To hate the comment about "why dont you have life insurance"?

[partinor]

Yes if a partner dies when the family rely on their income, there will be a major impact on the finances of the household. And yes, life insurance would solve at least that impact.
BUT not everyone can get life insurance that covers everything. A LOT of people are born as children with illnesses that can have an impact on life expectancy, and so these will often not be covered by life insurance. With some conditions, it may be that you can not get any life insurance. Or the costs may be too high.
And when I was young and took out life insurance policies routinely excluded causes of death such as suicide or risky behaviour.
But easier to just blame the individuals.

Public sector pensions and private sector final salary pension schemes are definitely not the norm

I didn't say that everyone had them, just that some people do and it is not a tiny minority.

Nobody has ever said this to me, ever. I have never even considered life insurance. I don't think I need it, our mortgage is insured against death and redundancy, (we could not have got it otherwise) but it has never, never crossed my mind to pay for life insurance. This thread has really surprised me.

The perils of double cover and income protection.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/2937957/Dont-pay-for-double-cover.html

(2 minute google to combat bombastic rudeness only. More indepth sources of info are definitely available for anyone considering the options)

@howabout no one even said about income protection!!! It's totally different to life insurance. Seriously fuck off with your contradictory poor advice.

@pfwow but if it's "insured against death" that is life insurance?

It's just for the mortgage though. It's really specific. And we only took it out because we had to.

Stowaway my specific comment in relation to double cover was with reference to long term income protection. There was a preceding discussion on life insurance / pensions / critical illness / long term sickness and income protection work benefits.

Suggest you RTFT before breaking out the f & bs.

It is actually practically impossible to buy 100% income protection. My DH's employer had to reduce the % offered because they could not find an insurer. An individual could not top up the amount already offered as it would be deducted from the maximum under the primary policy.

www.drewberryinsurance.co.uk/income-protection-insurance/faqs/can-i-take-out-two-income-protection-insurance-plans

@pfwow most people have it just for the mortgage so you're not alone. And you don't have to take out life cover with a mortgage. Although it was probably sold to you that way as the advisor was on commission. Or it was an interest only mortgage. Or you're not in the UK.

@dungeon It may only be about 20 to 25% of the population altogether

I think you're missing the point. Even in your posts you accept that probably 75-80% of the population dont have public sector pension schemes, which may or may not (depending on how long they live for / approach of employer) allow them to take early retirement after long term sickness.

I think you're missing the point. Even in your posts you accept that probably 75-80% of the population dont have public sector pension schemes, which may or may not (depending on how long they live for / approach of employer) allow them to take early retirement after long term sickness.

You're the one missing the point! I'm not saying that everyone has a public sector pension or necessarily a pension that provides nearly good benefits. I am just saying that a significant proportion do- I think that 20% is significant! For that 20%, a life insurance policy may not be necessary.

@Dungeon

I think we'll have to agree to disagree . 2 out of every 10 people (at best -
given that the public sector is diminishing all the time) isn't really my idea of a significant proportion of society.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree smile. 2 out of every 10 people (at best - given that the public sector is diminishing all the time) isn't really my idea of a significant proportion of society.

Seriously?? So you don't think that teachers, doctors, nurses, other NHS workers etc etc make up a significant proportion of the population. It isn't just those workers either as universities also have good pension schemes. I think you are confusing the word "significant" with "majority".

No I dont. All those people you mention are in the 15% of the workforce who work in the public sector (official statistics). In the context of this particular discussion, 15% is not a significant proportion.

@pfwow It's just for the mortgage though. It's really specific.

Lots of people only have life insurance to cover the mortgage.......you have life insurance!

@Dungeondragon15 As I have said ALOT of times now, they don't have to die on the job in the public sector and some other jobs. They can have sick leave for a year and following that can retire early due to ill health. If the illness is terminal they can often take it as a lump sum.*

That's not death in service though, is it? I'm talking about a death in service benefit. Death in service covers.......death in service. The clue is in the name.

That's not death in service though, is it? I'm talking about a death in service benefit. Death in service covers.......death in service. The clue is in the name.

Yes, it does counts as "death in service" if the person is on sick leave which can be for a year in public sector jobs and some other jobs. "death in service" doesn't mean you have to be at work on the day you die. If you can't return to work and are not expected to survive for longer than another year then you can receive a lump sum.

I worked with someone (public sector) who was given a terminal cancer diagnosis having been on sick leave for some time and her DIS benefit was paid out within days of her getting the news.

No I dont. All those people you mention are in the 15% of the workforce who work in the public sector (official statistics).

If you want to split hairs the official statistics state that it is 16.5% and as that doesn't include the univerities etc the actual proportion of people with the benefits discussed is a bit higher. Anyway, even if it is only 15%, the point is that life insurance isn't essential for everybody. Some workers have pretty good employee benefits, some people can pay the mortgage etc on one salary etc etc. Not everyone who doesn't have life insurance is an idiot as suggested by some on this thread.
For me life insurance would be expensive and I don't think it is worth the money considering that I do have good death in service benefits, sick pay, low mortgage.

@Dungeon

Just a minute, I never said life insurance is necessary for everyone, nor did I say people who dont have it are idiots.

Personally, I dont think protection linked to employment is adequate protection for all the reasons raised on this thread whether you're in the 15/16/whatever % in the public sector or not.

I absolutely accept that some people dont need it.

@Craft1905

They are still both death in service. It's just different employers have different rules. Some do only cover if you literally die AT WORK. Some (for decent companies) cover you if you die whilst EMPLOYED by them however you die and wherever you die.

They are still both death in service. It's just different employers have different rules. Some do only cover if you literally die AT WORK. Some (for decent companies) cover you if you die whilst EMPLOYED by them however you die and wherever you die.

If you rely on that as your only life insurance, what happens if you die 3 years after your cancer diagnosis, not having been into work for 2 and a half years? You won't be employed then, you will have been let go long since. You'll get nothing.

Just a minute, I never said life insurance is necessary for everyone, nor did I say people who dont have it are idiots.

And I didn't say that life insurance isn't a good idea for some people. I just don't think it essential for everyone even if they have a family and a mortgage. Some people on this thread have pretty much said that those who don't have it are idiots if they have a mortgage and family and I was giving the reasons why I don't have it which includes death in service payment (available to most people in the public sector and some private sector), early retirement due to ill health, low mortgage, ability to pay mortgage and live on one salary etc

Personally, I dont think protection linked to employment is adequate protection for all the reasons raised on this thread whether you're in the 15/16/whatever % in the public sector or not.

It is enough for some people though. I appreciate (from reading your posts) that you wouldn't be able cover mortgage payments and cost of living if your DH died and you only had protection linked to employment but for others, including me it would be enough. We aren't all SAHM and we don't all have large mortgages.

If you rely on that as your only life insurance, what happens if you die 3 years after your cancer diagnosis, not having been into work for 2 and a half years? You won't be employed then, you will have been let go long since. You'll get nothing.

No it is not nothing. My pension provider pay a lump sum if you die before normal retirement age if you retired due to ill health. The amount is a lot if it happens shortly after and then decreases gradually the nearer you get to the normal retirement age.

All these people saying others are idiots if you don't have it, what on earth do you suggest for those of us who've been rejected even by specialist brokers??