Skip Navigation
 

Life's Greatest Question

Cliff D'Arcy
By Cliff D'Arcy | 20 March 2008

What does ‘financial security' mean to you? Recently, I asked my wife this question and she immediately replied "owning a home with no mortgage". For me, financial security means being able to weather any storm, no matter how severe.

In other words, my aim is to have enough money put aside to cope with life's setbacks. In this category, I include events such as accidents, illness, unemployment and -- critically -- death.

Having turned forty this month, I estimate that, in all probability, I am already more than halfway through my lifespan. I even checked the life-expectancy figures on the Government Actuary's Department in order to find out. I discovered that a forty-year-old English male can expect to live to 79.8, on average. Thus, I now consider myself to be in the second half of the great game of life!

Then again, the two crucial words in the above paragraph are ‘on average'. As I often remark, ‘averages invite comparisons'. Indeed, although averages can be used to make high-level assumptions, they tell us nothing about the fate of individuals. Thus, even though I know that many men my age will live beyond eighty, I have no idea of my personal destiny.

Of course, life's greatest question (the title of this piece) is "when will I die?" Alas, for most of us, the answer is a mystery. Some people suffering from terminal illnesses can linger for years, while others are abruptly plucked from life at their peak. Still, being aware of our own future mortality is what makes us uniquely human. For other creatures, ignorance is bliss!

Clearly, not knowing when we're going to die makes financial planning even trickier. For example, if you knew that you were going to die before retiring from work, then why waste money on a pension? Likewise, if you knew that you would live to beyond eighty, then you could safely ignore life insurance.

Thanks to individual life expectancy being so uncertain, life insurance is a multi-billion-pound business. Indeed, buying life insurance is one of life's great gambles. If you outlive your policy, then you gain no benefit (other than peace of mind) and all of your premiums go down the drain. On the other hand, if you expire before your policy does, then you get a big payout -- although you won't be around to enjoy it!

So, if you'd like to tip the odds in your favour, then here are five tips to help you get more life insurance for less cash:

1.    Go beyond your bank

As always, the golden rule with life insurance is to shop around. Indeed, because policies can last thirty years or more, even a small monthly saving can add up to a tidy sum over decades. So, don't just stroll into your local bank branch for a quote. It's best to shop around online for the best-value cover, using a discount broker such as The Fool's life insurance service.

2.    Couples: buy two policies instead of one

Many couples buy one life-insurance policy to cover both partners. These ‘joint life, first death' policies cover two people, but only pay out once (on the first death). Thus, after this payout, the surviving partner no longer has any cover. Furthermore, these joint policies can't be divided up on separation or divorce, which is another problem.

Hence, you might wish to consider buying separate ‘his and hers' policies, as two payouts could be better than one.

3.    Don't be worth more dead than alive

You may be tempted to insure yourself up to the hilt in order to give your partner and/or family a bumper payout on your death. However, I'd urge you to think twice before handing over hefty premiums in return for a Lottery-sized payout. Although many financial advisers suggest insuring yourself for twenty times your salary, I reckon that ten times is enough. Indeed, your goal should be to leave your family in reasonable comfort, not living the high life on the proceeds of your death!

4.    Trust in a trust

If you don't take care, then the taxman is waiting patiently to take a slice of your life-insurance payout. Indeed, Inheritance Tax (IHT) can gobble up two-fifths (40%) of your entire estate above £600,000. The simple way to avoid IHT is to write your life-insurance policies ‘in trust'. By doing this, the proceeds are paid to your beneficiaries outside of your estate. This also speeds up any payout, as you don't have to wait for probate to be obtained.

5.    Don't forget housewives and househusbands

A recent survey revealed that it would cost around £25,000 a year to replace the work done by the typical stay-at-home mum or dad.* Thus, don't overlook your partner just because s/he doesn't go out to work. By looking after your children and home, s/he provides vital assistance and therefore needs life insurance, too.

Finally, sorry about the morbid nature of this article, but I've been dying to write it for ages...

More: Find quality quotes for life insurance via the Fool | Why Insurers Ask So Many Questions | Insurances That Rip You Off

*The Legal and General ‘Value Of A Mum' survey. 2006 edition

The comments above are the opinions of the author only and do not represent advice specific to your circumstances.

This article has been approved and issued by Direct Life & Pension Ltd who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

The Motley Fool Insurance Service and The Motley Fool Life Insurance is a trading style of The Motley Fool Limited. The Motley Fool Life Insurance is provided and administered by Direct Life & Pension Services Limited. The Motley Fool Limited is an introducer appointed representative of Direct Life & Pension Services Limited, who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered Office: The Bailey, Skipton, North Yorkshire, BD23 1DN.

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 07:59 on March 24 2008, Dhahran2001 said:

Trust in a trust is excellent advice but Cliff's article would have been even better if he had made clear it is NOT possible to convert or amend an existing policy so that it becomes 'In Trust'. This bit of advice is only useful to people who are about to sign-up for a new policy.

As far as I remember, it cost us nothing extra to have some of our policies written in trust.

