Term Life Insurance or Whole?
In the days when I used to sell life insurance (uh, yup), I worked for a company that pushed term life insurance. I thought this seemed like a pretty good concept. You essentially set a term (example, 20 years, though you can have terms as long as 30 or even more) of coverage and payments and when that 20 years is up, you stop paying and stop coverage.
Advantages of this are several:
- you only have dependents when you are younger and they are not likely to live at home longer than 20 years.
- As you get older you pay off your mortgage and other things so your overall financial security rises.
But when I told people I was working for a company that pushed term life insurance they sneered at me. Term life seemed like an intuitively better idea than whole life to me. Why sneer?
Well, the answer to that is also obvious: you may die the day after the policy runs out, in which case you have paid a pile of money over the years and ended up losing every penny, with no benefit. That is frightening, certainly, and yet there is logic to the pro-term life insurance argument that I still like.
Is term life insurance short sighted?
Some people also argue that the pro-term-life-insurance argument takes advantage of people’s short-sightedness. When we’re young we perhaps naively believe we’ll have everything all paid off by the time we’re fifty and then we’ll live for a long time after that. Obviously, this is not true for everyone.
Add to this, though, the fact that term life insurance is cheaper over the short run and you have another factor that is both appealing yet possibly manipulative on the part of insurance companies.
Is term life insurance better for insurance companies than consumers? Or is whole life? Which one have you chosen? Why? Comment below and I’ll answer.
