What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc
"Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become ""self-insured"". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc." Whole life in most instances is a very bad plan. It's marketed as a life insurance policy wrapped in an investment but it does neither very well. The hidden caveat of whole life is that the investment goes away if you die.  Say for example I have a $100,000 whole life insurance policy and over the years I have paid in enough to have a $15,000 cash value on the policy. If I die, my family gets $100,000 and the cash value is lost. With term life you can get a substantially higher amount of coverage for a smaller payment. If you invest the difference you end up not only with better coverage, but a better cash value from the difference if you don't die (which is what we all hope for anyways). As JackiYo said, your insurance should be designed around replacing lost income/value.  You should get 10x your annual income in term life insurance. Wow, very amused by some of the answers. I will comment on those later. To directly answer your question, here is a link to a brochure that explains the three basic typs and is written in straightforward language. link text That is step one. Step 2 is a question, cheapest when, initially or for long term? Without a doubt term initially is the cheapest. However every 10 years or 20 years it increases in price. As the name term implies it is temporary. Coverage will end at some point, 75, or 80 depending upon plan design chosen. It is possible that if you choose Term you can outlive your coverage and all you have are a bunch of cancelled cheques. Young people with a mortgage, children and other debts should buy a lot of term as the mortgage will be paid off, the kids will no longer be dependent. These needs are temporary. However some needs are permanent. What about leaving a Legacy at Death to a Charity? Insurance is a good solution and can provide a tax deduction too. Term isn't a good fit. Or a business owner wishing to transfer his/her business at death to their children. Taxes will be due and permanent insurance such as Whole Life and Universal Life can be arranged to provide cash to pay tax whenever this happens.  Let me ask you who received 10% in the last ten years on their equity portfolio. Almost zero people did. However a Whole Plan would have generated a guaranteed return of 3.0% plus a non-guaranteed return via dividends that the combined internal rate of return  on a combined basis would be about 5.6% AFTER TAXES. Life a bond portfolio yield. (Internal rate of return is dependent on age at buying, years of investing. All insurance comany software can show you the internal rate of return.) IRR is essesntially: what is the return after tax that you must get to equal the equity or death benefit from a permanent insurance plan. Someone mentioned by Term and Invest the difference. That is what universal life is, Term and Invest the difference except the difference is growing tax sheltered.Outside investments with comparable risk are taxable! There is no easy answer for what type is right, often a combination is. The key question you should ask is How Much Is Enough? Then consider types based upon your needs and budget. Here is a link where you can calculate how much you need. I hope this helps a bit. "All life insurance is pretty much the same when it comes to cost. You can run the numbers over certain time period and the actual cost of insurance is about the same. A simplified way to explain life insurance and the differences between them below: The 3 characteristics of life insurance: There are 5 popular types of life insurance and they are: Term Whole Life Universal Life Variable Universal Life Indexed Universal Life But first, one must understand the most basic life insurance which is called Annual Renewable Term:  This is a policy that covers 1 year and is renewable every year after. The cost of insurance typically increases each year as the insured ages. So for every year of coverage, your premium increases like in the simplified illustration above. This is the building block of all life insurance, term or permanent. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance.  This is an ART that spans over a longer time period than 1 year (say 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years). All the cost is added together then divided by the number of years of coverage to give a level premium payment for the duration of the policy. The longest coverage offered these days is 30 years. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance. The premium is fixed (level) for the term specified. If the policy comes to an end and the owner wishes to renew it, it will be at higher premium. This can be seen in the simplified illustration above for a 15-year term policy.  Because life insurance gets very expensive as you reach old age, life insurance companies came up with a way to make it affordable for the consumer wishing to have coverage for their entire lifespan. They allow you to have interest rate crediting on the cash value account inside the policy.  To have cash value in the first place, you must pay premiums that are more than the cost of insurance. The idea is: your cash value grows over time to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy, where the cost of insurance is typically higher. This is illustrated above in an overly simplified way. This is a permanent life insurance policy that is designed to cover the lifespan of the insured. There is cash value that is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company (typically 3-5%). The premium is fixed for the life of the policy. It was designed for insuring the entire lifespan of the insured. This is variation of Whole Life. There is cash value; it is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company, but it does fluctuate year to year depending on the economy (typically 3-6%). The premium is flexible; you can increase/decrease the premium.  