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.

Why do people think employers allowing early retirement (after a period of sick leave) is a perk? You wont qualify for a state pension if it's even around by then until you reach state pension age so unless you have a massive occupational pension, how would you manage financially?

Going back to the original question... who are these 'cunts' making comment about lack of life insurance?

The only person I have ever discussed life insurance with is DH. It's not common chat material, so who are you talking about OP?

As it happens I have life insurance and DH doesn't. I am younger than him and he has medical issues which mean insurance is extortionate for him.

Why do people think employers allowing early retirement (after a period of sick leave) is a perk? You wont qualify for a state pension if it's even around by then until you reach state pension age so unless you have a massive occupational pension, how would you manage financially?

Dh’s is 70% of his basic salary. He’s a very high earner, over 6 figures basic, and I work too in a decent job. We will have to cut back a bit but we will still have a 6 figure income with my salary. If we can’t live on that then I think I seriously need to reassess my priorities and spending pronto so no, I’m really not worried.

And that's why it's quite cheap, and why employers buy it. Because it sounds like a great perk for little cost to the employer.

I perhaps depends on who the provider is. The payment DH and I would receive is from our pension provider so has nothing to do with insurance my employer has bought. I think public sectors workers get death in service as part of their pension scheme too so it applies to a fairly large proportion of the population.
So it is a pretty good replacement for life insurance for many people.

Why do people think employers allowing early retirement (after a period of sick leave) is a perk?

I think it is a perk because I would receive my pension early! Obviously I wouldn't get the state pension as well but considering the payments are calculated on the basis of what you would have paid into the scheme if you had reached the age of 65, how is that not a perk?!

@Believability ok point taken but I dont think that's a typical situation. Not many employees are likely to be paid an early pension of at least £70k.

@dungeon sorry poor phrasing on my part. I meant for most people it's likely to be a small fraction of their salary so yes it's better than nothing and a perk in that sense, but still unlikely to cover mortgage payments, living expenses

I meant for most people it's likely to be a small fraction of their salary so yes it's better than nothing and a perk in that sense, but still unlikely to cover mortgage payments, living expenses

Many would get what they would have got on retirement at 65 though so while not quite as much as their salary it wouldn't be a small fraction either and could easily be enough to cover living and mortgage payments.

@ Dungeon we're going a bit off track here but I think you might be over estimating people's private pension provision. You only have to read the threads on MN about it to see how scarce adequate pension provision is. There are far fewer employers who provide generous pension schemes now (final salary or decent employer contribution) so alot of people - myself included- are in stakeholder schemes. Even increasing the payout to what it would be at 65 would still only be about 25% of my current salary maybe (and I've contributed about 10% all my working life).

I appreciate everyone's circumstances are different - having moved for schools and having 3 children including teenagers our outgoings are probably very high compared to maybe later in life. But living on my pension now would be financially very difficult and we therefore have critical illness / life insurance.

craft and namechange what multiple of salary would you deem appropriate for cover and for what period? Most private policies outwith employer schemes are not more generous nor longer lasting.

Employees should also be careful they are not buying double cover. ie if an employer scheme pays out the private one may not.

@ Dungeon we're going a bit off track here but I think you might be over estimating people's private pension provision.

I'm referring to public sector schemes and some private schemes such as the university pension schemes. Theses cover a significant proportion of the population rather than a tiny minority. Although not as good as they were they would still pay out a reasonable sum each month if someone had to retire early due to health. For many people it would be enough to cover living expenses and mortgage. It certainly would be enough for me.

@Dungeon I'm referring to public sector schemes and some private schemes such as the university pension schemes. Theses cover a significant proportion of the population rather than a tiny minority.

According the Office of National Statistics, in March 2018 about 5 million workers were employed in the public sector compared to 27 million in the private sector. That's about 85% of workers who won't have the generous public schemes you talk about.

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

I think public sectors workers get death in service as part of their pension scheme too so it applies to a fairly large proportion of the population.
So it is a pretty good replacement for life insurance for many people.