At 08:34 on March 24 2008, myrtlecatchpole said:

I just want to point out that using the figure of £600,000 for the inheritance tax threshold is inaccurate and misleading. The current threshold is £300,000. If you die before your spouse/civil partner, the inheritance tax threshold is £300,000. The double threshold, or the transfer of the nil rate band as it is more accurately termed, is only available on the the death of the surviving spouse/civil partner and assumes that on the first death the entire estate was left to to the spouse/civil partner. If you choose to leave anything to your children, for example, your surviving spouse/civil partner will not have the benefit of a double threshold when they die. Less than 10% of estates pay inheritance tax so for most of us, it will never be a consideration. Further information regarding the transfer of the nil rate band is available on HMRC's website at www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/iht/tnrb.htm.

At 09:53 on March 24 2008, deloco121 said:

Both previous comments make very good and valid points although I would GUESS that nowadays more than 10% pay IHT, due to the price of houses.
If you are going to get 'hit' with IHT, there is one other way of making the scenario easier to live with as I was offered by an IFA recently. We were discussing what IHT my young son would have to pay should anything happen to my wife and I. We both have various life policies and at the time the IHT threshold was £300k. You could work out roughly what IHT you were going to be liable for and take out another insurance policy for the IHT amount. This would be payable on the death of the second parent. I know it's yet another policy but it would do away with the worry of IHT if you are definitely going to have to pay it.
As it turned out, the limit was raised to £600k and 2 of our policies were 'in trust' anyway so the amount of IHT was minimal.
Worth keeping in mind for some though?

At 10:16 on March 24 2008, mazdaj said:

Respectfully, surely life's greatest question is not "When will I die?" but "Where will I be after I die?" Of course I realise the answer to this transcends money questions!

At 10:48 on March 24 2008, azdak said:

Under English law, practically anything can form the subject matter of a trust, including existing life insurance policies. These don't have to be written in trust at outset. That's not to say there might not be tax consequences (as with any transfer of property from you to someone else), but it is possible. Where the policy has no investment element, i.e., it has a nil surrender value and is worth nothing until you're dead, tax is unlikely to present a significant issue. Obviously, it all depends on individual circumstances and tax rules can change (or HMRC might make things up) but, if you have existing life policies, a trust is still well worth considering.

At 11:34 on March 24 2008, ericlemon said:

Leaving a lump-sum to a partner (or family) on premature death may be sound financial planning. However, leaving a second lump sum following the death of that partner only makes sense if there will still be dependents to care for at that time. For a couple with no dependents to hold two life policies is probably a complete waste of money. Think about what you are insuring for.

At 11:50 on March 24 2008, smartmo5 said:

You are right, but I see a lot of people who are led to believe that they have to have a life insurance policy, when I think a critical illness policy would suit them much better as it is for their own benefit.

At 12:20 on March 24 2008, deloco121 said:

Surely the only reason we take life insurance policies is for the benefit of dependents/spouses. We are all going to die.
Critical illness cover is certainly advisable but again, if you don't end up having one of the illness's mentioned, you receive nothing at the end of the term.
I agree that life insurance for 2 people with no dependents is perhaps a waste of money but surely you would need a policy for each person as you wouldn't know who was going to die first.

At 12:31 on March 24 2008, peterben said:

As far as I am aware it is possible to write an exsisting policy in trust, your provider will supply you with the relevant forms

At 13:50 on March 24 2008, yocoxy said:

It sounds to me as though Mrs D'Arcy is the one with good financial sense..

Given her view on financial security, she must be thrilled to be living in rented accommodation due to Cliff's anti-property gamble

At 14:49 on March 24 2008, glynh100 said:

When did "life assurance" start being called "life insurance" in the UK? Or is there a subtle difference between the two?

At 16:39 on March 24 2008, jmwag said:

glynh100 When I worked in the life Assurance business, I was told that "assurance" applies when there will be a payout, such as life assurance, endowment etc; "insurance" is when you hope there will be no payout, such as car insurance.

At 10:20 on March 25 2008, supersol42 said:

With respect, mazdaj is quite right in saying that for each of us the most important issue is what happens after death. Life assurance is really death assurance. Blessed assurance is what Jesus bought for us.

At 19:29 on March 25 2008, AlexInCornwall said:

Can someone please explain exactly what "leaving something in trust" means? Are there strings attached for the beneficiaries? If so, is it worth the hassle for the money saved?

At 19:46 on March 27 2008, choirgirlsop1 said:

In the context of this article, putting an insurance policy 'in trust' means that the payout goes direct to your dependents (or whoever you nominate in the trust deed), thus falling outside your estate, not being liable for IHT and not having to wait for Probate before being paid out. There are of course many other kinds of trusts, many much more complex.

At 10:13 on April 22 2008, tomatosoup said:

AlexInCornwall said:

Can someone please explain exactly what "leaving something in trust" means? Are there strings attached for the beneficiaries? If so, is it worth the hassle for the money saved?


As I understand it, if you take out an insurance policy, the default assumption is that any claim on that policy will be paid to you, as you took it out. Obviously, for a life insurance policy this is stupid, since the only thing that can happen is that it is paid to your estate, when there is little sense in that. So why don't insurance companies automatically ask who you want to benefit from your insurance? There could be a clause to add it to your estate as a default if the insurance company was unable to find your dependants within a certain time.

Join the conversation

Hello stranger. Please [log in] to comment.

Not yet registered? Register now.

 

Switch to a different topic area

Can't find what you need in Your Money? Try one of our other personal finance areas.

Latest stories

Get all the latest news and editorial comment as it's published – check out our Fool Articles