Is it an anathema to feminism? It predicated on the idea that no woman can make a living for herself.
But...women can have life insurance policies too... I do. I took out a relatively large policy because i want my son's education taken care of and I want my partner to continue living the same life we currently live in a two income household. Just in case, now i need to go knock on wood, bye.
If I die my other half is getting PAID. I think the moment I bought my first property I had life insurance.
It's an interesting idea! But do you really want your partner to be happy and have plenty and a better life when you've gone? Or do you want them to be destitute and unhappy, remembering the good times with you and crying themselves to sleep? I know a lot of guys who wanted their younger wife happy and provided for after they died. So much so, some of the women helped them die early, then moved in a much younger man before they were even burned. I'm of the opinion people should not make their death beneficial to other people (surviving spouse or children). You should have to work for your own money.
fuck that shit ...im not investing my "now" money on insurance premiums for someone else to reap the gains..if i were married maybe but probably not only thing im leaving is memories and debt...preferably tons of both i think the widows pension here is kind of ridiculous..mostly because its funded by taxpayers (unlike the life insurance)
Or, it's predicated on the idea that couples plan for two incomes. Stop being so heteronormative. I hold a policy so my kid gets a pay out. That will pay my final expenses, and leave some. It was originally to secure my support, should I die while the kid was young. I wrote the requirement into a custody decree. Only I had a policy. The father flaunted the court.
I had to look that word up. That is exactly the idea of what life insurance is marketed on. The mythical family of four where the children never grow up and leave home and only the man works. In an adjoining town to where I live, I heard about a married couple. The man had a life insurace policy.When he reached 65 that was it, no cash payout, end of policy. Does anyone else think that he would have been better off at least from the age of 50 to instead of making life insurance payments, to have made extra contributions to his superannuation? Assuming they had at some point a mortgage and kids as time goes by with inflation, mortgage payments become a decreasing percentage of net income. There would come a point where the mortgage would become affordable on his wife's income alone. At that point they would have been better off paying off the mortgage quicker. Insurance is essentially another form of gambling. In Australia industry superannuation has opt out default life insurance regardless of your circumstances.10 years ago when I changed my line of work, my employer set up a new fund account. Over two lettuce seasons around $1000 was paid in. By the time it was rolled into my main super-fund account I was left with $427. The agenda of the insurance industry is to sell insurance policies that people have no use for
Wage inflation is all that counts ..... average US wage is less today than it was in 1999 and taxes have gone up. So your assumption of 'decreasing percentage of net income' is not valid.