This is basically a universal life policy, but the cash value sits in an account that is invested in the market, normally mutual funds. Your interest that is being credited (to your account with your cash value from investments) is subjected to risk in the market, rise/fall with the market depending on the portfolio of your choosing, hence the word ""Variable"". You take on the risk instead of the insurance company. It can be a very good product if the owner knows how to manage it (just like any other investment products). This is a hybrid of the UL and the VUL. The interest rate depends on the performance of a market index or a set of market indices. The insurance company states a maximum interest rate (or cap) you can earn up to and a guaranteed minimum floor on your cash value interest that will be credited (typically 0% floor and 12% cap). It is purely a method to credit you interest rate. It takes the market risk out of the equation but still retains some of the growth potential of the market. Term policy is designed for temporary coverage. There is no cash value accumulation. Permanent policies such as whole life, universal life, variable universal life and indexed universal life have a cash value accumulation component that was originally designed to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy when the insured is at an advanced age, so it can cover the entire lifespan of the insured. People do take advantage of that cash value component and its tax advantages for retirement income supplement and maximize the premium contribution. Always remember that life insurance is a life insurance product, and not an investment vehicle. There is a cost of insurance that you are paying for. But if you have life insurance needs, you might as well take advantage of the cash value accumulation, deferred tax growth, and tax-free access that these permanent policies offer." TL;DR: Only term is pure insurance and is the cheapest.  The rest are mixtures of insurance and savings/investment.  Typically the mixtures are not as efficient as doing it yourself, except that there can be tax advantages as well as the ability to borrow from your policy in some cases.
"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase ""pass-through"" insurance from.  What you're describing is a self-funded plan.  In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc.  In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant.  Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime.  The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people.  These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues.  A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year.  Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated.  Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums.   Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement.  The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums.  Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement.  Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance.  In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained.  The employer sets up a claims checking account.  The TPA has draft authority on the account.  The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member.  Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity.  This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold  (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend.   I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture.  Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year?  And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person.  I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month.  So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit.    Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot.  A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women?  Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years?  Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years?  A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year.  Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired?  A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims.  They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything.  I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on." "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." ULIP insurance plan ULIP is Unit Linked Insurance Plan. The premium you pay, a small part goes towards covering life insurance. The Balance is invested into Stock Markets. Most ULIP would give you an option to choose from Debt Funds [100% safe buy low returns 5-7%] or Equity [High Risks, Returns can be around 15%]. Or a mix of both. ULIP are not a good way to save money. There are quite a few hidden fees that actually reduce the return. So notionally even if returns shown are great, in effect it is quite less. For example the premium you pay in first year, say Rs 10,000/- Rs 2,500/- goes towards commission. And say Rs 100 goes towards insurance. Balance Rs 7,400/- units are purchased in your account. Even if these grow by 20%, you are still in loss. Ofcousre, the commissions go down year after year and stop at 5%. Then there is fund management fees that you don't get to see. There is maintenance fee that is deduced from your balance.  Thus the entire method of charging is not transparent. Life insurance from LIC There are broadly 2 types of Life Insurance plans Money Back / Endowment Plan. The concept here is again same, you pay a premium and part of it goes toward Insurance. The balance LIC invests in safe bonds. Every year a bonus is declared; generally less than Bank rate. At the end of the plan you get more than what you paid in premium. However if you had kept the same in Bank FD, you would have got more money back. So if you die, your nominee would get Insurance plus bonus. If you survive you get all the accumulated bonus. Pure Term Plan. Here the premium is quite less for the sum insured. Here if you die, your nominee would get insurance. If you survive you don't get anything. "Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years),  one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms.  