Life Assurance

[KathyC]

As I'll lose the life cover element of my pension when I leave work next month, I'll need to take out further term life assurance. Does anybody know whether it'd be easier, better, cheaper taking it out in the UK rather than in France?  I'm 56 and will be looking for a 10 year term.

[chessfou]

[quote]I'll need to take out further term life assurance[KathyC][/quote]

Are you sure you actually need any life assurance? Very, very few people in their 50s need it.

Sorry, I can't answer the question you actually asked.

[KathyC]

[quote user="chessfou"][quote]I'll need to take out further term life assurance[KathyC][/quote]

Are you sure you actually need any life assurance? Very, very few people in their 50s need it.

Sorry, I can't answer the question you actually asked.
[/quote]

I'd have to disagree with you in general and, more particularly, in my own case where I have a disabled husband. Why do you think this?

[LesLauriers]

Kathy, you should take it out whilst you are still UK resident, you can continue with it when you are French resident but cannot take out further cover.

With UK Life Assurance you have a fixed cost for x years, in France the cost increases year by year and is more expensive.

That's as I understand it, someone with more knowledge may shed further light on the subject.

[Baz]

Kathy, it may be worth checking with your pension company whether they offer continuation cover. Some companies allow you to take out a new policy without any medical evidence which could be a great benefit if you have any medical conditions.

Whilst I agree with  LesLauriers taking the cover out in the UK will be almost certainly be cheaper, please read the questions on the application carefully. There may be a declaration asking if you intend to move abroad in the future, answering that incorrectly would void the contract in event of a claim.

Baz

[KathyC]

Thanks LL, that's the sort of thing I wanted to know.

[Ann]

All application forms ask if you intend to live abroad so you will need to find out how this would affect the policy

[chessfou]

[quote]I'd have to disagree with you in general and, more particularly, in

my own case where I have a disabled husband. Why do you think this?[KathyC][/quote]

In general you would be wrong* (but correct in your case) because most 50+ (e.g. my wife and I) no longer have dependants and therefore life assurance makes little (or no) sense unless you are going to leave a large IHT bill that could cause a nasty financial problem for those who inherit.

*The point of life assurance (aside from IHT matters) is basically to ensure that dependants will be ok in the event of the demise of a principal "bread-winner" (whether in a family or as "key-man" insurance in a business).

[KathyC]

Chessfou, you assume that everybody over the age of 50 is comfortably off. Many people of our age still have large mortgages and would have some difficulty in supporting even a single person household on one salary.Not everybody has good benefits through their employment either. I'm happy that this doesn't seem to be your situation but you shouldn't make assumptions, much less offer advice, based solely on your own situation. Life assurance to cover a large IHT bill would be something most people could only dream of!

You seem to be leading a very sheltered life!

[chessfou]

[quote]I'm happy that this doesn't seem to be your situation but you

shouldn't make assumptions, much less offer advice, based solely on

your own situation. Life assurance to cover a large IHT bill would be

something most people could only dream of!

You seem to be leading a very sheltered life![KathyC][/quote]

NB - I offered no advice (beyond asking the question whether or not life assurance was actually needed - there are hordes of financial salesmen out there happy to sell unnecessary LA to the gullible).

I also made no assumptions (statistically, those aged 50+ generally do not need life assurance - that is not an "assumption" just a statement of fact).

"Sheltered" - haha, no; "privileged," yes.

[KathyC]

[quote user="chessfou"][quote]I'm happy that this doesn't seem to be your situation but you shouldn't make assumptions, much less offer advice, based solely on your own situation. Life assurance to cover a large IHT bill would be something most people could only dream of!

You seem to be leading a very sheltered life![KathyC][/quote]

NB - I offered no advice (beyond asking the question whether or not life assurance was actually needed - there are hordes of financial salesmen out there happy to sell unnecessary LA to the gullible).

I also made no assumptions (statistically, those aged 50+ generally do not need life assurance - that is not an "assumption" just a statement of fact).

"Sheltered" - haha, no; "privileged," yes.[/quote ]

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I'm interested in what statistics you're talking about and how they become a statement of fact.. It seems to me that if you have a couple on average salaries of £24,000 and £19,000, for example, they might be rubbing along quite well but would be in difficulties if one of them should die without life assurance. Neither of them would be the dependent of the other but they'd be mutually dependent on having both incomes.

