Why do people take out life insurance on their children? Should I take out a policy on my child?
As you say life insurance is about covering the loss of income, so unless your child is an actor or musical prodigy or similar and already earning money, there is no income to cover, and in fact you would have less of a financial commitment without a child to provide for. The other angle is that child life insurance is cheap and they'll have lower premiums than an adult. I'll quote the referenced article directly to address that: Another ploy is that children's life insurance is cheap. It is inexpensive compared to adult life insurance because, plain and simply, children rarely die. While the numbers that the sales agent puts together may make children's life insurance sound like a great deal, take the time to run what you'd have if you instead invested the exact same amount used on the insurance fees into a Roth IRA and you'll find the true cost of purchasing this type of life insurance. Why do people take out life insurance on their children? They do so largely because it's being sold to them.  The insurance companies generally push them on the basis that if you have to pay for a funeral and burial, the cost would devastate a family's finances.  In some rare instances that might actually be true, but not generally. Should I take out a policy on my child? Generally no.  When they sell you a policy they have to dance around a catch-22 - if you have enough money to afford the 'cheap' life insurance, then you have enough money to pay for a funeral and burial that's probably not going to happen.  If you don't have enough money to pay those expenses in the rare case that a child does die, then you really can't afford the insurance, even if it's only 'pennies a day for peace of mind.' And why would schools send these home to parents, year-after-year?  The schools are paid a commission.  It is not much more than a fundraiser for them, just like school pictures. Am I missing something? Yes, in fact, you could be making money hand over fist if you were willing to prey on parental insecurities.  Just set up a stand outside the hospital and get parents who are just about to deliver to sign up for your amazing insurance plan in case the tragic occurs. "My parents and I were suckered into buying this kind of thing when I was in high school. The sales people literally told us that it could be used to pay off student loans - they left out the ""in the event of your death"" part. We knew it was a life insurance policy, but were told that it would ""mature"" 6 months after graduation from college, and that it would then be disbursed to pay off loans, even if I didn't die. That seemed strange to us, so we explicitly asked several different ways whether it would pay off the loans after graduation, even if I lived, and they just straight up told us, ""Yes."" I'm guessing this ploy is still being used. Also, last I checked, student loans are non-transferable in the unfortunate event that your child dies - which means the loan is forgiven anyway - so this whole thing seems like garbage to me, at least in the student loan sense. I would steer clear from this stuff - it's pure snake oil in my experience." "Adam Davis's answer is pretty good. However, I think he misses something with regard to the costs of a funeral. According to funeralplanning101.com, a traditional funeral can cost upwards of $15,000. Having just planned and paid for a funeral for an adult, I can assure you that this figure is low. I've heard ""$10,000 - $30,000"", and that seems a reasonable ball-park given my experience. Additionally, grief affects people differently. If your child died, would you be able to continue work afterwards? Most people can, but some people have to take extended leave (generally with no income) because of the emotional impact. Combined, these expenses can easily outstrip the savings for an average family. Almost by definition, insurance is not cost-effective; insurance companies profit by selling it to you, after all. But you may decide that it is appropriate to mitigate your risk by buying insurance. I do not have children and would likely not choose to insure them if I did. Nevertheless, other people may reasonably choose differently." "It's Permanent Insurance, sold as a savings scheme that is a bad deal for most people. The insurance aspect really doesn't mean much to most people. The classic example that's been around for decades is the ""Gerber Grow Up Plan"". Basically, it's a whole-life policy that accumulates a cash value. The pitch is typically given to grandparents, who kick in $10/mo and end up with a policy that is worth a little more than what was paid in. Why do people do it? Like most permanent life, it's usually an expensive investment choice." "Sales tactics for permanent insurance policies can get pretty sleazy. Sending home a flier from school is a way for an insurance salesperson to get his/her message out to 800 families without any effort at all, and very little advertising cost (just a ream of paper and some toner). The biggest catchphrases used are the ""just pennies per day"" and ""in case they get (some devastating medical condition) and become uninsurable."" Sure, both are technically true, but are definitely used to trigger the grown ups' insecurities. Having said that (and having been in the financial business for a time, which included selling insurance policies), there is a