You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it.  So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this?  You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for ""free"" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments." To add to JoeTaxpayer's answer, the cost of providing (term) life insurance for one year increases with the age of the insured. Thus, if you buy a 30-year term policy with level premiums (the premium is the same for 30 years) then, during the earlier years, you pay more than the cost to the insurance company for providing the benefit. In later years, you pay somewhat less than the cost of providing the insurance. The excess premiums that the insurance company charged in earlier years and the earnings from investing that money covers the difference between the premium paid in later years and the true cost of providing the coverage.  If after 20 years you decide that you no longer need the protection (children have grown up and now have jobs etc) and you cancel the policy, you will have overpaid for the protection that you got. The insurance company will not give you backsies on the overpayment. As an alternative, you might want to consider a term life insurance policy in which the premiums increase each year (or increase every 5 years) and thus better approximate the actual cost to the insurance company. One advantage is that you pay less in early life and pay more in later years (when hopefully your income will have increased and you can afford to pay more). Thus, you can get a policy with a larger face value (150K for your wife and 400K for yourself is really quite small) with annual premium of $550 now and more in later years. Also if you decide to cancel the policy after 20 years, you will not have overpaid for the level of coverage provided. Finally, in addition to a policy with larger face value, I recommend that you include the mortgage (if any) on your house in the amount that you decide is enough for your family to live on and to send the kids to college, etc., or get a separate (term life insurance) policy to cover the mortgage on your home. Many mortgage contracts have clauses to the effect that the entire principal owed becomes immediately due if either of the borrowers dies. Yes, the widow or widower can get a replacement mortgage, or prove to the lender that the monthly payments will continue as before, (or pay off the mortgage from that $150K or $400K which will leave a heck of a lot less for the family to survive on) etc., but in the middle of dealing with all the hassles created by a death in the family, this is one headache that can be taken care of now.  The advantage of including the mortgage amount in a single policy that will support the family when you are gone is that you get a bit of a break; the sum of the annual premiums on ten policies for $100K is more than the premiums for a single $1M policy. There is also the consideration that the principal owed on the mortgage declines over the years (very slowly at first, though) and so there will be more money available for living expenses in later years. Alternatively, consider a special term life insurance policy geared towards mortgage coverage. The face value of this policy reduces each year to match the amount still due on the mortgage. Note that you may already have such a policy in place because the lender has insisted on you getting such a policy as a condition for issuing the loan. In this case, keep in mind that not only is the lender the  beneficiary of such a policy, but if you bought the policy through the lender, you are providing extra profit to the lender; you can get a similar policy at lower premiums on the open market than the policy that your lender has so thoughtfully provided you.  I bought mine from a source that caters to employees of nonprofit organizations and public sector employees; your mileage may vary. Let's look at some numbers.  These are just example rates that I found online.  You can substitute your own quotes and compare yourself.  I'm not going to name the company, but these advertised rates are all from one nationally-known company for a 25-year old female. If you went with the whole life option, you would be paying $937.56 per year.  The policy builds a cash value; the amount this grows can vary greatly, and you'll need to look at the fine print to see how it will grow, but let's pretend that after 30 years, the cash value of the policy is $50,000 (a reasonable guess, in my opinion).  Let's look at what this means: You can cash out your policy, but at that point, you'll stop paying payments, and your heirs won't get your $100,000 death benefit.  You can borrow against it, but you'll have to pay it back.  You could use it to pay your premium, in which case you'll stop paying payments.  However, keep in mind that if you do pass away, you lose the cash value you've built up; your beneficiaries only get the $100,000 death benefit. Now let's look at the term insurance option.  We'll go with the 30-year term.  It will only cost you $242.76 per year, and the death benefit is more than double the whole life coverage.  If you were to take the difference between the two premiums ($58 per month) and invest it in a mutual fund growing at 8% per year, you would have $86,441 in your account after 30 years.  This money is yours (or your heirs), whether or not you pass away before your term is up.  After the 30 years is up, your insurance is over, but you are now almost all the way up to the death benefit of the whole life policy anyway. In my opinion, term life insurance is better than whole life for just about everybody. I don't want to be morbid here, but the earlier someone dies, the more benefit they get with term insurance vs whole life.  If someone does have reason to believe that his life expectancy is shorter than average, term insurance makes even more sense, as he is more likely to get the death benefit for much less money in premiums than he would in whole life. In the context of this article, it's millions of dollars.   