Term life insurance duration
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I am getting a term life and the beneficiaries will be my two minor kids (age 11 and 9). I am most inclined to a 20 year one but wonder if 30year would make more sense. The monthly difference is ~$50 for 2m and ~$40 for 1.5m
Technically 20 year would suffice since my kids will be 31 and 29 and will be able to support themselves but I also want to build a bigger safety net for them whenever I can. Plus I have 27 years left on mt mortgage. Am I worrying too much? |
Anonymous
|
30 year term here. Man, I never imagined I would be diagnosed with terminal (genetic) health issue 12 years after purchasing. The catch is (good news) I could be around a while with breakthrough drugs … so glad I did 30 years. You now have to factor in medical breakthroughs.
Remember this could be your one and only time to purchase term life insurance. |
Anonymous
| On the one hand 31 and 29 seems old enough to be launched. On the other hand unexpected things happen in life. I know several people whose kids developed disabilities in early adulthood and needed parents to leave them more money to not be destitute on social security disability. Also someone in my family died at 50 and his wife became disabled shortly thereafter and couldn't work. I don't buy unnecessary things but the difference between 20 and 30 years is not that much and I would not be cheap. |
Anonymous
|
My kids are a little bit older and we did a 20 year term policy. This took us through the kids being out of college plus a few years. (very similar to you)
It is a relatively small delta for the 30 year term - but we asked the question - what was the purpose of life insurance. Our answer was to make sure that financially the kids would be able to get through college without having to worry about financial decisions due to one or both parents death. I am not a lawyer - but you might want to talk to one about the beneficiary being a Trust. I can't remember the details - but doing it this way provided a layer of control of minor children or 1 child who was a minor and 1 adult. |
Anonymous
| If it’s really just for your kids and no spoise I think either is perfectly fine |
Anonymous
| I got 20 and wish I’d gotten 30. My kids will be fine without it, but it’s a good extra cushion. |
Anonymous
| I would do 20. |
Anonymous
Insurance broker here. Always do the longest term you are even remotely considering for the reason stated here. Also, maybe this won’t happen for the DCUM overachievers, but many, many people overestimate how well off they will be in 20 years and end up needing a new 10- or 15-year term policy at age 58. |
Anonymous
Why would a single person need a policy at 58 because they weren’t financially successful? |
Anonymous
| Our term will end around the time our youngest finishes college. We didn’t do longer because we will definitely be able to self insure at that point. If we weren’t in that financial position, I’d have done the 30. |
Anonymous
Absolutely! For that price diff, it's a no-brainer. |
Anonymous
| I'd do 30yr @2m. You can always drop it at any time. In other words, you're not really locked in for 30 yrs. |
Anonymous
| I actually think almost everyone here is wrong. A 20 year is what you need and want. The extra $50 is effectively gambling for a return. If you want to do that I have no objection, but recognize it for what it is. |
Anonymous
+1 same thing, now I am more worried about LTC, if I don’t die is more of a problem |
Anonymous
I never said single. In fact, in this case, they're almost always married. They perhaps haven't paid off the house or saved as much as they would have liked. The spouse would suffer a real financial loss if the higher-earning spouse were to pass away, even at 58, so they will start another term if they are in relatively good health and the prices are reasonable. It's not ideal, but it's the reality of what sometimes happens. |