place for insurance of children. A small amount can be used to offset the loss of income for the parents who may have to take extended time away from work to deal with the event of the loss of their child, and to deal with the costs of funeral and burial. Let's face it, the percentage of families who have a sufficiently large emergency fund is extremely small compared to the overall population. Personally, I have added a child rider to my own (term) insurance policies that covers any/all of my children. It does add some cost to my premiums, but it's a small cost on top of something that is already justifiably in place for myself. One other thing to be aware of: if you're in a group policy (any life insurance where you're automatically accepted without any underwriting process, like through a benefit at work, or some other club or association), the healthy members are subsidizing the unhealthy ones. If you're on the healthy side, you might consider foregoing that policy in favor of getting your own policy through an insurance company of your choice. If you're healthy, it will always be cheaper than the group coverage." If the child can take over the life insurance when they wish to get a mortgage or have their own children, there may be a case for buying insurance for the child in the event that your child's health is not good enough for them to get cover at that time. However I don’t think this type of insurance is worth having. A $10,000 life insurance policy on a child only makes sense for a family that: Thus, it could make sense: Many families are in this financial situation.  A family in the combination of this financial situation and this emotional situation might be well served to seek religious counsel.  If they find ways to remember loved ones without expensive funerals, they could save money on insurance. Ironically, a much larger life insurance policy for a child might make more sense.  Look at it this way:  What is the replacement cost of a child? A family that has only one son (and any number of daughters), or a family that has only one daughter (and any number of sons), stands to lose an obvious part of their genetic and cultural legacy if they lose that son or daughter. It is expensive to conceive, bear, and raise a child to a particular age.  This cost increases as the child ages.  The number of years of child-raising cost obviously increases.  Also, the cost of conceiving another child can go from very small to very large (especially if fertility treatment or sterilization-reversal surgery is required). Unfortunately, most life insurance companies do not think of things this way.  I am not aware of any 100,000 - 250,000 dollar children's life insurance policies on the market.
It probably does make sense for you to buy term life insurance separate from your employer, for a few reasons: There are a number of life insurance calculators on the web. Try two or three -- some of them ask different questions and can give you a range of answers regarding how much coverage you should have. Then take a look at some of the online quote sites -- there are a couple that don't require you to enter your personal information, just general age/health/zip code so you can get an accurate quote for a couple of different coverage levels without having to deal with a salesman yet. (It was my experience that these quotes were very close -- within $20/year -- of what I was quoted through an agent.)  Using this information, decide how much coverage you need and can afford. If you're a homeowner, and the insurance company with whom you have your homeowner's policy offers life insurance, call them up and get a quote. They may be able to give you a discount because of your existing relationship; sanity check this against what you got from the quotes website. As Mhoran stated, no dependents, no need.  Even with dependants, insurance is to cover  those who would otherwise have a hardship. Once the kids are off to college and house paid for, the need drops dramatically.  There are some rather complex uses for insurance when estates are large but potentially illiquid. Clearly this doesn't apply to you. "Insurance is bought for peace of mind and to divert disaster.   Diverting disaster is a good/great thing.  If your house burned down, if someone hit your car, or some other devastating event (think medical) happened that required a more allocation than you could afford the series of issues may snowball and cause you to lose a far greater amount of money than the initial incident.  This could be in the form of losing work time, losing a job, having to buy transportation quickly paying a premium, having to incur high rate debt and so on.   For the middle income and lower classes medical, house, and medical insurance certainly falls into these categories.  Also why a lot of states have buyout options on auto insurance (some will let you drive without insurance by proving bonding up to 250K.   Now the other insurance as I have alluded to is for peace of mind mainly.  This is your laptop insurance, vacation insurance and so on.  The premise of these insurances is that no matter what happens you can get back to ""even"" by paying just a little extra.   However what other answers have failed to clarify is the idea of insurance.  It is an agreement that you will pay a company money right now.  