But you're right, all life insurance is a scam, even if it's not always millions of dollars.  My wife will not suffer financially if I die. She's a strong independent woman. She has a good career. "Another thing that insurance companies try to do with these types of vehicles is to promote the ""cash value"" of the policy. The longer you participate in the policy, the more your cash value goes up (assuming the investments perform reasonably well). The selling point is that at any time you can take out part of that cash value without impacting your insurance policy. A lot of people see that benefit as being the same as either putting the money in the bank or investing it, when actually they could do better if they did either of those things themselves. One true advantage of the whole term policy is that if you should fall on hard times and are not able to work, the premium payments can be taken out of the cash value. That way even if you can't make the monthly payments, the insurance policy basically pays for itself. I actually experienced this myself many years ago after I lost my job and had some health issues. I was out of work a long time, but my life insurance never lapsed. That in itself made it worthwhile for me." Here's an easy 2 question test: (1) Is there anyone who relies on your income for their general welfare? (2) Is it worth the premium amount to you to make sure they aren't left out in the cold? If you can answer yes to both questions, buy (term) life insurance. "Let's say, I have a Life Insurance for 20 years. Whether the money will be given back to the Policy Holder along with the Accumulated Interest on it ? This depends on the type of Insurance Policy.  If you have purchased a ""Term Plan/Policy"" then these do not give back anything. However the premium is very low and is essentially covering for the risk. If you have ""Cash Value type"" of policies [Whole Life, Endowment, Universal Life, etc] then you get something back at the end. This depends on the policy document. The premiums are substantially high. It is generally advised that Cash Value type of policies are not good and the returns they generate are poor than depositing the difference in premium in alternative investments and buying a Term Plan." "If I was in your shoes I would have some term insurance, and it is pretty darn cheap at your age.   Your wife is dependent upon your income, and it will take sometime to transition from non-working to working.  As she could probably get a job doing anything, it will probably take many years to build up to the lifestyle she is accustomed.  She may never be able to obtain your salary. While she could spend down the amount you two have saved up for retirement, tax will have to be paid on any non-ROTH contributions.  The decisions for this have to be made within a year of death and are not easy.  I would not want to put my spouse through this.   Plus some day she would have to retire.  If she spends down a significant portion of the savings you have built, well that will need to be replenished and you probably know time is not on one's side when it comes to compounding.   Do you have to have 10x-15x times your earnings in insurance?  No.  Do you need to do a 20 year level term, No.  Perhaps a 10 year level term for like 5x your income.  Just something to ""bridge the gap"".  If you live, you will be much better off financially, and could probably drop the coverage.  If you don't you will not leave her sad and with difficult financial decisions; just sad." "There are two types of insurance: whole life and term. I don't recommend whole life insurance, because you are insuring against something that will happen, your death. Maybe you could buy it if members of your family have a history of outliving the averages. This is called ""adverse selection."" Term is different: it insures against your UNTIMELY death. Many people I know take term insurance for the X years until their last child leaves college, or some other well defined ""term."" They don't want to die before this term but will be satisfied with the insurance as a ""consolation"" prize." Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120. You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans. This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth. Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes. Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too. Whole life/universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time. An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York. We're in our early 30's. I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo. My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65. If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage. "There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of ""Insurance"" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of ""insurance"", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force.  Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned.  They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation.  IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today." There is no benefit in life insurance as such (ie, death insurance.) There is a great deal of value in other types though: total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance (a lump sum for a major medical event), and income protection insurance (cover against a temporary but disabling medical condition).  If you don't have that, you should get it right now. This is about the most important insurance you can carry.  Being unable to work for the rest of your life has a far larger impact than having, say, your car stolen. ...  If, later on, you acquire dependents, and you feel you ought to have life insurance, then you will have a relationship with a life insurance company, and maybe they will let you upgrade from income/TPD to income/TPD/life without too much fuss or requalification.  Some do; whether yours would I don't know.  But at least you have a toe in the door with them, in a way that is infinitely more immediately useful than getting life insurance that you don't actually need.