Integral part of wealth transfer, estate structures and the ultimate accumulation of generational wealth. Whole life gets a bad rep because of the historically poor growth they offer, but when you look to shield a lot of liquidity from estate taxes, taxes in general, etc. it's the best way to go.
Term is good, but only when used properly. There are plenty of great products that people can buy in their 20's and 30's that offer permanent solutions and are best paired w/ term to cover a certain period when there are kids in the mix, etc.
My firm uses whole life/permanent products all of the time to fund retirement. The death benefit is just that, a death benefit.
No offense. But whole life gets a bad rep because they're overall terrible products aimed to make higher commissions for the insurance companies. Its costs aren't worth it for the coverage needed. There's ways around taxes like Roth accounts, spousal gifts, trusts etc.
Tough call. I do agree with your view, but again, at times. Each product represents a different need. My firm produces quite a bit of both but again, every person is different. Our cash heavy clients prefer the permanent only because of estate tax implications. Others like the idea of term.
Definitely two sides to the coin but I just want people to have it regardless.
Can we get a thread started on this. Some people say its not worth it, some say it is. Whats the coli opinion?
Get it.
Worth it. Buy term life insurance. Usually less than $30/month if you're reasonably healthy with no life threatening conditions.
If anybody stays in/near STL, I can get you a good deal on a State Farm policy. I have a guy.![]()