bbjslee,
1) I am talking about NET WORTH. And, what has a person's life worth got to do with LIFE INSURANCE?? It is IRRELEVANT. It is ONLY relevant to INSURANCE AGENT so that they can over-sell the customer. So that, a customer will buy TOO MUCH life insurance.
The MOST that a person should buy is 10 years worth of income. 10 years worth of expense may make sense. If YOU buy too much life insurance, you expense level went up, you need MORE LIFE INSURANCE. This makes INSURANCE AGENT even happier. More to sell.
<< A bread winner maybe has a networth of 50k, after minus his various loans, but he has a wife who have no financial income, and 3 young children. So his life only worth 50k?>>
WRONG QUESTIONS!!
2) Who care what his life worth?? The CORRECT question is what is his income?? If he is NOT surviving on current income to begin with, buying life insurance is not what he should be doing to begin with.
3) If his 50K does not cover 6 months of expenses, he should not be buying lfe insurance.
<<- Who taught you your life worth = your networth? I would really like to know.>>
4) I do not use BS like life worth. I use REAL NET WORTH. You choose not to listen.
<< GE, Supreme Livin' Care Plus. Traditional 3D Participating Policy.
Age 30, Male, Non smoking. Class 1 occupation.
Basic sum assured: 100,000. 3430 p.a.
BSA: 200,000. 6860 p.a.
BSA: 300,000. 10,140 p.a.
BSA: 400,000. 13,520 p.a.
BSA: 500,000. 16,900 p.a.
In your example, 13520/6860 = 1.97!! It is even less than 2!!!
Tell me does it increases exponentially?
>>
5) I told you that my CIRCUMSTANCES and my QUOTATIONS which has NOTHING to do with your 3D BS.
6) Now, isn't it better for a CUSTOMER to see a table like this and let them decides?? So, they can shop and budget for the RIGHT coverage??
The COVERAGE should be based on NEED. And, a person SHOULD KNOW what each coverage cost and trade off. 10 years is the maximum amount. Life worth is IRRELEVANT. If you use life worth, you will be BUYING TOO MUCH coverage.
<<BSA: 500,000. 16,900 p.a.>>
Let's take this as an example, to buy 500K coverage, a person should have at least 50K worth of gross annual income based on 10 years rule. Now, if you are making 50K per year, does it makes sense to pay $17K per year on insurance?? Aka 34% of your income?? No.
It does not make sense. We do not even have to talk about BS such as life worth.
Stop doing "Bait and Switch".
It is WORTHWHILE for a person to buy certain amount of insurance. A good insurance agent work with customer to find out the RIGHT and REASONABLE amount instead of BS like life worth.
What I am AGAINST is people doing "Bait and Switch" and FUD. I welcome people to EDUCATE and come up reasonable number and calculation.
Dreamer
Yous BS is that once BSA over 200k, premium will increase exponentially. Which I proved you otherwise.
So prove me wrong as simple as that.
If such a simple maths you also can't prove me wrong, then just stop all the BS and assuming. Just get quotation from the agents you know, paste here and tell us "Nah! The premium DO increase exponentially." which you still can't prove.