Don't forget that 1 in 6 people over pension age are still paying a mortgage, much less those who are still in their 50s.

I accept that you weren't giving advice in the financial sense but I think that your statements are flawed.

 

[Will]

It depends what you want to insure against. 'Assurance vie' which many assume to be life insurance is a tax-efficient savings system in France rather than insurance on a life.

If you just want to protect, say, a mortgage, against an earner dying or beoming incapaciated, you may be able to find French insurance at a suitably low cost. We were pleasantly surprised by the figure quoted by our AGF agent (who admittedly gets a lot of business through us).

 

[Russethouse]

 I could be wrong but in Kathys situation isn't she looking for finance for her husband to pay for help should she 'go' first ?

I think Chessfou is being very optomistic. At 50 I still had two financially dependant children as well as mortgage etc......

[Jacqui Too]

[quote user="chessfou"]
Are you sure you actually need any life assurance? Very, very few people in their 50s need it.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you about people in their 50's not needing life assurance, both my husband and I have it and would not like to be without it, my husband has 10years+ before he gets a pension, we have no mortgage or dependents now, but should one of us die  at least the other could have some security in the knowlege that they would not have financial worries. If my husband died now what would I live on for the next 30years+[Www]

Chipie

 

[Baz]

Chessfou wrote:

"NB - I offered no advice (beyond asking the question whether or not life assurance was actually needed - there are hordes of financial salesmen out there happy to sell unnecessary LA to the gullible)."

Under current regulation and FSA controls the above practise would not be tolerated with regular strict inspections of controls and paperwork.

"I also made no assumptions (statistically, those aged 50+ generally do not need life assurance - that is not an "assumption" just a statement of fact)."

Chessfou, from where did you obtain this information to make that statement. In fact  there are many reasons why 50+ still need cover and this excludes the few who require IHT protection. I can speak with authority after 30 years in senior positions within the  Financial Services Industry until my retirement.

Baz

[KathyC]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 I could be wrong but in Kathys situation isn't she looking for finance for her husband to pay for help should she 'go' first ?

I think Chessfou is being very optomistic. At 50 I still had two financially dependant children as well as mortgage etc......

[/quote]

Spot on RH, got it in one!

It was also the assumption that those over 50 were set up for life that bothered me as well. Something about not knowing how the other half live?

[Russethouse]

Chessfou did say he was privileged, perhaps he doesn't realize how much!

On another note, more and more women seem to be having 'late' babies, many seem to be in their early 40's, so if a woman was to die at 50 her husband may have to pay for at least part time childcare for quite a few years........

[KathyC]

To be fair to Chessfou he did say he was talking about people without dependants (although I agree with you about late babies being more common these days). I just don't think that having dependents is the only reason for life assurance. If  a couple can't manage on one salary in their twenties, I don't see much reason why this shouldn't still be the case in their fifties. Not everybody has stratospheric career paths or manages their finances brilliantly.

Enough digression; UK it is and read the small print. Thanks everybody.

[Chancer]

[quote user="Chipie"]

[I have to disagree with you about people in their 50's not needing life assurance, both my husband and I have it and would not like to be without it, my husband has 10years+ before he gets a pension, we have no mortgage or dependents now, but should one of us die  at least the other could have some security in the knowlege that they would not have financial worries. If my husband died now what would I live on for the next 30years+[Www]

Chipie

 

Chipie.

Regarding your question what would you live on for the next 30 years, aside from the obvious emotional distress should your husband pass away surely you would be in the same situation as any other single or divorced person albeit one without a mortgage or dependants.

Ah I have just seen your ironic wink!

 

[/quote]

[Jacqui Too]

[quote user="J.R."][quote user="Chipie"]

[I have to disagree with you about people in their 50's not needing life assurance, both my husband and I have it and would not like to be without it, my husband has 10years+ before he gets a pension, we have no mortgage or dependents now, but should one of us die  at least the other could have some security in the knowlege that they would not have financial worries. If my husband died now what would I live on for the next 30years+[Www]

Chipie

Chipie.

Regarding your question what would you live on for the next 30 years, aside from the obvious emotional distress should your husband pass away surely you would be in the same situation as any other single or divorced person albeit one without a mortgage or dependants.

Ah I have just seen your ironic wink![/quote][/quote]

My point exactly, I do not wish to lower my standard of living or go back to work after nearly 30 years of being a housewife, that is why we have life assurance so that my future is safeguarded.

Chipie