And then if a certain set of events happen, you follow their guidelines, they are still in business, they still have the same protocols, and so on that you will get some benefit when something ""disadvantageous"" happens to you.  We buy insurance because we think we can snap our fingers and life will be back to normal.  For bigger things like medical, home, and auto there are more regulations but I could get 1000 comments on people getting screwed over by their insurance companies.  For smaller things, almost all insurance is outsourced to a 3rd party not affiliated legally with a business.  Therefore if the costs are too high they can simply go under, and if the costs are low they continue helping the consumer (that doesn't need help).   So we buy insurance divert catastrophe or because we have fallen for the insurance sales pitch.  And an easy way to get around the sales pitch - as the person selling you the insurance if you can have their name and info and they will be personally liable if the insurance company fails their end of the bargain." re life insurance Multi-purpose vehicles generally don't work as well as just going with single purpose, well except for the person/company selling them.  'whole life' plans are a great deal for the insurance company and agent, not so much for you. The easiest way to prove this to yourself is to get the difference in price between a simple 'term life' product that would be appropriate to provide for your family in the event you die.  Then get the price for a 'whole life' product with the same benefits, and what it would be worth after say 20 or 30 years. Take the difference you would have to pay, figure what it would be worth if invested conservatively over the same period, figuring in some conservative figure for compound growth such as 6 percent (what you could get from a good long term savings bond or index based mutual fund).   The last time I did this, the pure value of the money alone, without ANY interest was within something like 80 % of the value of the whole life policy.. adding in even a conservative amount of interest turned it into a no brainer. the whole life plan was terrible as in investment vehicle.  I was far far better off using term life and investing the difference. "I was a Primerica representative, left to be on my own, and then returned. Insurance is one matter that depends on the individual. Some do not need it.  For example, when I was an independent agent with an independent marketing organization (IMO) (oh yes! multi-level is everywhere, dont kid yourself) I had an upline as well. We were pushed to sell final expense [burial insurance].  As an ethical agent, I believe this is a bad business practice.  Primerica does not sell unneeded insurance to old people. How can you justify selling the elderly, insurance to cover them for $10,000, at almost 100 to 150 a month? I told my elderly potential clients, after seeing they live on a tight budget,  that they were better off purchasing a cremation policy or funeral package than burial insurances as it would save them money in the long run. Primerica is right in saying they are the only ones out there catering to the Working Class and Middle-America. Where else can you start an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with $25 a month?  Nowhere! All the other insurance producers want more money. They don't want to spend their time with what they call ""losers"".  I love showing Poor people how the Rich get richer.  Poor people should know the truth." The point of insurance is to trade high variable costs for much lower fixed costs. The question isn't whether you can afford what would be a catastrophic event for anyone else, but whether it would be better to pay a small amount regularly vs. a possibly larger amount occasionally. One of the reasons to buy insurance is to avoid costly litigation (rich people are more frequently targeted for litigation). By purchasing liability insurance, the insurance company pays for the litigation and/or settlement. If you are wealthy enough to keep an experienced litigation firm on retainer, you may not need that benefit, but it might be worth giving that stress to a third party. Life insurance is also an important part of estate planning because of the tax treatment of insurance payouts compared to the tax treatment of a large estate. There are certainly classes of insurance that make less sense for those with great cash flow, but money doesn't obviate all the benefits of insurance. Insurance is a funny product.  As you said, it is a little like gambling.  When I buy term life insurance, I'm essentially betting that I'm going to die within the next 20 years, and the insurance company is betting that I'm not.  I'm hoping to lose that bet! Besides all of the reasons that other answers mentioned, I think part of the reason is psychological.  As in my example, I'm setting up a kind of a win-win situation for myself here.  Let's go with car insurance, a less-morbid example than my first example.  If I don't get into a car accident, great!  If I do get into a car accident, then the traumatic event is at least offset by the fact that the financial impact to me is minimal.  