Not it isn't, because most people who die during working age do not die in service. They get cancer or some other awful illness that kills them slowly, so by the time they die they've long since been let go by their employer!!!

That's the point we're making.

@Dungeondragon15

It makes sense in some ways,it's a feature of most people's scheme but people don't check it until they're in that situation. HR have the right to terminate a contract or in our company's case move people onto long term sick leave pay after a long time (granted it's years potentially but it is part of the scheme) if you get cancer then die within a year or so that's different. There has been a case where someone has been off for years with mental health issues. Eventually after 4 years been signed off as never returning to work and contract terminated, they later killed themselves unrelated to losing their job as they had passed the point of being paid anyway and the family tried to claim death in service and when it went to court it sided with the company as it's in the policy. Anyway probably happen very rarely but people generally don't read the full terms of death in service but rely on it to pay off their mortgage/protect their family. Baffles me.

@howabout

Nonsense. It's not like car or home insurance. You can have as many policies as you like they'll all pay out subject to terms and conditions (most ask when you apply what you have elsewhere) BUT death in service is separate to pension death in service and life insurance that you buy. So wouldn't apply anyway when they ask what other POLICIES you have elsewhere.

Some people clearly do benefit from DIS insurance because when I started at one big firm they were very keen for people to nominate who that would go to and although I can't remember the figure they quoted it was sad to hear the number of people they had unfortunately had to pay out for that year.

So whilst it's prudent to remind people of the pitfalls of losing your job I don't think it's clear cut on saying it's worthless and to get additional insurance. My DH works in a well paid job, we have no other dependants and have paid our mortgage off. DIS would give him a boost and might even make it possible to retire early. We do not need to top it up with additional LI.

If you have any kind of heart investigation it complicates your life insurance claim, and you may not even be eligible at all.

For instance, I had to wear a 24 hour monitor for my arrhythmia issue, and before that called an ambulance who did a routine ecg, which can also happen without appointment at your doctor surgery if they happen to take concern at your blood pressure or pulse.

Both of those very common and minor procedures flag me up as being a risk so I can’t get life insurance.

For instance, I had to wear a 24 hour monitor for my arrhythmia issue, and before that called an ambulance who did a routine ecg, which can also happen without appointment at your doctor surgery if they happen to take concern at your blood pressure or pulse.

Both of those very common and minor procedures flag me up as being a risk so I can’t get life insurance.

Rubbish. Those 2 things alone would not prevent you getting life insurance. You may have to pay more in premiums, but you could still get it.

Batsarecool.....no one said DIS was worthless. It's just not a substitution for life insurance.

Life insurance pays out if you die. DIS pays out if you die at the right time, whilst you are still an employee .

@howabout

Nonsense. It's not like car or home insurance. You can have as many policies as you like they'll all pay out subject to terms and conditions (most ask when you apply what you have elsewhere)

Quite right @StowawayJo.

@howabout has come out with some real drivel on this thread.

Not it isn't, because most people who die during working age do not die in service. They get cancer or some other awful illness that kills them slowly, so by the time they die they've long since been let go by their employer!!!

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.

They can only retire early if they have paid into a pension. Just remembering a cleaner when I worked in the public sector who had a heart attack, left work and died two years later. She got nothing.

Also most Local authorities now retire you on capability long before the year is up.

According the Office of National Statistics, in March 2018 about 5 million workers were employed in the public sector compared to 27 million in the private sector. That's about 85% of workers who won't have the generous public schemes you talk about.

About 17% of the working age population were employed in the public sector in 2017. Added to this employees in higher education also have similar schemes. It may only be about 20 to 25% of the population altogether but as I am not saying that everyone has this or that nobody needs life insurance the exact number is not relevant. My point is just that it is not a very small minority i.e. not everyone who doesn't have life insurance is stupid or idiotic as suggested by some on this thread.

marymarkle If she didn't pay into the scheme she quite possibly wasn't a public sector employee. May are employed by outside contractors. Even if she was it isn't really relevant as I'm not saying that everyone has this to fall back on just that some people do and that life insurance is therefore not necessarily as essential for those people.