life" policy and a "term" policy from the same life insurance company, or should I have different companies - one for "whole life" and another company providing "term"?

[southerngirlwriter]

1. Whole life is the biggest rip-off on this planet.

Put your money to a better use. Send it to me.

Term is the way to go. Dirt-cheap.

[Postman]

2. tell me why Whole Life is a rip-off, please....

n/t

[southerngirlwriter]

4. Sure.

I will get my notes from my financial class, and go get a link, too. Give me a couple of minutes.

[southerngirlwriter]

6. sorry -- important phone call. Will find and post later.

nt

[donco6]

3. There's no need for both

You should choose one or the other - usually term, unless you're quite old.

Whole life is not usually a good investment, though that's how it's often sold. Unless you're maxing out your pretax investments already (401K, 403(b), 457, Roth IRA, etc.), you shouldn't even consider it.

[papau]

5. Whole life is needed if you have an estate or corporation to protect

and in certain tax situations it fits like a glove.

But the folks posting above are correct - for most folks - unless you place a high value on not having an increase in cost over time, or place a high value on guaranteed principal plus interest accounts, or place a high value on forcing yourself to save via "owing" premiums, you should stay with term ins.

As to using different companies, the current set up has the state take over busted companies via a fund other companies pay into. It would take a major, major problem for you to gain any increase in security by using more than one company. And if there was such a problem, your insurance would be the least of your, and our nations, and mankinds, worries.