Win-win. Well, actually in your brother's case it's quite a good idea. Not as a savings method, but as what it is - insurance. As long as he's alive and well he can pay his own debts, they're his problem and it's his responsibility. Once something, god forbid, happens to him - the debts become the problem of his survivors (you, if he doesn't have kids, for example). His life insurance should provide the means to pay off the inherited debts. So the point of life insurance as insurance is to make sure those who survive you have enough of what they need to continue living as they were with you. Some policies take into account injuries and work disability, so that not only when you die there are benefits, but also when you had an accident and can no longer work. Some policies are basically a combination of savings and insurance - that's the policies discussed in the investing threads. edit as clarified in the comments, debts cannot be inherited per se, they will be paid off from the estate before disbursement of such. What it means though is, if the deceased had accrued significant debt, all his assets may go to the creditors leaving survivors with nothing, which may also mean homeless. That was the kind of a problem I was talking about. We asked the same question earlier this year as my wife is a SAHM with 2 young boys (5 and under). If something happened to her I'd have to quit work or change careers to stay home to raise them or something. We ended up getting a decent 20 year level TERM policy that will cover the care of both boys for many of their younger years. The cost is negligible but the piece of mind is priceless. There's nothing new about Whole Life Insurance. The agent stands to earn a pretty hefty commission if he can sell it to you. I don't think your assets warrant using it for avoiding the taxes that would be due on a larger estate. I don't see a compelling reason to buy it. In addition to changing the beneficiary of the account, you can withdraw excess funds without penalty if the child dies or is disabled, or if the child gets a scholarship. Also remember that the tax and penalty is on earnings, not principal. Like others mentioned you need to look at the big picture. Personally I'm not a fan of insurance based investments. They tend to have horrible track records and you're locked it and paying way to much money for them. I had one for a number of years and when I finally cancelled it I pulled out almost the exact amount I put in. So it basically grew at either zero or negative interest for 5+ years.  I ended up buying Term Life and took the difference and invested it in a Roth 401K. Much better use of my money. The reason why insurance people push these policies so hard is that they make insane commission on it over 2-3 years (I asked my insurance guy about it and he admitted that, plus doing some research you'll find that out as well). Hope this helps somewhat. "Let's face it: most people pay more in insurance premiums than they ""get back"" in claims.  I put ""get back"" in quotes because, with very few exceptions, the money paid out in claims does not go to the insured, but to others, such as doctors and hospitals.  But even if you ignore the question who does the money actually go to, it's a losing proposition for most people. The exceptions are those who have a major loss, greater than what they put in over the years.  But never forget: these are exceptions.  The return on your money, on the average, is only a little better than playing the lottery. The usual counter-argument to the above is, but what if you are one of the exceptions?  I for one refuse to let my life be dictated by worries of unlikely events that might happen.  If you're the sort who obsesses on what could (but probably won't) happen, then maybe you should have insurance.  Just don't tell me I need to do the same. When I lived in California, they had a program where you could deposit $25,000 with the State, and then you could drive, legally, without insurance.  I did this for a while, didn't have any accidents, and exited the system (when I moved out of state) a few years later with more money (interest) than I put in.  You don't accomplish that with insurance. But let's get back to rich people.  Unless you get into an accident with you at fault and the other guy needing a head transplant as a result (joke), you could probably absorb the cost of an accident without blinking an eye.  Those in the upper-middle-class might do well with high-deductible insurance that only pays out if there's an extreme accident. Then again if you have to borrow to buy something expensive (making monthly payments), they will usually demand you buy insurance with it.  This is a way for the lender to protect himself at your expense, and if you refuse, good luck getting a loan somewhere else. I hate the idea of insurance so much I would make an act of insurance punishable by law." Something I wanted to posit: Do you have a life insurance policy, either taken out yourself or offered through your company? Many of these policies will pay out prior to the death of the covered individual, given statements by medical professionals that the person has a terminal illness or condition. The benefit, once disbursed, can be used for almost anything, including to pay down a mortgage, cover medical bills and other care expenses, etc. If you have such a policy, I urge you to look into it; that is the money that should be used for your end-of-life care and to ease the burden on your family, not your retirement savings. Your savings, if possible, should be left to continue to compound to provide your wife with a nest egg to retire with. "In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an ""up"" day or selling on a ""down"" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)"